[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6141357,"mediaKeyId","5573097-29cfc19fe3753c01a933c3d0eca65cbf","parentId",5573097,"title","Commission hears concerns about slow permit processing, CEQA timing and incentives for clustered housing","audioSeconds",469,"startMs",3021000,"endMs",3490000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5573097-29cfc19fe3753c01a933c3d0eca65cbf&start=3021&end=3490","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5573097-29cfc19fe3753c01a933c3d0eca65cbf/thumbnail_3021000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6141357/Mariposa-County/California/Commission-hears-concerns-about-slow-permit-processing-CEQA-timing-and-incentives-for-clustered-housing","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6141357-8ae048522a6aca1b255f5cb1d513391c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770487426&Signature=Lk4zSHUJmoifpxzOghm1cUkQ0npnthJq8uEVIyKdW4gX92j6i9jodaJXFIxlkZC13yp1jSBbN~DGG0Kv6mQph53IuUpZPfoXEkl9VNQ884RyOPd256zBak7jvQbfDQJ9qkEZYEp5P~Wa6dMCb6s07v9ePkBYr2bAlV3fJCHvBEzK3V74ykGOA01BKjgyL43hBCgsU0LMLF9OJ3~2GUcHXTkA2SAtNQBg1OUEi2zQx5TiczFLNcGWO3~5OuQDJG9et5piCFQ3noAFKMJE71Wp5Mn9XHY3sB5FBc8N87UJZsPE5aqxa7rrEKtDea78P76s4UvknEnk73DKAST~ZDwr9A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Mariposa County, CA","date","2025-08-08T00:00:00Z","article","Commissioners spent part of the Aug. 8 meeting on county permit processing procedures, routing of building and planning applications, and environmental (CEQA) sequencing that can delay projects. Planning Director Steven described the county’s workflow—initial 30‑day completeness review, routing to technical reviewers (fire, public works, environmental), and the role of pre‑application steps to identify required studies and timelines.

Commissioners and members of the public raised frustration that projects zoned for a use nevertheless can take years to reach building permits because discretionary entitlements, CEQA studies, or agency comments (for example, fire and biological surveys) are required. Steven noted some remedies: improved pre‑application checklists, fee‑for‑service options for expedited consultant reviews, consistency with the new Tyler permit tracking system and clearer thresholds that could allow some housing types to proceed ministerially if the county completes programmatic environmental review.

Discussion also addressed planned development permits (PUDs) as a tool to incentivize clustered housing with fire‑safe infrastructure. Commissioners suggested tying incentives to specific amenities (for example, fire‑safe infrastructure, conservation easements or public benefits) and asked staff to clarify whether a PUD can change density without a general plan amendment; staff said certain density bonus provisions (California Government Code §65915 and state density bonus law) and plan‑level CEQA analysis can be used in some circumstances.

No procedural change was adopted at the meeting. Commissioners asked staff to return with clearer timelines consistent with state streamlining requirements, to cross‑check permit routing with the Tyler tracking system, and to identify where programmatic CEQA or thresholds could reduce project‑level delays.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning Commission Meeting - August 08, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Commissioners and staff discussed how permit processing, routing to agencies and CEQA compliance can delay projects and explored options to speed approvals, including programmatic review, thresholds and incentives tied to planned development permits (PUDs).","taxTitle","Mariposa County, California","taxId",26732,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6141363,"Commission debates nonconforming‑use rules, lot‑line adjustments and workforce‑housing language",1002,1268000,2270000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5573097-29cfc19fe3753c01a933c3d0eca65cbf&start=1268&end=2270","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5573097-29cfc19fe3753c01a933c3d0eca65cbf/thumbnail_1268000.jpg","/articles/6141363/Mariposa-County/California/Commission-debates-nonconforminguse-rules-lotline-adjustments-and-workforcehousing-language","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6141363-613f25781da4c09db9e96966d56a5f29/orig.mp4?Expires=1770487426&Signature=CVDKz~VpO5uxH1UK-1uPMl~thSu7NankM8c5-0rPvjIM~PuxdvpUUNUE3D9WfoFtpTfGqghfhgqWTr3loY2b1sJlkSXuBrMqad5b3Qlq~5YVAgw33lre51CahjURnkm8MOM-UMYPtq8SzxbD3h2kJ9OUmDJ1-TuDi-eiFx6p4wr~wq6eDZVGuYE4-Ux02nCtzhuw8pXKUz2OyuIcEaltC6quEaF2XGWGwRmBKUIE~uLsnZ-YFehD34X7X5fpe~aL7VDDU5k0G2EXeWGEW5NhttjOqwsWarnMosLMAg740~gBSBYEn5kuMgqsgqdZJY7-o1s6jsAZJSkUe65-1u7JsQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Mariposa County Planning Commission on Aug. 8 spent extensive time reviewing proposed code language on nonconforming structures and parcels, lot‑line adjustments, and options for workforce and alternative housing types.

