BACKGROUND INFORMATION Land Use Change Request Application Number: GPU 21-2007 Applicant(s): Arthur C. Harwood Existing Designation(s): Proposed Designation(s): Industrial (I) Rural Community(RC) Size of request: 11.09 Acres New Unit Potential: As many as ten units and/or additional commercial space (15 units and a school currently present) Brief Description: Included in: The property owner is requesting to change their General Plan classification from I to RC to better conform with the existing uses on the property which is adjacent to the Branscomb Mill site. Preferred Project and Board of Supervisors Alternatives FINDINGS Impacts: Plan Consistency: No environmental impacts would occur without additional development at the mill site. This is a possibility given the subsequent closure of the Branscomb Mill. Minimal environmental impacts are possible if additional housing units or other uses were added to the site. At this point it is impossible to gauge how many new units, if any are likely to occur on the site. This request is consistent with the existing and proposed General Plan for the following reasons: The new designation would introduce a new classification for that area that better reflects the current and future land uses in that area. The surrounding industrial classification allows for similarly intensive land uses. No additional reclassification of surrounding properties is necessary for consistency.
RR2 I BRANSCOMB ROAD RC FL160 CASE: GPU 21-2007 MAP: General Plan Overview Map Change Request APPLICANT: Arthur Harwood Parcel Boundary General Plan Boundary 0 312.5 625 1,250 1,875 2,500 November 2007 - Mendocino County Planning Team Feet
BACKGROUND INFORMATION Application Number: GPU 22-2007 Applicant(s): Michelle Tellier Land Use Change Request Existing Designation(s): Proposed Designation(s): Size of request: New Unit Potential: Brief Description: Included in: Rural Residential 5-acre minimum (RR5) Rural Residential 2-acre minimum (RR2) 5.97 Acres One to two additional units (one unit is currently present) The property owner is requesting to change their General Plan classification from RR5 to RR2 to allow for a minor subdivision of her property. Board of Supervisors Alternative only FINDINGS Impacts: Plan Consistency: Limited environmental impact from the potential construction of one to two additional housing units. This request is inconsistent with the existing and proposed General Plan for the following reasons: The new designation would introduce a new classification for that area that is not currently present, creating a classification island. Increasing the residential density of the subject site would be out of character with the surrounding area. Additional reclassification of surrounding properties to create an area that is consistent would result in significant new growth-related impacts that would warrant additional study.
FL160 ALBION RIDGE ROAD RMR20 RR2 RR5 CASE: GPU 22-2007 MAP: General Plan Overview Map Change Request APPLICANT: Michelle Tellier Parcel Boundary General Plan Boundary 0 150 300 600 900 1,200 Feet November 2007 - Mendocino County Planning Team
BACKGROUND INFORMATION Land Use Change Request Application Number: GPU 23-2007 Applicant(s): Timothy Zimmerer Existing Designation(s): Proposed Designation(s): Size of request: New Unit Potential: Brief Description: Included in: Rural Residential 1-acre minimum (RR1) Industrial (I) 1.32 Acres Not applicable The property owner is requesting to change their General Plan classification from RR1 to I to allow for different uses of their property. Preferred Project and Board of Supervisors Alternative FINDINGS Impacts: Plan Consistency: Limited environmental impact from the potential construction of new structures. This request is consistent with the existing and proposed General Plan for the following reasons: The new designation is present on adjacent properties and in the vicinity. The character of the area is increasingly non-residential and this classification would be appropriate with the surrounding area. The General Plan policies promote land use compatibility with parcels located along railroads.
RR1 SR EAST ROAD ROAD D RR1 PL AG40 I SCHOOL WAY I C RR1 PL I RR5 CASE: GPU 23-2007 MAP: General Plan Overview Map Change Request Parcel Boundary General Plan Boundary APPLICANT: Timothy Zimmerer Debrah Zimmerer 0 125 250 500 750 1,000 November 2007 - Mendocino County Planning Team Feet
BACKGROUND INFORMATION Application Number: GPU 25-2007 Applicant(s): John Fetzer Land Use Change Request Existing Designation(s): Proposed Designation(s): Size of request: New Unit Potential: Brief Description: Included in: Agriculture 40-acre minimum (AG40) Rural Residential 5-acre minimum (RR5) 11.3 Acres Two new units (none are currently constructed) The property owner is requesting to change their General Plan classification from AG40 to RR1 to allow for a simple split of their property. Preferred Project and Board of Supervisors Alternative FINDINGS Impacts: Plan Consistency: Limited environmental impact from the construction of two new structures and a loss of ten acres of vineyards. Consistency with the existing and proposed General Plan cannot be determined for the following reasons: The existing General Plan designation boundaries on the County of Mendocino maps are inaccurate in this area. This request would introduce a new classification for the property, creating a General Plan classification island, however; denser land uses classification exist on adjacent properties and in the vicinity. Redesignation would create a transition between those areas and the less dense properties to the west. Although the request would slightly increase residential density of the area, that increase is in keeping with the character of that neighborhood. Redesignating additional properties to the north would also be appropriate, but not required, for consistency.
