Next Phase of the Zoning Ordinance Update, April 16, 2026

To: Gina Kathan, Calaveras County Planning Manager
From: Tom Infusino, Calaveras Planning Coalition (CPC)
Re: Next Phase of the Zoning Ordinance Update
Date: April 16, 2026 (Submitted by email)

I. Recommendations

A) Please incorporate as many of our acceptable suggestions as possible into the upcoming
package of zoning ordinance amendments you will be presenting to the Planning Commission.
B) Please contact us if you have any questions (209) 295-5302.

II. Background

A) The CPC discussed Open Space Plan amendments with County staff.
Recent state legislation calls for updates to open space plans. For two years the CPC has been
asking the County to amend the open space plan to address climate change resilience, equitable access to open space, rewilding, and wildlife habitat connectivity in accord with SB 1425 and AB 1889 (Aka. The Room to Roam Act).

As you know, an open space plan includes general plan provisions that relate to open space. In September of 2025, Muriel Zeller completed a 73-page assessment of the existing open space plan. In that assessment she made recommendations for amending the elements of the general plan that comprise the open space plan. Her review also identified some changes to the Zoning Code that would better implement the open space plan.

In February, March and April of 2026, CPC participants and County staff met to discuss Muriel’s assessment as the Planning Department prepares to amend the Calaveras County Open Space Plan. County staff reviewed Muriel’s suggested changes to the general plan provisions that comprise the open space plan. County staff made no commitments regarding the CPC proposals. Planning Director Sampson said that if he found some of the suggestions acceptable, he would include staff-vetted language in the proposal package presented to the Planning
Commission. He would prefer to have acceptable language drafted and vetted by staff in advance, rather than being asked by the Planning Commission to draft language “on the fly” during a hearing.

B) Send zoning ordinance proposals to Gina Kathan by April 16, 2026.

At the last CPC meeting with County staff on April 2, 2026, Director Sampson indicated that the CPC’s proposed changes to the Calaveras County Zoning Code (“Zoning Code”) relating to open space should be submitted directly to Gina Kathan, within the next two weeks, as Gina is preparing a package of Zoning Code amendments for presentation to the Planning Commission. This memo includes those proposed Zoning Code changes. The red and blue text has been taken directly from Muriel’s 93-page assessment of the open space plan.

(Note: in this iteration of the document language from the General Plan is highlighted with bold lettering and Muriel’s comments are italicized.)

There are three attachments to the email in addition to this memo. A table summarizing the proposed changes is attached. Our prior 2024 memo regarding changes to the zoning ordinance regarding special events on open space lands is attached. Finally, a sample clustering ordinance is attached. Please call us if you have any questions or if you would like to meet with us to discuss these matters.

III. The CPC proposes the following changes to the Zoning Code regarding open space uses.

GOAL COS-3 A diversity of native plants, fish, and wildlife species and their habitats.

Policy COS 3.1 To protect sensitive biological resources, new development shall use site
planning techniques, including buffers and setbacks, and encourage other techniques such as clustering of development. (Implemented by COS-4B)

Besides buffers and setbacks, clustered development is the only “other” planning technique identified. No meaningful definition or development guidelines for clustering or co-housing have been provided in the General Plan or in the August 2024 Zoning Code update
(Attachment B). Other counties, like Butte, have adopted clear guidelines and/or zoning for clustered development. (For ideas on the subject, please see Attachment C: MODEL ZONING ORDINANCE FOR RURAL CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT.)

Recommendation: Please add to the Zoning Code a meaningful definition of clustering and development guidelines for clustering.

Policy LU-2.2 Maintain availability of the Williamson Act contracts and other protections for agricultural, mineral and timber productivity as set forth in the Resource Production Element. (Implemented by LU-2A)
Implementation LU-2A: Title 17 of the Calaveras County Code: Update the Zoning Ordinance, Title 17 for consistency with the General Plan.

The General Plan Land Use Element notes (page LU-6), “Resource Production Lands have the capability of being utilized for several resource production uses and/or compatible activities. The County’s zoning code would allow for these multiple uses. This designation also includes, but is not limited to, lands with conservation easements and lands designated as critical habitat areas, agricultural preserves, and timber production (including lands zoned for timberland production pursuant to the California Timberland Productivity Act of 1982).” The updated Zoning Code did not allow for the multiple uses of Resource Production Lands, specifically, it did not allow for conservation easements.

