November 2, 2016 DRAFT with map - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

highly commended. And for staying the course even with such conflicts, even with attempted intimidation of veiled threats, you guys stand strong — you are to be commended. Thank you very much. 3. David Longacre, representing himself, providing testimony on agenda item 4.5 — Preserving Viewsheds: So, anyway, I've been attending most of these meetings. I have had specific interest in Paragraph 4.5 "Preserving Scenic Areas and Viewsheds,"specifically Community Action 6, which has spoken to the issue of encouraging alternatives to tall vegetative windbreaks that impact viewsheds and I know you guys have heard me and some oeople go on and on about this before but/ really do wanna thank you for the efforts y&1vemde to propose a revision to that, whereby you've changed the language to now suggest educating residents in residential areas. You've limited the stoke of this paragraph to educating people in residential areas on alternatives to tall vegetative windbreaks that impact viewsheds and I guess my question, or the point I wanted to bring up is as a farmer, I still don't see the point of including this paragraph anyway. So, for example, residential areas are, in my opinion, self-regulating. So, if you have a residentially zoned community, most of the people in there are probably going to not be having windbreaks to begin with 'cause it's not agricultural. So, I don't nderstand why this paragraph remains in there. In my opinion, although I understand it's a community action, nothing mandatory, it still has the appearance of codifying what I perceive as an anti - agriculture posture and it — it ends up being just one more of the many factors that throw ag under the bus. You know, we're already dealing with high costs, foreign competition, possibly climate change, disease and pests and we have this one little thing — this one little toe in the door suggesting that maybe we need to have a —a restraint o Tour use of windbreaks. If in fact, this paragraph is in here ause you're seeking a balance, there's already a balance. You already have land zone for ag and you have land zone for non-ag and those people can establish communities in nor-ag areas, put up CCRs and have their unobstructed views. This — this paragraph reminds me of someone moving to a manufacturing zone and then complaining about noise and the need for balance. So, that's — that was my concern here is that I still believe that this paragraph continues to inadvertently suggest an anti -agriculture posture. Thank you an would like to also echo the other gentlemen — you guys are amazing. I'm totally humbled by the work you've done here. Thank you. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Draft minutes from the October 22, 2016 meeting will be posted to the HCDP website and reviewed at the next Steering Committee meeting on December 2, 2016. BUSINESS: %a Consideration of Proposed Revisions to Draft CDP Land Use Policies: Ms. Gloor introduced the CDP team members and their roles. She outlined the remaining steps toward CDP adoption, reviewed the format for discussion during the meeting, and went over the role of the Steering Committee during the review of community input. She asked the Steering Committee to honor the process that has occurred thus far and to maintain the integrity of the process moving forward. Mr. Agres outlined the process the Steering Committee would follow while going through document #3. Page 13