NORTH STATE STREET I AG40 C RR5 UVA DRIVE US 101 US 101 AG40 RR2 RL160 RR5 C SR WEST ROAD RR1 RR2 BEL ARBES ROAD LENNIX DRIVE BALLOU TERRACE RR2 CASE: GPU 25-2007 MAP: General Plan Overview Map Change Request Parcel Boundary General Plan Boundary APPLICANT: Fetzer 0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Feet November 2007 - Mendocino County Planning Team
BACKGROUND INFORMATION Land Use Change Request Application Number: GPU 26-2007 Applicant(s): James and Barbara McCulloch Existing Designation(s): Proposed Designation(s): Size of request: New Unit Potential: Brief Description: Included in: Agriculture 40-acre minimum (AG40) and Rangeland 160-acre minimum (RL160) Remote Residential 40-acre minimum (RR40) 132.52 Acres None The property owner is requesting to change their General Plan designations of AG40 and RL160 to RMR40 to place all of their parcels into the same General Plan classification. Preferred Project and Board of Supervisors Alternative FINDINGS Impacts: Plan Consistency: No additional impacts as this request does not increase residential density or authorize new uses. Minor loss of agriculturally designated land. This request is consistent with the existing and proposed General Plan for the following reasons: The new designation is present on adjacent properties and in the vicinity. This request simplifies the land use map in this area. This request does not change the character of the property or the surrounding area.
RMR40 AG40 RL160 RMR40 RMR40 US 101US 101 RR2 LAUGHLIN WAY RR1 RR5 CASE: GPU 26-2007 MAP: General Plan Overview Map Change Request Parcel Boundary General Plan Boundary APPLICANT: Lynn Randall (applicant) James & Barbara McCulloch 0 375 750 1,500 2,250 3,000 Feet November 2007 - Mendocino County Planning Team
BACKGROUND INFORMATION Land Use Change Request Application Number: GPU 27-2007 Applicant(s): Granite Construction Existing Designation(s): Proposed Designation(s): Size of request: New Unit Potential: Brief Description: Included in: Rangeland 160-acre minimums (RL160) Industrial (I) 35.31 Acres None (non-residential) The property owner has a properly permitted surface mining operation on the parcel which is designated RL160. One condition on their permit required the owner to seek a General Plan Amendment to change their classification to industrial to allow for the processing of the aggregate stream. Preferred Project and Board of Supervisors Alternative FINDINGS Impacts: Plan Consistency: No additional environmental impact as the ongoing activities were covered in the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) permit, various use permits and associated environmental documentation for that property. This request is consistent with the existing and proposed General Plan for the following reasons: The new designation would introduce a new classification for that area that better reflects the existing operation. Previously approved use permits called for this designation change. No additional reclassification of surrounding properties will be necessary.
I RL160 SH 162 MENDO DRIVE CASE: GPU 27-2007 MAP: General Plan Overview Map Change Request APPLICANT: Granite Construction Company Parcel Boundary General Plan Boundary 0 625 1,250 2,500 3,750 5,000 November 2007 - Mendocino County Planning Team Feet
BACKGROUND INFORMATION Land Use Change Request Application Number: GPU 28, 36 and 37-2007 Applicant(s): DeBold, Gillespie, and Joyner Existing Designation(s): Proposed Designation(s): Size of request: New Unit Potential: Brief Description: Included in: Remote Residential 40-acre minimums (RMR40) Rangeland 160-acre minimums (RL160) Remote Residential 20-acre minimums (RMR20) 240.27 Acres Up to seven (three units are present with an addition one potentially allowed for under existing designations) All three owners are requesting the RMR20 designation to split off the parcels that were created but never legally severed when Ball Springs Road was constructed. Due to the uncertainty on the final configuration of the parcel lines, between three and seven new parcels could be created. Board of Supervisors Alternative only FINDINGS Impacts: Plan Consistency: This request would have only minor impacts on the environment, with the most significant concern dealing with the increased risk of accidents at the intersection of Ball Springs Road and US 101. Consistency with the existing and proposed General Plan cannot be determined for the following reasons: The existing General Plan designation boundaries on the County of Mendocino maps are imprecise in this area. This request would introduce a new classification that allows for a higher residential density than is currently found in this area. It would not however, create a classification island. Denser residential densities land uses exist to the west and south; however, increasing densities in this remote area is contrary to General Plan goals to focus development nearer to existing settlements. Redesignating additional properties to the west would also be appropriate but not required for consistency.
RMR40 GPU 37-2007 RMR40 RMR20 RL160 RMR20 US 101 RMR20 GPU 36-2007 GPU 28-2007 FL160 CASE: GPUs: 28,36,37-2007 MAP: General Plan Overview Map Change Request Area Parcel Boundary General Plan Boundary APPLICANT: Debold/Darr (28-2007) Gillespie (36-2007) Joyner (37-2007) 0 625 1,250 2,500 3,750 5,000 November 2007 - Mendocino County Planning Team Feet
BACKGROUND INFORMATION Land Use Change Request Application Number: GPU 29 and 30-2007 Applicant(s): M&R Vineyards / Middleridge Vineyards. Existing Designation(s): Proposed Designation(s): Size of request: New Unit Potential: Brief Description: Included in: Rangeland 160-acre minimum (RL160) Agricultural 40-acre minimum (AG40) Slightly over 1600 Acres 21-26 additional units (several dwelling units are present, with up to 14 available under existing classifications. This does not include or preclude farm worker housing units) Applicants are requesting to change from RL160 to AG40 to better reflect the well-established large-scale agricultural operations in this area (vineyards). Preferred Project and Board of Supervisors Alternative FINDINGS Impacts: Plan Consistency: Viticulture is an allowable use under both the RL and AG designations so any environmental impacts would occur if new residential units were constructed. These impacts would likely be relatively minor. Up to 26 new parcels could be created. Since the entire holdings are covered by prime and non-prime Williamson Act protection, subdivision would be difficult and no evidence exists that this would be attempted. This request is consistent with the existing and proposed General Plan for the following reasons: The request connects two large, discontinuous AG40 areas into a larger contiguous unit, simplifying the land use map. Redesignation to AG40 reflects and better protects the agricultural land uses in that area. Redesignation could potentially increase the residential density of the area but is not likely to do so. No additional modifications would be needed to the surrounding area to make the map more consistent.