In the February 11, 2021 Planning Commission Staff Report (2020-065 Comprehensive Zoning Map Update) then Planning Director Peter Maurer expressed support for zoning
conservation easements as open space. He wrote, “Another general change suggested in the comment letters is that land constrained by a conservation easement be rezoned to reflect these easements. The County currently does not have an open space zone, except for lands under a Williamson Act contract for the specific purpose of protecting open space. Once the open space zone is created, it would be appropriate to change the zoning for such parcels to
this new zone, along with amending the general plan to reflect these easements. But since the constraints of the easement apply regardless of the zone it does not seem necessary at this
time. Staff would recommend that the exercise be undertaken in the future, and correct the land use map and the zoning for these lands at the same time.” The CPC was led to believe the 2024 Zoning Code update would be that time, but it was not.

Recommendation: Please add conservation easements to the list of uses the Zoning Code allows on Resource Production Lands.

Policy RP 1.1 Limit the intrusion and encroachment of incompatible uses that may affect Resource Production Lands. (Implemented by RP-1A, RP-1B, RP-1C, RP-1D and RP-1E)
Implementation: RP-1A County Code Amendments
Amend the County Code to:
• Incorporate guidelines and standards for the development and maintenance of
setbacks or other measures designed to minimize conflicts between activities conducted on Resource Production Lands and the encroachment of incompatible uses.
• Establish minimum parcel size standards for new lots to be created adjacent to Resource Production Lands.

Minimum parcel sizes for Resource Production Lands are established in the Land Use Element (pages LU 5-LU 6), but minimum parcel size standards for new lots adjacent to Resource Production Lands were not and have not been established.

Recommendation: Please identify minimum parcel sizes for new lots adjacent to Resource Production Lands. We recommend a 40-acre minimum parcel size.

• Incorporate guidelines for residential development on Resource Production Lands.
• Expand the types of agricultural tourism and other compatible non-traditional activities allowed on Resource Production Lands to enhance their economic viability.

The updated Zoning Code (17.42.030 Commercial Uses, page 294) suggests some agritourism options, “Agricultural Entertainment and Recreation. Commercial activities associated with agricultural operations such as self-pick fruit and vegetables, trails, picnic facilities, corn/hay mazes, pony rides, petting zoo, mini train rides, wagon rides, tours, and similar activities.” However, there does not appear to be an expansion of “the types of agricultural tourism and other non-traditional activities allowed on Resource Production Lands.”

Recommendation: The County could recognize the value of open space ecosystem services and suggest carbon farming as a highly compatible non-traditional activity to enhance economic viability.

As did the previous Zoning Code, the updated Code does allow special events on Resource Production Lands, “A1 and AP Zones. Special events are allowed as a secondary use to an on-site farm as defined in Section 52262 of the Food and Agricultural Code provided no more than three percent of the total land or 10 acres, whichever is less, is used subject to the
following permit requirements:
a. Up to 12 special events may be held in a calendar year as a permitted use.
b. Thirteen to 24 special events, held during a calendar year requires an Administrative Use Permit.
c. Over 24 special events, held during a calendar year requires a Conditional Use Permit.”
Special events in the A1 and AP zones often have inherent challenges related to the location, terrain, and the unfamiliarity of attendees with local conditions. There can be long
waits for emergency response, risk of wildfire, traffic congestion, and conflicts with adjoining agricultural uses.

Recommenation: Please consider the Zoning Code amendment the CPC proposed in its memo of June 17, 2024. (Attachment B) If that is unacceptable, please consider the recommendation on page 11 below.

Require a 300 foot to 500-foot buffer (on lands within the development area) from the boundary of an adjacent agricultural use. If such a buffer is deemed infeasible by the County, require a combination of a lesser buffer, tall fencing, and tree plantings along the boundary (on lands within the development area) to limit adverse effects related to noise, dust, trespass, and pesticide/herbicide overspray. Such a proposal must be submitted to the Agriculture Advisory Committee and the County Agricultural Commissioner for comment.

The County requires a 400-foot buffer as stated in the updated Zoning Code: 17.16.080 Setbacks, C. Buffer Size (page 90), “The size of the buffer separation shall be a minimum of 400 feet. This buffer requirement may be adjusted with Administrative Use Permit approval where the Planning Director determines, in consultation with the Agricultural Commissioner that:
a. Specific site characteristics exist such as topography, prevailing winds, vegetation, and other site features [which] provide adequate buffering such that the required setback is not
necessary to promote and protect agriculture and protect public health and safety; or
b. Site constraints such as size and configuration are such that the required buffer is infeasible, and the reduced setback provides the maximum feasible buffer from the agricultural use.”

