Board of Supervisors, General Plan Update Study Session

March 13, 2006

Good afternoon. My name is Colleen Platt, and I live in Valley Springs.

I thank the Board for holding this follow-up study session regarding Planning Department work priorities. I would also like to thank Mr. Sellman for the excellent report he prepared on this subject for the last study session in January.

I concur with his conclusion in that memo, and with the Board's direction, that the most immediate Planning Department priority should be a comprehensive update of the Calaveras County General Plan. A commitment by this Board of Supervisors will be a great first step in planning for our future.

Many county residents are looking forward to this General Plan update process and are willing and able to work constructively with our neighbors and with County staff. I strongly believe that, together, we can design a future for Calaveras County that promotes community well-being, environmental protection, and economic prosperity.

Before we can plan our future, we need to find out where we are now. One critical task in preparing a General Plan is a baseline conditions report. Such a report evaluates current conditions regarding water, sewage, roads, traffic, school and emergency services capacity, and available lots for commercial and residential development. This report should also address complete build out of all currently approved projects, and their anticipated impact on these existing conditions. Once we know where we stand now on these issues, we can plan effectively where we want to go.

But we have a problem here. Currently, our Planning Department is overwhelmed by more tasks than it has the staff or time to take care of. The processing of applications has been given highest priority and is now taking a tremendous amount of time. How has this happened?

Some interesting figures emerge when county documents are studied. In the three-year period from the year 2000 through 2002, there were only 10 General Plan Amendments approved, mostly minor changes or community plans. In the last three years, 2003-2005, there were 32 GPAs, and at least 12 of them involved zoning changes that converted agricultural lands and open space to residential housing. In 2004 alone, there were 58 project applications requesting rezoning or general plan amendments. These applications often take more staff time to process.

If we want planning staff to be able to do current planning work while they work on a General Plan Update, they cannot continue to process all applications as top priority.

In Mr. Sellman's January memo, I noticed a chart listing the types of applications submitted to the Planning Department for processing. I believe that, by providing some direction to Mr. Sellman regarding the priority for processing these applications during the General Plan Update, the Board can free-up existing staff time for work on the General Plan. For example:

The chart includes applications for conditional use and planned development permits, accessory dwelling applications, applications for variances that allow development of parcels with physical limitations, and design review applications that help projects coexist in harmony with our communities. Next to the General Plan update, these seem to be the most critical to our community well-being. They should remain at the top of the application priority list, and could be categorized as Tier 1.

Also listed in the chart were applications for parcel maps, so local residents can split their land into 2, 3, or 4 parcels consistent with the current general plan and zoning. These applications should also remain at the top of the priority list in Tier 1.

Tier 2 and 3 would be lower priority, and would contain applications for subdivisions, General Plan Amendments, and Zoning Amendments. These could be ranked as follows:

The higher-priority Tier 2 would include projects that are smaller in parcel size (for example, under 5 acres), projects that are consistent with the existing General Plan and existing zoning, and projects where the requested change is minor, or is less dense or less developed that the existing use.

Finally, the lowest priority, Tier 3, would be for projects that more dramatically alter the character of our communities by asking for more development than the historic zoning and land use to which we have become accustomed. They are the types of projects that tend to raise policy questions, like agricultural versus residential use, and therefore are better considered as part of the overall General Plan Update process. As these complicated projects are studied, they divert more and more staff time from work more critical to our community well being. They divert more of the community's attention toward fighting over these project-related controversies, and away from focusing constructively on the General Plan Update process. They will also divert more Planning Commission and Board time toward trying to find fair resolutions of these disputes. I would suggest that these types of project applications receive the lowest priority for processing during the General Plan Update.

In short, I suggest that the Board direct the Planning Staff to develop a system for prioritizing work during the General Plan Update process, with the General Plan as the top priority, and applications processed by a three-tier priority system as suggested above. If the Board doesn't like the priorities I suggest, I encourage the Board to suggest a different prioritization process that would free up staff time to work on the General Plan update.

Thank You.