SR PL PL AG40 SR AG40 SH 175 AG40 GPU 30-2007 All other parcels are GPU 29-2007 RL160 OLD TOLL ROAD US 101 AG40 CASE: GPUs 29-2007, 30-2007 MAP: General Plan Overview Area to be Changed Map Change Request Area Parcel Boundary General Plan Boundary APPLICANT: M&R Vineyards 29-2007 Middleridge Vineyards 30-2007 0 0.15 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 November 2007 - Mendocino County Planning Team Miles
BACKGROUND INFORMATION Application Number: GPU 31-2007 Applicant(s): Daisy Cochrane Land Use Change Request Existing Designation(s): Proposed Designation(s): Size of request: New Unit Potential: Brief Description: Included in: Rural Residential 10-acre minimum (RR10) Rural Residential 5-acre minimum (RR5) 22.42 Acres Up to two additional units (two units are permissible under the existing general plan classification although none are currently present) The property owner requests the property be designated RR5 to allow for a four-way minor subdivision of the property. Preferred Project and the Board of Supervisors Alternative FINDINGS Impacts: Plan Consistency: Increasing the residential unit potential by an additional two units (for a total of four) would not pose significant environmental impacts to this area. This request is not consistent with the existing and proposed General Plan for the following reasons: The neighboring parcels are designated RMR20 and RR10 and a change would create an RR5 island. Redesignation would introduce a denser classification and encourage a more spread-out pattern of growth that the draft General Plan policies try to limit. Additional modifications to the surrounding area to make the map more consistent would create significant new water, sewer, public services, transportation and land use impacts that would need to be addressed in a more detailed EIR.
COVELO REFUSE ROAD RMR20 RR10 RR5 HOLDENING WAY CASE: GPU 31-2007 MAP: General Plan Overview Map Change Request Parcel Boundary General Plan Boundary APPLICANT: Daisy Cochrane 0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Feet November 2007 - Mendocino County Planning Team
BACKGROUND INFORMATION Land Use Change Request Application Number: GPU 32-2007 Applicant(s): Thomas and Maryann Adkisson Existing Designation(s): Proposed Designation(s): Size of request: New Unit Potential: Brief Description: Included in: Forestland / Rangeland 160-acre minimums (RL160 / FL160) Remote Residential 20-acre minimum (RMR20) 71.74 Acres Up to two additional units are mathematically possible, although the configuration will probably limit growth to one parcel (one unit is currently present) The property owner requests the property be designated RMR20 to split off the parcel that was created but never legally severed when US 101 was constructed. Board of Supervisors Alternative only FINDINGS Impacts: Plan Consistency: Increasing the residential unit potential by up to two units would not pose significant environmental impacts to this area. This request is not consistent with the existing and proposed General Plan for the following reasons: The neighboring parcels are designated RL160 and FL160 and a change would create an RMR20 island. Redesignation would introduce a denser classification and encourage a more spread-out pattern of growth that the draft General Plan policies try to limit. Additional modifications to the surrounding area to make the map more consistent would create significant new water, sewer, public services, transportation and land use impacts that would need to be addressed in a more detailed EIR.
US 101 RL160 RMR20 RMR20 FL160 C RMR40 RL160 CASE: GPU 32-2007 MAP: General Plan Overview Map Change Request Area Parcel Boundary General Plan Boundary APPLICANT: Thomas Adkisson Maryann Adkisson 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Feet November 2007 - Mendocino County Planning Team
BACKGROUND INFORMATION Land Use Change Request Application Number: GPU 33-2007 Applicant(s): Thomas and Maryann Adkisson Existing Designation(s): Proposed Designation(s): Size of request: New Unit Potential: Brief Description: Included in: Rural Residential 10-acre minimum (RR10) Rural Residential 5-acre minimum (RR5) 24.16 Acres Three to four additional units, depending on the final parcel boundary lines (one unit is currently present) The property owner requests the property be designated RR5 to undertake a minor subdivision of this property. Preferred Project and Board of Supervisors Alternative FINDINGS Impacts: Plan Consistency: Increasing the residential unit potential by up to four units would pose minor environmental impacts to this area that could be mitigated through standard building practices. This request is consistent with the existing and proposed General Plan for the following reasons: The adjacent parcel to the south under same ownership is already designated RR5 and would not create a classification island. Redesignation would be consistent with the surrounding classifications and reflect the character of the area. Additional modifications to the surrounding area to make the map more consistent are not necessary.