Please note, “In any case where there is a conflict between this Zoning Code and the General Plan, the General Plan shall control (Zoning Code: 17.01.040 Relationship to the
General Plan, page 2).” The General Plan only allows for a “lesser buffer” if a buffer of 400 feet is determined by the County to be “infeasible.” It does not allow the County to make a
determination that “the required setback [i.e., buffer] is not necessary” as asserted in the Zoning Code. The General Plan only recognizes “a combination of a lesser buffer, tall fencing, and tree planting” if a buffer of 400 feet is infeasible, and a lesser buffer would only occur in consultation with not only the Agriculture Commissioner but also the Agricultural Advisory Committee.

If a buffer of 400 feet is infeasible to protect agricultural land from conflicts with
discretionary development, then, perhaps, the development site is what is infeasible. After all, “The right to farm shall take precedence over all other adjoining and nearby land uses (Zoning Code: 17.16.120 Right to Farm, page 95).”

Implementation: RP-1B Findings for Approval
Before granting approval of a discretionary development application involving or adjoining land designated Resource Production a determination shall be made by the approving authority that the proposed use:
A. Will not intensify significantly existing conflicts or add new conflicts between uses on Resource Production lands and adjoining residential or incompatible uses; and

B. Will not create an island effect wherein Resource Production lands are located between the proposed project site and incompatible land uses; and
C. Will not significantly reduce or destroy the buffering effect of existing large parcel sizes adjoining Resource Production lands; and
D. Will not hinder timber production, harvesting practices, mineral production, mining practices, agricultural production and practices, access to water and public roads or otherwise conflict with the continuation of resource production operations or activities.

RP-1B (C) also seems to conflict with the updated Zoning Code when it comes to buffers (Zoning Code: 17.16.080 Setbacks, C. Buffer Size, page 90). The Zoning Code says buffer
requirements “may be adjusted with Administrative Use Permit approval where the Planning Director determines, in consultation with the Agricultural Commissioner” that “the required setback is not necessary” or “the required buffer is infeasible.” RP-1B (C) clearly states that a
discretionary development project will not be approved if it will “significantly reduce or destroy the buffering effect of existing large parcel sizes adjoining Resource Production lands,” and, as noted, the General Plan takes precedence.

Recommendation: Please clarify in the Zoning Code that a project will not be approved if it will “significantly reduce or destroy the buffering effect of existing large parcel sizes adjoining Resource
Production lands.”

Policy RP 2.7 Solar energy installations shall be compatible with agricultural activities provided that utility-scale facilities are not located on prime agricultural land and do not reduce the production of primary agricultural product(s). (Implemented by RP-2A)
Implementation RP-2A: Solar-Use Easements Installations on Agricultural Land
Amend the County Code to incorporate required findings and procedures for implementing state legislation and Department of Conservation requirements relative to solar-use easements and installations affecting Williamson Act Contracts.

For on-site consumption of energy, the updated Zoning Code says, “Solar energy systems are allowed in all zones” as long as they are in compliance with County “standards and requirements (17.25.230 B., page 230),” and “Commercial and/or wind and solar energy commercial energy facilities, including wind arrays and solar farms, used primarily for off-site energy consumption are considered public works and utilities.” Public works and utilities are permitted on Resource Production Lands with a conditional use permit (CUP). However, there doesn’t appear to be an amendment of the Code addressing “solar-use easements and installations affecting Williamson Act contracts.”

The Department of Conservation (DOC) website tells us, in part, “Landowners and local governments interested in solar-use easements should carefully review the applicable statutes at sections 51191-51191.8, and 51255.1 of the Government Code. Additionally, the DOC adopted detailed regulations in 2014 that further explain criteria and requirements, including administrative fees, for solar-use easements. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 3100-3117.) These statutes and regulations detail the information needed to support the DOC’s approval of a rescission in favor of a solar-use easement, which must be ‘based on substantial evidence.’ (Gov. Code, § 51191.) If all requirements can be met, the landowner is required to pay a fee equal to 6.25 percent of the valuation (unrestricted fair market value) of the property, or 12.5 percent for a farmland security zone contract in addition to any administrative fees to conduct the process.

“The DOC expects local governments to take the lead and work directly with landowners interested in solar-use easements, and for local government to make the initial, optional determination whether to proceed with a rescission in favor of a solar-use easement. The DOC will not opine on eligibility without a formal request from the local government acknowledging an intent to pursue a solar-use easement and without a complete application supported with the evidence and analysis required under the solar-use easement regulations (Solar Use Easements).”

