Twenty-eight motions. That’s what the General Plan Update Subcommittee will take to the Ramona Community Planning Group for approval early next month.
While poring over a large color-coded map provided by the county’s Department of Planning and Land Use (DPLU), subcommittee members last Thursday went section by section to discuss the initial draft zoning consistency review. In all, the members voted on 28 sections.
Most of the motions referred to the proposed minimum lot size for areas, with members voting that existing lots that are less than the minimum lot size be recognized as conforming.
“What it means is you would still be able to have all the rights as if you were the right size,” said Chris Anderson, subcommittee chair.
Anderson, a Realtor, told of a situation where a client who had been burned out, had a 20-acre lot in an area designated with 40-acre minimum lot sizes and could not build a second dwelling unit because it was considered a non-conforming lot.
Although one blanket motion for all lots under the designated minimum lot sizes would have been easier, Anderson said DPLU Chief of Advanced Planning Devon Muto said they had to go through each section on the map.
The subcommittee, in reviewing the map, compared the color of each section with that on the legend. These colors referred to the planning commission’s tentative recommendations on each area’s designation, such as village residential, semi-residential, rural lands, commercial or industrial, most with recommended minimum lot sizes.
For instance, the subcommittee voted on an area south of Mt. Woodson and north of Dos Picos Park that was designated rural lands with minimum of 20-acre lots (RL-20). The subcommittee voted that any lots in that area under 20 acres would still be considered conforming lots.
The subcommittee voted to change the recommendation for an area south of Cedar Street, west of State Route 78, north of Olive Street and east of Maple Street from high impact industrial to limited impact industrial. That designation has been supported by the community since 1999, said Anderson.
Anderson did not agree with a designation of RL-80 for an area near the Cleveland National Forest.
“We never voted for anything over 40 (acres),” said Anderson.
The difficulty with a minimum of 80 acres, she explained, is that, if a rancher with 80 acres has a bad year and wants to sell some of his property or wants to deed some of it to his children, he would be unable to do so.
Subcommittee members will be reviewing zoning changes at their next meeting, Anderson said, but she is waiting for information from the county.
DPLU is trying to resolve issues before the April county planning commission hearing, at which time the department is hoping obtain final recommendations on all maps and plans, according to Muto.