RR10 US 101 AG40 RR5 RR10 RMR40 RR5 FISHERMAN DRIVE CASE: GPU 33-2007 MAP: General Plan Overview Map Change Request Parcel Boundary General Plan Boundary APPLICANT: Thomas Adkisson Maryann Adkisson 0 187.5 375 750 1,125 1,500 Feet November 2007 - Mendocino County Planning Team
BACKGROUND INFORMATION Land Use Change Request Application Number: GPU 34-2007 Applicant(s): Stephen and Star Roberts Existing Designation(s): Proposed Designation(s): Size of request: New Unit Potential: Brief Description: Included in: Agricultural 40-acre minimum (AG40) Rural Residential 5-acre minimum (RR5) 11.18 Acres One additional unit (one unit is currently present) The property owner requests the property be designated RR5 to divide the parcel into two. Preferred Project and the Board of Supervisors Alternative FINDINGS Impacts: Plan Consistency: Increasing the residential unit potential by an additional unit would not pose any significant environmental impact to this area. This request is not consistent with the existing and proposed General Plan for the following reasons: The surrounding parcels are designated AG40 and a change would create an RR5 island. Redesignation would introduce a denser classification and encourage a more spread-out, albeit limited, pattern of growth that the draft General Plan policies try to limit. Additional modifications to the surrounding area to make the map more consistent would impact agricultural operations to the northwest and potentially create significant new water, sewer, public services, transportation and land use impacts that would need to be addressed seperately. The existing General Plan map for this area is already imprecise and this redesignation, absent further changes, would exacerbate that situation.
RR10 FRONTAGE D EL ROBLE ROAD AG40 US 101 HENRY ROMER ROAD US 101 RR5 RL160 CASE: GPU 34-2007 MAP: General Plan Overview Map Change Request Parcel Boundary General Plan Boundary APPLICANT: Stephan Roberts Star Roberts 0 375 750 1,500 2,250 3,000 November 2007 - Mendocino County Planning Team Feet
Application GPU-38 (ROSETTI) Removed at request of the owner
Application GPU-38 (ROSETTI) Removed at request of the owner
BACKGROUND INFORMATION Application Number: GPU 39-2007 Applicant(s): Pepper / Ryan Land Use Change Request Existing Designation(s): Proposed Designation(s): Size of request: New Unit Potential: Brief Description: Included in: Rural Residential 10-acre minimum (RR10) Rural Residential 5-acre minimum (RR5) 10.03 Acres One additional unit (one unit is currently present) The property owner requests the property be designated RR5 to split this property. Preferred Project and Board of Supervisors Alternative FINDINGS Impacts: Plan Consistency: Increasing the residential unit potential by another unit would not pose significant environmental impacts to this area. This request is consistent with the existing and proposed General Plan for the following reasons: The adjacent parcel to the west is already designated RR5. This change would simply extend the RR5 classification. Redesignation would be consistent with the surrounding classifications and reflect the character of the area. Additional modifications to the surrounding area to make the map more consistent are not necessary.
FL160 FL160 PL LITTLE LAKE ROAD RR5 RR5 RR10 PL FL160 CASE: GPU 39-2007 MAP: General Plan Overview Map Change Request Parcel Boundary General Plan Boundary APPLICANT: Thomas Pepper Elizabeth Ryan 0 200 400 800 1,200 1,600 Feet November 2007 - Mendocino County Planning Team
BACKGROUND INFORMATION Land Use Change Request Application Number: GPU 40-2007 Applicant(s): Ron & Petra Meaux Existing Designation(s): Proposed Designation(s): Size of request: New Unit Potential: Brief Description: Included in: Rangeland 160-acre minimum (RL160) Agriculture 40-acre minimum (AG40) 207 Acres Up to 4 additional units (one unit currently exists) The property owners are requesting to change their classification from a rangeland classification to an agricultural one. Board of Supervisors Alternative only FINDINGS Impacts: Plan Consistency: Minor impacts from the construction of up to four additional units although the eventual unit count is unknown. Possible additional impacts associated with new intensive agricultural activities, if introduced to this area, including increased traffic on Orr Springs Road. Overall impact from this request is likely to be insignificant to minimal and could probably be mitigated with standard building codes and conventional agricultural practices. This request is inconsistent with the existing and proposed General Plan for the following reasons: The new designation would introduce a new classification for that property only, resulting in an island. Reclassification to AG40 is not necessary to allow for agricultural activities; the RL160 already permits most farming practices. Reclassifying surrounding parcels to attain consistency would not be practical or make sense due to topographical constraints.
FL160 PL AG40 RL160 ORR SPRINGS ROAD RMR40 FL160 CASE: GPU 40-2007 MAP: General Plan Overview Map Change Request Parcel Boundary General Plan Boundary APPLICANT: Ron Meaux Petra Meaux 0 625 1,250 2,500 3,750 5,000 Feet November 2007 - Mendocino County Planning Team
BACKGROUND INFORMATION Land Use Change Request Application Number: GPU 41-2007 Applicant(s): Dunlap / Bloom / Black Existing Designation(s): Proposed Designation(s): Size of request: New Unit Potential: Brief Description: Included in: Remote Residential 20-acre minimum (RMR20) Suburban Residential 40,000 sq. ft lot minimum (SR) 6.37 Acres Three additional units (three units are currently present) The property owners requests the three parcels be designated SR to allow for division of each parcel into two pieces. Preferred Project and Board of Supervisors Alternative FINDINGS Impacts: Plan Consistency: Increasing the residential unit potential by up to three units would pose minor environmental impacts to this area that could be mitigated through standard building practices. Due to infrastructure limitations and lot configurations, subdivision into lot sizes smaller than 40,000 square feet is not likely This request is mostly consistent with the existing and proposed General Plan for the following reasons: The adjacent parcel to the west is already designated SR Redesignation would be consistent with the surrounding classifications and reflect the character of the area. Additional modifications to the surrounding area to make the map more consistent are not necessary. This property is not consistent with Goal 2, Policy 2a under Agriculture in the Land Use Element of the Existing General Plan in that the new parcels would be smaller than the 5 acre minimum for properties adjacent to Type 1 Williamson Act Ag Preserves. Mitigating that inconsistency somewhat is the fact that the adjacent parcel is not designated AG40 and not used for agricultural purposes.