Recommendation: Please add more detail regarding the procedures to be followed for those interested in solar-use easements in the Zoning Code, and/or on the Planning Department’s website, and/or in a Planning Department handout.

Implementation RP-4F: Water Impacts from Mining Operations
Adopt standards for addressing water supply in conjunction with evaluating and permitting mining operations. Standards and guidelines should address:
• Conserving on-site water during mining operations
• Documenting pre-mining surface and subsurface water supply levels
• Addressing potential impacts associated with removing underground water by pumping

Standards have yet to be adopted.

Recommendation: Please include such standards in the Zoning Code.

Policy COS 5.1 Encourage the conservation of natural and historic landscapes and important landmarks as scenic resources important to the County’s rural character, scenic beauty and the tourism component of the economy. (Implemented by COS-6A and COS-6B)

Implementation COS-6A: Flexible Development Standards
Review and amend, as applicable, the County Code to incorporate flexible development standards that encourage the retention of scenic resources, landmarks and the natural landscape.

Typically, flexible development standards allow for deviation from the minimum development standards to provide a community benefit such as the retention of scenic resources or open space. There is nothing in the updated Zoning Code that specifically addresses what is meant by “flexible development standards” in a rural setting or otherwise. The term is not mentioned.

Recommendation: Please correct this omission.

Here are some examples of tools that rural communities can utilize to create flexible residential development standards (adapted from the St. Paul, Minnesota Local Planning Handbook):
1. Adopt Cluster Ordinances to preserve open space and allow future urbanization.
2. Permit density bonuses for meeting certain specified ordinance requirements.
3. Use of Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations to manage development and preserve open space.
4. Require Build-Out Plans (Ghost Platting) to demonstrate future subdivision for the delivery of urban services.
5. Employ platting techniques along with deed restrictions, easements, and covenants to protect open space for future development. (Yes, when used properly, “The Rural
Cluster Development shows a more proactive approach to the preservation of land for future urban service balanced with the preservation of natural resources.”)
6. Use of overlay districts in specified areas to ensure mandatory clustering; for example, on land adjacent to urban service areas.

Regarding specific plans, under section 17.15.030 (B) the Code merely states, “Future specific plans are expected to include open space, buffers and other measures to preserve and protect biological and cultural resources, enhance public access to recreational assets and include a diverse range of housing types including multi-family housing where appropriate, consistent with the General Plan.” There is nothing beyond an expectation.

Recommendation: Please clarify the specific plan requirements for open space in the zoning code.

Implementation LU-2F: Future Specific Plans
Specific plans shall be evaluated for their contribution to their adjacent communities, economic sustainability, tourism development, walkability, reduction in need for vehicle trips, and other components that enhance the existing community as well as the proposed development.

As previously stated under Open Space for Natural Resources, though intended to
implement Policy LU-1.7, LU-2F makes no mention of open space directly and how specific plans are “expected” to include open space in order to preserve and protect biological resources and enhance public access to recreation. There is no action other than an “evaluation.” Will specific plans be evaluated with the intent of making changes in the plan if necessary to “enhance the existing community as well as the proposed development?”

Recommendation: Please clarify the specific plan requirements for open space in the zoning code.

Implementation LU-5B: New and Emerging Markets
In consultation with affected industry groups and organizations, review the zoning code to assess the adequacy of the code in recognizing and facilitating the provision of new, emerging and re-emerging markets in Calaveras.

No timeline and no mechanism for the creation of a working group or committee comprised of “affected industry groups and organizations” was created to identify and do the work. There is no evidence such a group worked on the update of the Zoning Code or has reviewed the Zoning Code.

Recommendation: Please convene the group and secure the recommended code changes. The discussion should include carbon sequestration markets and conservation easements.

Policy LU-4.4 Encourage clustering of residential development where appropriate, based on availability of infrastructure and community character, to increase open space and housing affordability, and reduce infrastructure costs. (Implemented by LU-2A and LU-2E)

Implementation LU-2A: Title 17 of the Calaveras County Code:
Update the Zoning Ordinance, Title 17 for consistency with the General Plan.

The updated Zoning Code was adopted July 16, 2024 and became effective August 15, 2024. However, there is no mention of clustered residential development other than the following classification (page 289), “Co-housing. Developments containing clusters of small homes or multi-unit dwelling units generally near services and including at least one common

building where residents can meet, eat, gather.” Co-housing and clustered development are not the same, but both require local ordinances and regulations to facilitate the building of these
types of subdivisions. These were not included in the updated Zoning Code.