SR EAST LANE SR RR2 SR SR RMR20 C CASE: GPU 41-2007 MAP: General Plan Overview Map Change Request Parcel Boundary General Plan Boundary APPLICANT: Dolores Dunlap Randy Bloom Fredericka Black 0 100 200 400 600 800 November 2007 - Mendocino County Planning Team Feet
BACKGROUND INFORMATION Land Use Change Request Application Number: GPU 42-2007 Applicant(s): Douglas and Ruthann Volz Existing Designation(s): Proposed Designation(s): Size of request: New Unit Potential: Brief Description: Included in: Rural Residential 5 acre minimum (RR5) Rural Residential 1 acre minimum (RR1) 2.39 Acres One new unit (property already has one structure) Applicant is requesting a redesignation so that the property could be split in two. This would allow the owner to sell one or both parcels separately. Board of Supervisors Alternative only FINDINGS Impacts: Plan Consistency: This request would create minimal new environmental impacts to the area, limited mostly to the potential addition of a single new home. This request is inconsistent with the existing and proposed General Plan for the following reasons: Introduction of a more intensive designation where none currently exists, Redesignation of subject parcel would create an RR1 island, Creation of additional small parcels or ownerships adjacent to active agricultural operations are to be minimized (draft General Plan Policy RM-100). Redesignating the surrounding area to match the request would create new potentially significant environmental impacts. These impacts are water, traffic, and public services. It would also go against policy RM-100 to reduce rural residential densities adjacent to active agricultural areas.
AG40 RMR40 RR1 RR5 AG40 CASE: GPU 42-2007 MAP: General Plan Overview Map Change Request Parcel Boundary General Plan Boundary APPLICANT: Douglas Volz Ruthanne Volz 0 150 300 600 900 1,200 November 2007 - Mendocino County Planning Team Feet
BACKGROUND INFORMATION Application Number: GPU 44-2007 Applicant(s): Fernando Garcia Land Use Change Request Existing Designation(s): Proposed Designation(s): Size of request: New Unit Potential: Brief Description: Included in: Remote Residential 20 acre minimum (RR20) Remote Residential 10 acre minimum (RR10) Around 20 acres One new unit (one structure is permissible under the existing classification) Applicant is requesting a redesignation so that the property could be split in two. This would allow the owner to sell one or both parcels separately. Preferred Project and Board of Supervisors Alternative FINDINGS Impacts: Plan Consistency: This request would create minimal new environmental impacts to the area, limited mostly to the potential addition of another new single family home. This request is inconsistent with the existing and proposed General Plan for the following reasons: Introduction of a more intensive designation where none currently exists Redesignation of subject parcel would create an RR10 island Redesignating the surrounding area to match the request would create new potentially significant environmental impacts.
FL160 MIDDLE RIDGE ROAD RMR20 RR10 FL160 CASE: GPU 44-2007 MAP: General Plan Overview Map Change Request Parcel Boundary General Plan Boundary APPLICANT: Fernando Garcia 0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Feet November 2007 - Mendocino County Planning Team
BACKGROUND INFORMATION Application Number: GPU 45-2007 Applicant(s): Wellik Land Use Change Request Existing Designation(s): Proposed Designation(s): Size of request: New Unit Potential: Brief Description: Included in: Agricultural 40 acre minimum (AG40) Rural Residential 1 acre minimum (RR1) 4.3 Acres One to three new units depending on the final configuration (property already has one structure) Applicant is requesting a redesignation to allow for a minor subdivision of the property. Board of Supervisors Alternative only FINDINGS Impacts: Plan Consistency: This request would create minor impacts to the area, limited mostly to the increased water use and residential density in close proximity to active agricultural operations. This request is inconsistent with the existing and proposed General Plan for the following reasons: Introduction of a more intensive designation where none currently exists, Redesignation of subject parcel would create an RR1 island, Creation of additional small parcels or ownerships adjacent to active agricultural operations are to be minimized (draft General Plan Policy RM-100), The request would also violate Goal 2, Policy 2a under Agriculture in the Land Use Element of the Existing General Plan in that the new parcels would be smaller than the 5 acre minimum for properties adjacent to Type 1 Williamson Act Ag Preserves. Redesignating the surrounding area to connect the request area to RR1 areas to the west and east would create new, potentially significant environmental impacts. These impacts are water, traffic, and public services. It would also impact the viability of active agriculture operations in that area.
RR1 RR5 ROAD L RR1 RR5 HELD ROAD AG40 RR1 ROAD I EAST ROAD HUMPHREY LANE ROAD H RR1 ROAD G ROAD F CASE: GPU 45-2007 MAP: General Plan Overview Map Change Request Parcel Boundary General Plan Boundary APPLICANT: Wellick 0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Feet November 2007 - Mendocino County Planning Team
BACKGROUND INFORMATION Land Use Change Request (REVISED) Application Number: GPU 46-2007 Applicant(s): Jonathon & Katrina Frey Existing Designation(s): Proposed Designation(s): Size of request: New Unit Potential: Brief Description: Included in: Rangeland 160-acre minimum (RL160) Remote Residential 20-acre minimum (RMR20) 153 Acres Up to three new units (one unit is currently present) The property owner is requesting to change their RL160 designated upland portion of this split-zoned parcel to RMR40 to potentially split off a portion of the property. No change is being proposed for the AG40 part of the property. Preferred Project (STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER FURTHER REVIEW), Board of Supervisors Alternative only FINDINGS Impacts: Plan Consistency: Minimal to negligible impact from the construction of one to three addition housing units. Although redesignation would not impact the existing Type II Williamson Act Ag contracts for this area, any minor subdivision / lot split and sale may necessitate contract modification or non-renewal. This request can could only be considered consistent with the existing and proposed General Plan if: The RMR40 designation is extended to include this property and the four parcels to the north and six parcels to the south, forming a contiguous RMR40 classification area. If agreed to by the Board of Supervisors, redesignation of a limited number of properties immediately to the north and south of the subject parcel would limit potential growth related impact to two new residential units on the subject parcel and an additional one to the south. If this expanded RMR40 classification were to occur, this request could be considered consistent with the existing and proposed General Plan. It would also improve the General Plan boundaries for this area without increasing residential densities or introducing new classifications. The presence of Williamson Contracts on the subject and surrounding parcels preclude this however. According to County Code the properties need to be out of the Williamson contract before such a request could be made. Under the County s existing codes, only AG40 and RL160 may be covered by Williamson provisions.
RMR40 RR10 RL160 RL160 RMR40 AG40 TOMKI ROAD SR RMR40 CASE: GPU 46-2007 MAP: General Plan Overview Map Change Request Parcel Boundary General Plan Boundary APPLICANT: Jonathon Frey Katrina Frey 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 November 2007 - Mendocino County Planning Team Feet
BACKGROUND INFORMATION Application Number: GPU 47-2007 Applicant(s): Gitlin / Frey Land Use Change Request Existing Designation(s): Proposed Designation(s): Size of request: New Unit Potential: Brief Description: Included in: Rural Residential 5 acre minimum (RR5) Rural Residential 2 acre minimum (RR2) 12.5 Acres Up to three additional parcels depending on the final configuration (property already has several structures and can be configured into three separate parcels) Applicant is requesting a redesignation to allow the creation of up to six total parcels on the 12.5 acres Board of Supervisors Alternative only FINDINGS Impacts: Plan Consistency: This request would create minor impacts to the area, limited mostly to the increased water use and residential density in close proximity to active agricultural operations. This request is inconsistent with the existing and proposed General Plan for the following reasons: Introduction of a more intensive designation Redesignation of subject parcel would create an RR2 island, Creation of additional small parcels or ownerships adjacent to active agricultural operations are to be minimized (draft General Plan Policy RM-100), The request would also violate Goal 2, Policy 2a under Agriculture in the Land Use Element of the Existing General Plan in that the new parcels would be smaller than the 5 acre minimum for properties adjacent to Type 1 Williamson Act Ag Preserves. Redesignating the parcel and surrounding area to RR1 and connecting it to the RR1 area to the south would create new, potentially significant environmental impacts. These impacts are water, traffic, and public services. It would also impact the viability of active agriculture operations in that area.
AG40 MOHAWK TRAIL INEZ WAY RR5 RR2 AG40 RR2 WEST ROAD ROAD K RR1 CASE: GPU 47-2007 MAP: General Plan Overview Map Change Request Parcel Boundary General Plan Boundary APPLICANT: Robert Gitlin Karla Frey 0 125 250 500 750 1,000 November 2007 - Mendocino County Planning Team Feet
ATTACHMENT B: GENERAL PLAN ORGANIZATION, POLICY AND IMPLEMENTATION RELATED INFORMATION Background The public comment period for the Draft General Plan and Environmental Impact Report, along with feedback from the March 17, 2009 Joint Planning Commission / Board of Supervisors Workshops identified a number of issues, corrections and suggestions for both documents. These were organized and responded to with the release of the Final General Plan and EIR documents. The consultants and staff have identified many subject areas of concern to the Supervisors, Planning Commissioners and citizens. Broader Issues and Questions on the General Plan A number of key questions raised regarding the General Plan deal with broad level issues such as organization, thoroughness and scope. These issues are described below. Overall document organization / Returning to existing Plan format? Addition of an existing General Plan-New General Plan Translation Table in the Table