The primary objective of cluster development is to allow residential or even commercial development while still protecting the area’s environmental features, allowing for more open space, and protecting farmland and the character of rural communities, while “Cohousing is a community intentionally designed with ample common spaces surrounded by private homes. Collaborative spaces typically include a common house with a large kitchen and dining room, laundry, and recreational areas and outdoor walkways, open space, gardens, and parking. (Cohousing Assn of the US: Cohousing).” Co-housing is much more communal in nature than clustered housing in which residents may retain their independence.

Implementation LU-2E: Innovative Techniques:
Adopt standards for the application of clustered development or other innovative techniques that may provide development flexibility and minimize development impacts on resource production or other sensitive lands.

Although the zoning code update is cited (LU-2A) as implementing Policy LU-4.4, there was no clustered development zone or ordinance created. Butte County, for example, established “provisions for clustered development in order to facilitate the retention of natural resources, open space (a minimum of forty (40) percent of the total project site must be
dedicated as permanent open space to qualify as a Clustered Development), and wildlife habitat; avoid hazardous areas; and further implement the goals and policies of the General Plan.” All we have is a promise in the General Plan to adopt undefined clustering and other unnamed “innovative techniques” at no particular time and in no particular way.

Cluster development “has been criticized as a tool that promotes sprawl, just a different form of sprawl than conventional development. Such criticism is valid, and it is important to note that this tool best helps to protect open space when used in conjunction with other tools, such as Urban Growth Boundaries (https://planningtank.com/urbanisation/cluster-
development).”

As pointed out in Rural Cluster Zoning: Survey and Guidelines by Gary Pivo, Robert Small, and Charles R. Wolfe, many planners “believe that rural cluster housing could conflict with, rather than protect, agricultural uses.” Clustered development is best used as a replacement for traditional subdivisions on land that is already slated for residential or commercial development. Clustered development should not be used to justify residential developments on resource production land away from community centers.

Recommendation: Please include an effective clustering provision in the Zoning Code that maximizes its intended benefits and avoids its unintended harms.

Policy LU 5.3 Recognize the county’s unique recreational, scenic, cultural, historic and agricultural resources as strong economic generators and encourage their retention and expansion. (Implemented by LU-5D)
Implementation LU-5D: Special Events: Review the Zoning Ordinance to evaluate the feasibility of streamlining permitting for special events.

The updated Zoning Code Table 17.04.020 (page22) indicates the permit requirements for special events in Resource Zones, and under Special Events 17.25.190, B. 1. (page 208-209), “A1 and AP Zones. Special events are allowed as a secondary use to an on-site farm as defined in Section 52262 of the Food and Agricultural Code provided no more than three percent of the total land or 10 acres, whichever is less, is used subject to the following permit requirements:
a. Up to 12 special events may be held in a calendar year as a permitted use.
b. Thirteen to 24 special events, held during a calendar year requires an Administrative Use Permit.
c. Over 24 special events, held during a calendar year requires a Conditional Use Permit.” Special Events 17.25.190, B. 2. Other Zones, states, “In all zones other than A1 and AP,
special events are allowed as secondary uses to an established primary use, pursuant to the allowances, requirements, and permit requirements of this Section.”

Special events in the A1 and AP zones often have inherent challenges related to the location, terrain, and the unfamiliarity of attendees with local conditions. For example, in the A1 and AP zones special public events are allowed 12 times per year by-right as long as all the people and vehicles fit on 10 acres or 3% of the land, whichever is less (for example, 4.8 acres
for a 160-acre parcel and 9.6 acres for a 320-acre parcel). That could be hundreds of people every Saturday for 12 weeks straight in the summer, or it could be six Saturdays in May and June and another six Saturdays in September and October. For perspective, Woodstock averaged 600 people per acre.

Special events often include alcohol consumption and open flames. Events on isolated ranches present obvious challenges in terms of wildfire risk, long waits for emergency medical attention, traffic congestion, and conflicts with resource production operations on adjacent land.

On AP land protected by a Williamson Act contract, “’Compatible use’ is any use determined by the county or city administering the preserve pursuant to Section 51231, 51238, or 51238.1 or by this act to be compatible with the agricultural, recreational, or open-space use of land within the preserve and subject to contract. ‘Compatible use’ includes agricultural use, recreational use or open-space use unless the board or council finds after notice and hearing that the use is not compatible with the agricultural, recreational or open-space use to which the land is restricted by contract pursuant to this chapter.”