of Contents (See Attachment B-1 for an example). This would take the Table on page 1.0-8 and expand it in the Table of Contents to show where sections and page numbers aspects of the 1981 General Plan could be found in the update General Plan. Use of subject-specific index. If directed by the Planning Commission, staff could develop a subject based index similar to what is found in many reference books. What are the costs and benefits of converting the updated General Plan back to the 1981 General Plan format? Staff Recommendations Add the Existing General Plan Proposed General Plan Translation table as described above. Provide direction on incorporation of table or index into the appendix. Do not convert the General Plan back to the original General Plan format. Additional / Improved Water, Energy and Climate Change measures Should we add water or energy elements or use a subject index to find all relevant policies? What are the implications of changing the document at this stage? Should subjects of energy and climate change be revisited to incorporate new or previously excluded policies or measures? Staff Recommendations Keep the proposed General Plan document in its current format. Staff will be prepared to add/change policies as directed by Planning Commissioner, as long as it does not affect the related EIR. Changes to specific policies (location or wording) Did reorganization of water policies diminish the meaning or enforceability of these provisions? Staff Recommendation Discuss and make recommendations, if any. 1
Changes to / Deletion of the Community Policies section Would this include all communities? Would deleting this section affect the remainder of the Plan or EIR? Would it result in long-term cost savings? Short-term cost savings? Staff Recommendation Keep the General Plan Update document in its current format. Modify or add to Community Policies if needed Other Issues Comments on / Adequacy of the EIR responses Items identified as missing from the General Plan and/or EIR Staff Recommendation Modify or add to the text, if needed. Specific changes between the Draft General Plan and the Final General Plan Many changes were made between the draft and final versions of the General Plan document, all of which are referenced below. Minor corrections are not included. Chapters 1.0 & 2.0 Expanded discussion of Greenhouse Gas issue (page 1.0-6) New healthy community principles and policies (page 2.0-3) Should changed to shall in many places (page 2.0-5) New collaboration principle (page 2.0-6) Chapter 3.0 Projected noise information added (page 3.0-13) Recognition of homes and businesses off the grid (page 3.0-45) Changes to Development Goals (page 3.0-65) New internet Goal DE-23 (page 3.0-67) New health Goal DE-29 (page 3.0-68) New Policy DE-1 regarding growth occurring in cities (page 3.0-70) New Policy DE-7 regarding parcel size (page 3.0-73) New Mixed Use land use category (from Errata Sheet) (page 3.0-81) Changes to Nonconforming Use policies (page 3.0-91) New anti-sprawl Policy DE-38 (page 3.0-92) New business Policies DE-49 and DE-52 (page 3.0-93) New Policy DE-55 to protect commercial and industrial lands (page 3.0-93) Changes to respond to AQMD comments (pages 3.0-94 and 95) New Community Plan policy DE-70 (page 3.0-95) New green action items DE-80.1 to.3 (page 3.0-97) Changed parking Policy DE-85 (page 3.0-97) Updated noise policies (page 3.0-100) New cultural resources and fossil mitigation policies DE-119 and 120 (page 3.0-107) New infrastructure policy DE-122 (page 3.0-108) New internet policy DE-129 (page 3.0-109) New transportation policy DE-132 (page 3.0-109) New Policy DE-140 regarding access to state highways (page 3.0-110) New traffic calming Policy DE-142 (page 3.0-111) New connectivity Policy DE-155 (page 3.0-112) New Action Item DE-158.1 for transportation planning and funding (page 3.0-117) New parks Policy DE-176 (page 3.0-120) 2
New public restroom Policy DE-191 (page 3.0-123) New flooding Action Item DE-205.1 (page 3.0-125) New ham radio Policy DE-217 (page 3.0-128) New crime reduction Policy DE-235 (page 3.0-131) New child care Policy DE-242 (page 3.0-133) New health policies (page 3.0-133 and 134) Chapter 4.0 Recognition of water quality issues (page 4.0-5) Recognition of drought (page 4.0-6) Recognition of air quality issues (page 4.0-16) New dark sky info (page 4.0-31) New ecosystems Goal RM-5 (page 4.0-32) Recognition of timber harvest in goals and policies (RM-11 on page 4.0-32) New Action Item RM-1.1 for stream buffers (page 4.0-34) Updates to water policies (page 4.0-34) New instream flow language (page 4.0-35) New Policy RM-12 for comprehensive water plan (page 4.0-36) New Policy RM-16 for illegal water diversion (page 4.0-36) New biological resources mitigation policies (page 4.0-38 and -39) Revised air quality policies and actions RM-34 (page 4.0-40) New indoor air quality Policy RM-50 (page 4.0-43) New solar power Policy RM-52 (page 4.0-44) Revised soil erosion Policy RM-60 (page 4.0-46) New timber harvest provision in Policy RM-79 (page 4.0-50) Revised fish protection Policy RM-92 (page 4.0-52) New agricultural protection policy RM-101 (page 4.0-53) New timber harvest exception in Policy RM-135 (page 4.0-58) New dark sky Policy RM-140 (page 4.0-59) Chapter 6.0 New Community Policy CP-C (page 6.0-1) Revisions to Anderson Valley introduction (page 6.0-3) Revised Goal CP-AV-9 (page 6.0-6) Revised Anderson Valley policies (pages 6.0-6 to 9) Revised Fort Bragg introduction (page 6.0-17) Revised Fort Bragg policies (pages 6.0-18 to 21) 3