The Board of Supervisors clearly has the authority to regulate by-right uses on AP land as well as all other land in the county. The challenges of 12 annual special events by right on any and all A1 and AP parcels is readily apparent, and, thus, the supervisors would shoulder the responsibility for any adverse outcomes. Why take the risk?

Recommendation: Please require all special events on Resource Production land to require a permit so that each case may be evaluated for safety and appropriateness, e.g., encroachment of activities incompatible with agricultural operations of neighboring ranches and farms or the risk of wildfire.

Implementation COS-1A: Open Space Zoning Ordinance
Review the County Code and revise as necessary, or adopt a new open space zoning ordinance pursuant to Government Code §65910 et seq., as a means to identify lands which have been dedicated to open space purposes for managing unique, important, or significant natural and cultural resources (Implements: Policies COS 2.2, COS 3.1, COS 3.2, COS 5.1, LU 1.1, LU 1.4, RP 1.1,
RP 1.3 and RP 1.5)

Typically, this assessment starts with goals and policies and then goes through the list of implementation measures attached to each policy. However, Implementation Measure COS-1A: Open Space Zoning Ordinance required working backward from the implementation measure to find the policies which the measure was intended to implement, because COS-1A is not listed as an implementation measure under any policy. The policies COS-1A was intended to implement appear parenthetically in the implementation measure itself and are listed below after the commentary.

Open space zoning would, by definition, be integral to an Open-Space Plan. However, the Open Space (OS) Zone that was created as part of the 2024 Zoning Code update doesn’t seem particularly consistent with the implementation of open space policies with which it is linked. It is almost as if the OS Zone envisioned by the 2019 General Plan update did not get done. In other words, the OS Zone does not actually implement the General Plan.

Here is what was created to satisfy Government Code §65910 et seq. (requiring an open space zone) in the updated Zoning Code under Public and Semi-Public Zones, 17.08.010 (page 49), “The OS Zone is intended for lands dedicated to open space purposes for managing unique, important, or significant natural and cultural resources, including undeveloped park lands, visually significant open lands, water areas, and wildlife habitat. These areas are typically set aside as permanent open space preserves and may include trails, trail heads, and other facilities for low-impact recreational or agricultural uses.” What about the open space that isn’t in a public or semi-public zone? (It should be noted that open space preserves and conservation easements are not the same thing, the prior being on public or semi-public land and the latter being on private land.)

The OS Zone that was created by the updated Zoning Code is basically a rewording of Resource Management Land Use as described in the Land Use Element (page LU-5), “This designation identifies public and quasi-public lands that are managed for timber, watershed, water quality protection and groundwater recharge. This designation applies to public lands owned by the State or Federal government (e.g., State Parks, USFS, BLM), local public agencies and special districts (e.g. EBMUD), and public utilities (e.g. PG&E). Typical uses include low intensity agriculture (e.g., grazing), forestry, open space conservation, natural resource management, recreation, public and quasi-public uses.”

Unfortunately, the updated Zoning Code did not follow through on the General Plan’s intention for Resource Production Land to “have the capability of being utilized for several resource production uses and/or compatible activities. The County’s zoning code would allow for these multiple uses. This designation also includes, but is not limited to, lands with
conservation easements and lands designated as critical habitat areas, agricultural preserves, and timber production… (page LU-6)” Conservation easements are not even mentioned in the updated Zoning Code.

However, under 17.01.050 Applicability, E. Private Agreements (page 3), the County makes it clear that conservation easements are none of its concern, “This Zoning Code shall not interfere with or annul any recorded easement, covenant, or other agreement now in effect, provided that where this Zoning Code imposes greater restriction than imposed by an easement, covenant, or agreement, this Zoning Code shall control. Calaveras County shall not be responsible for monitoring or enforcing private agreements.”

Indeed, the County is not responsible for enforcing conservation easements, but it is definitely responsible for monitoring and considering them in order to be better able to protect California’s environmental and cultural resources through more informed land use planning. How does one plan for the future of a county with tens of thousands of acres of land which can never be developed if one does not monitor them? And you can’t monitor them if you don’t know where they are.

It seems pertinent to point out Government Code 27255: (a), “The county recorder in each county shall develop and maintain, within the existing indexing system, a comprehensive index of conservation easements and Notice of Conservation Easement on land within that county. The conservation easement index developed and maintained pursuant to this subdivision shall include all conservation easements recorded on and after January 1, 2002.”

Why doesn’t the OS Zone provide for circumstances under which lands restricted in perpetuity by a conservation easement would be zoned OS? The General Plan Guidelines tell us that the Open-Space Plan inventory must identify open space for natural resources, including conservation easements (Chapter 4, Required Elements, page 125). It seems an open space inventory would have really facilitated the discussion surrounding open space zoning, which the CPC pointed out during the update.

At a January 2021 Board of Supervisors meeting on General Plan priorities, former Planning Director Peter Maurer said to the Board that “before creating the [open space] zone we need to look at an overall plan, identify what we have out there. Are there other areas that need to be looked at? And, so, you might consider adding open space planning to the programs that the department should be working on.” However, the supervisors declined to do so.

A conservation easement overlay on the land use map, for example, would also identify the potential for connectivity between existing permanently protected lands including BLM and Forest Service land and coincide with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Sierra Nevada Foothills Wildlife Connectivity Modeling Project, which is “using species-specific data to model connections between blocks of protected lands.” Such an easement overlay would also help to prioritize land for conservation (another state mandate). In addition, land that provides connection between existing protected acreage is often the best choice for mitigation purposes. (This would have also come in handy to help meet the rewilding component of the Open-Space Update that is due January 1, 2026.)

What the CPC frequently heard from planning staff was that the County has no control over conservation easements, and that they don’t have the staff to keep track of them. The CPC repeatedly pointed out in comment letters and other pleadings that all conservation easements are a matter of public record, and the California Conservation Easement Database provides easement GIS data for the entire state, including Calaveras County. Given that there are well over 25,000 acres of permanently protected land already in Calaveras, one would think their location would be relevant to the County’s land use and development plans.

Given the increasing popularity of conservation easements and the state’s encouragement of their creation through multiple agencies and programs such as the Department of Conservation, Fish and Wildlife, and Pathways to 30 X 30, for example, and particularly the progression of the Natural and Working Lands Climate Change Implementation Plan, Calaveras County should take a greater interest in the location and type of local conservation easements.

Even setting aside the public interest in the state’s open space initiatives, the creation of conservation easements can mean the de-facto rezoning of land, which should be of great
interest to the County. Such will be the case when the agricultural conservation easement currently being pursued by the Mother Lode Land Trust is granted on 640 acres of industrial M2 zoned land north of Valley Springs which, incidentally, was highlighted in the General Plan, “Existing and potential industrial centers are southwest of San Andreas at the old cement plant site, at Toyon east of Valley Springs and off Paloma Road north of Valley Springs (Page-LU3).”

In a 2023 staff presentation to the Planning Commission, the OS zone was “proposed to take the place of the current REC X-EP zone to identify the dedication of common area within a subdivision. All parcels currently zoned REC-X-EP will be re-zoned OS,” but that didn’t happen. It seems brevity was of paramount concern to local officials when it came to the OS Zone.
“Common area parcels that are a part of a planned unit development or subdivision map” were relegated to the Parcel Size Limitation (X) Overlay Zone (17.12.020 B., page 60).

Other jurisdictions, for example, Amador and El Dorado Counties, provide a bit more specificity and a broader range of applications when it comes to open space. The Amador County Open Space District provides that the “open space classification is intended to be applied to lands which are to be conserved in a natural state for the foreseeable future. The district may be used alone or combined with other zone districts to preclude further use or subdivision of the area classified as O-S. Rezones from O-S to other classifications may only be granted upon a finding that the original reason for the property being zoned O-S is no longer in effect. The O-S district may be found to be consistent with all general plan designations contained in the Amador County general plan. Lands classified as O-S may be considered for inclusion in a Land Conservation Act contract in accordance with Section 51240 of the Government Code provided the open space meets the definition in Section 51210 (o).”Amador’s district guidelines go on to address permitted uses and are even followed by a “Scenic highway corridor overlay district.”

In El Dorado County, “The OS Zone is applied to set aside for primarily open space purposes including, but not limited to, the protection of rare and endangered plant or animal habitat; wildlife habitat, such as critical winter deer range and migration corridors; sensitive riparian areas; oak woodlands; visual resources as a part of a development plan or along a designated scenic corridor; and watersheds and groundwater recharge areas. Intensive agriculture is not compatible, although low intensity agriculture such as seasonal grazing may be compatible. Recreational uses that have little impact and do not require substantial permanent structures or facilities are also compatible.

“The OS Zone can also designate land set aside to protect agricultural lands covered by an open space easement or as a part of a development plan in an Agricultural District, as identified on the General Plan land use maps, or on other identified agricultural lands. Where the OS Zone is applied as part of a development plan, the uses allowed under the development plan permit are allowed, including a full range of recreational facilities.” El Dorado also includes an OS Zone Use Matrix and Development Standards.