B-1: COMPARISON TABLE BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW GENERAL PLANS For ease of use, staff recommends including this table after the TOC or in the Appendix. LAND USE ELEMENT Existing General Plan Updated General Plan Section Page Numbers Natural Resources Resource Management Element Chapter 4.0 Agriculture Agricultural Resources Policies 4.0-49 Air Quality Air Quality 4.0-38 Energy Energy Resources 4.0-41 Fisheries Fisheries Policies 4.0-48 Forestry Forestry Resources Policies 4.0-51 Mineral Resources Mineral Resources Policies 4.0-43 Natural Areas Natural & Rural Landscape Resources 4.0-49 Public Lands Natural & Rural Landscape Resources 4.0-49 Scenic Resources Scenic Resources Policies 4.0-49 Soil Resources Soil Resources Policies 4.0-43 Vegetation and Wildlife Biological Resources 4.0-44 Water Resources Water Resources 4.0-32 Culture & Services Development Element Chapter 3.0 Archeological Resouces Cultural & Paleontological Policies 3.0-106 Historical Resources Cultural & Paleontological Policies 3.0-106 Fire Protection Fire Protection 3.0-47 Water Supply Water Supply & Sewer Service Policies 3-0-123 Sewerage Treatment Water Supply & Sewer Service Policies 3-0-123 Police Law Enforcement 3.0-53 Solid Waste Solid and Hazardous Waste & 3.0-125 Hazardous Waste Materials Management Policies 3.0-125 Residential Community Character Policies 3.0-95 Commercial Commercial & Mixed Use Policies 3.0-92 Industry Industrial Development Policies 3.0-93 Development Policies Development Element Chapter 3.0 Home Occupations Not included - Cottage Industries Not included - Non-conforming uses and lots Density Clustering Land Use Policies for Clustering, Density Transfer, Density, Nonconformance and other issues 3.0-89 Conservation Easements Not included / Policies in Resource El. 4.0-35 General Plan Intent Section Not Included - Land Use Classifications Development Element Chapter 3.0 Industrial Industrial 3.0-77 Commercial Commercial 3.0-78 Rural Community Rural Community 3.0-79 Suburban Residential Suburban Residential 3.0-82 Rural Residential Rural Residential 3.0-83 Remote Residential Remote Residential 3.0-83 Agricultural Lands Agricultural Lands 3.0-84 Range Lands Range Lands 3.0-84 Forest Lands Forest Lands 3.0-85 Remote Resource Lands Remote Resource Lands 3.0-85 Public Lands Public Lands 3.0-86 Open Space Open Space 3.0-86 Public Services Public Services 3.0-86 4
CIRCULATION ELEMENT Existing General Plan Updated General Plan Section Page Numbers Existing Facilities Development Element Chapter 3.0 Highways Road System Policies 3.0-111 Transit and Paratransit Transit System Policies 3.0-117 Rail Rail Policies 3.0-119 Bicycle Pedestrian & Bicycle System Policies 3.0-117 Air Transportation Airports Policies 3.0-119 Harbors Harbors Policies 3.0-120 Natural Gas Pipelines Other Utility Systems Policies 3.0-126 Electric Distribution Facilities Other Utility Systems Policies 3.0-126 SAFETY ELEMENT Existing General Plan Updated General Plan Section Page Numbers Hazards Development Element Chapter 3.0 Landslide Geological Conditions Policies 3.0-131 Fire Hazard Fire Protection Policies 3.0-128 Flood Hazard Drainage and Flooding Policies 3.0-124 Structural & Health Codes in relation Hazard Reduction and Emergency 3.0-126 to safety Emergency Plan Hazard Identification Response Policies No; refer to Emergency Operations Plan No; refer to Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Office of Emergency Services SEISMIC SAFETY ELEMENT Existing General Plan Updated General Plan Section Page Numbers Seismic Policies Development Element Chapter 3.0 Surface Faulting Seismicity Policies 3.0-132 Ground Shaking / Liquefaction Seismicity Policies 3.0-132 Landslides Geological Conditions Policies 3.0-131 Tsunamis No; refer to Emergency Operations Plan Office of Emergency Services NOISE ELEMENT Existing General Plan Updated General Plan Section Page Numbers Noise Sources Development Element Chapter 3.0 Transportation 3-6 Noise 3.0-13 Commerce and Industry 3-6 Noise (General discussion only) 3.0-10 Agriculture 3-6 Noise (General discussion only) 3.0-10 Noise Contour Maps 3-6 Noise Maps Figures 3-3 to 3-8 3.0-15 Other Sources of Noices 3-6 Noise (General discussion only) 3.0-10 Noise Measurement at Sensitive Sites Noise Policies 3.0-100 Community Noise Exposure Inventory Not incorporated - Noise Policies Development Element Chapter 3.0 Noise Standards Noise Policies 3.0-100 Standards Implementation Noise Policies 3.0-100 5
RECREATION ELEMENT Existing General Plan Updated General Plan Section Page Numbers Recreation Policies Development Element Chapter 3.0 Beaches Parks and Recreation Parks and Recreation Policies 3.0-120 Equestrian and Hiking Trails Parks and Recreation Policies 3.0-120 OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION Existing General Plan Updated General Plan Section Page Numbers Environmental Inventory of Resources Development and Resource Management Elements Chapter 3.0 Chapter 4.0 Land Use and Uses General Land Use System 3.0-70 Geology Geologic Conditions Policies 3.0-131 Minerals Mineral Resources Policies 4.0-43 Topography Development Element Introduction 3.0-1 Climate Resource Management 4.0-1 Soils Soil Resources Policies 4.0-43 Agricultural Land Capability Agricultural Resources Policies 4.0-49 Agricultural Lands Agricultural Resources Policies 4.0-49 Vegetal Cover Types Ecosystems Policies 4.0-35 Timber Production and Sites Forestry Resources Policies 4.0-51 Hydrology Water Resources 4.0-32 Fish and Wildlife Biological Resources Policies 4.0-44 Rare and Endangered Species Biological Resources Policies 4.0-44 Parks and Recreation Parks and Recreation Policies 3.0-120 Scenic Highways Scenic Resources Policies 4.0-54 Airports Airports Policies 3.0-119 Faults and Hazards Geological and Seismicity Policies 3.0-131,132 Cultural Resources Cultural and Paleontological Policies 3.0-106 The 1981 General Plan references included above entail the policies of that plan. Other aspects of the existing Plan, such as the narrative, are not shown. 6