These two counties may not have gotten open space zoning perfect, but they certainly gave it a lot more attention and specificity than Calaveras. In a county like Calaveras that is primarily made up of open space, the OS Zone should have done more than identify lands that are already “dedicated to open space purposes,” and it should not have been limited to public or semi-public land. By the General Plan’s own admission, the Open Space Zone was intended to promote the protection of a variety of open space (see Policy COS 5.1 and Policy RP 1.5).

The General Plan tells us that the Open Space (OS) Zone, which is limited to public and semi-public lands, would help implement the following eight policies:

Policy COS 2.2 Protect the County’s surface and ground water resources and watersheds from uses that could adversely impact water quality. (IM COS-3A and COS-3B)

How will the identification of public and semi-public lands which have been dedicated to open space purposes provide any additional protection for ground water resources and
watersheds? In other words, dedicated means the land is to be used for open space purposes to the exclusion of all else. The land is already protected, so the water is already protected. The
bigger question is, how does the County intend to designate additional lands that can meet the criteria for the OS Zone in order to protect surface and groundwater.

Policy COS 3.1 To protect sensitive biological resources, new development shall use site planning techniques, including buffers and setbacks, and encourage other techniques such as clustering of development. (COS-4B)

If the updated Zoning Code had applied the OS Zone to common open space in a subdivision, this might make sense. “Common area parcels that are a part of a planned unit development or subdivision map” were relegated to the Parcel Size Limitation (X) Overlay Zone (17.12.020 B., page 60). In regard to clustering, as previously noted, neither the General Plan nor the Zoning Code provides any guidance relative to clustered development. And again, the
OS Zone is limited to public and semi-public land. Resource Management and passive recreation are allowed by right in the OS Zone. Public Safety facilities are allowed with a conditional use
permit, and accessory uses are allowed with an Administrative Use Permit. It would appear the new development envisioned in COS 3.1 is not allowed in the OS Zone, so it cannot provide
protection for biological resources from such development.

Policy COS 3.2 Avoid impacts to habitats that support special status species to the extent practicable. Where impacts cannot be avoided, mitigate impacts in accordance with resource agency (CDFW and/or USFWS) protocols/policies for the species. (IM COS-3B, COS-4B, COS-4C, COS-4F, COS-4H, COS-4I, COS-4K, COS-4L, COS-4N and COS-4O)

If the OS Zone would be of any practical application here, it would need to include land that is vulnerable to conversion to other than an open space purpose. When the OS Zone is only applied to public and semi-public open space land, conversion seems unlikely.

Policy COS 5.1 Encourage the conservation of natural and historic landscapes and important landmarks as scenic resources important to the County’s rural character, scenic beauty and the tourism component of the economy. (IM COS-6A and COS-6B)

Again, how will the identification of public and semi-public lands which have already been dedicated to open space purposes encourage additional conservation? Inspiration,
perhaps?

Policy LU 1.1 Maintain an adequate supply of appropriately designated land of varying parcel sizes and locations to accommodate growth within each land use designation. (IM LU-5G)

It is unclear how the adopted OS Zone will help maintain land to accommodate growth within each land use designation when it is only applied to public and semi-public land.

Policy LU 1.4 In addition to the consistent zoning districts listed in Table LU-2, in areas designated for future development, existing less intensive residential and agricultural zoning districts shall be deemed compatible with the General Plan’s land use designations as an interim zone until such time as infrastructure and services are available to support intended development. (IM LU-2A)

This is an instance where clustered development could be helpful in an interim zone, but there is no clustered development zone and no clustered development guidelines. But, again, the OS Zone is not applied to ‘areas designated for future development.”

Policy RP 1.3 Buffer Resource Production Lands through setbacks or other measures to prevent non-compatible uses from impacting resource production uses. (IM RP-1A, RP-1B. RP-1D and RP-1E)

Public and semi-public land that is zoned OS could indeed be used as a buffer, but its zoning has little relevance since it is unlikely to be under the County’s control.

Policy RP 1.5 Use a wide variety of conservation tools to encourage the long-term productivity of Resource Production Lands. (IM RP-1F and RP-2C)

If Resource Production land with a conservation easement on it could be zoned OS, this might make some sense.

Recommendation: Please develop an open space zone that implements the eight policies the General Plan calls for the zone to implement. Please apply that zone on the Zoning Map.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Summary table of zoning code changes
B. 2024 CPC memo on open space special events
C. Model Zoning Ordinance for Rural Cluster Development