Planning Director Steven and members discussed several recurring concerns: (1) whether nonconforming structures should be allowed a fixed percentage expansion (the draft carries forward a 50 percent rule from current code and staff noted historic 10 percent administrative limits had caused similar conflicts), (2) whether the current 36‑month discontinuance window for legal nonconforming rights should be lengthened (multiple commissioners proposed 5 years), and (3) whether lot‑line adjustments should be permitted when one or more parcels are nonconforming. Staff said the revision should allow director discretion to approve adjustments where findings demonstrate the change improves parcel utility (septic, access, or other site constraints) while preserving county zoning intent.

Commissioners and public commenter Ken Melton raised specific examples of Midpines and Muir Lodge where zoning changes over time left many small, older parcels technically nonconforming and where practical lot‑line adjustments would help property owners create buildable parcels without undermining county density policies. Commissioners asked staff to clarify and tighten the language so that parcel modifications require findings and to remove duplicative or conflicting phrases the draft currently includes.

On housing types, staff reported receipt of public comments recommending local adoption of Title 25 to allow alternative, smaller or factory‑built housing forms (for example, park trailers and yurts). Steven said the state code cycle includes a draft Title 25 recommendation and staff expects a draft to be available in October; commissioners requested staff present that draft to the commission when it becomes available. Staff also noted the county can include workforce‑housing definitions and PUD incentives in the development code to encourage cluster development, while recognizing that allowing increased density without programmatic environmental review could trigger additional CEQA work.

No final code amendments were adopted Aug. 8; commissioners provided direction to staff to (a) revisit the 36‑month/5‑year discontinuance language and align it countywide, (b) reword nonconforming‑parcel and lot‑line adjustment sections to permit adjustments where findings show public benefit or technical necessity, and (c) bring Title 25 / alternative housing draft to the commission for informational presentation when the state draft is available.","Mariposa County planning staff and commissioners spent the Aug. 8 meeting reviewing proposed nonconforming‑use provisions, lot‑line adjustment rules for substandard parcels, and whether to incorporate workforce housing and alternative housing types (including Title 25) into the county development code.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6141368,"Planning Commission unanimously approves amendment allowing 2,000‑sq‑ft residential expansion at 5001 County Park Road",536,714000,1250000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5573097-29cfc19fe3753c01a933c3d0eca65cbf&start=714&end=1250","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5573097-29cfc19fe3753c01a933c3d0eca65cbf/thumbnail_714000.jpg","/articles/6141368/Mariposa-County/California/Planning-Commission-unanimously-approves-amendment-allowing-2000sqft-residential-expansion-at-5001-County-Park-Road","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6141368-28005cfb3cd9df6bfdac2a4f6352d425/orig.mp4?Expires=1770487426&Signature=R9hQDeFqSQT3E8n1zj6dcgd3nw5uGaHzOx6PZWGr~1S1eY2iapZeqLUHFqK0NbXXtK6vYGhMTM7NWrnNcUHLt8gAEhhvcMEOLKXUpJ3-bYJ1J360HOrIZD9x4DW4rz-ljje4tK8J8zbi8eVuz73RMBR1bpll0cY~NOfNFTxWfDJKYQA4Z3Y-yA~h0xB8R00SsZiD71vV5YOXlhMtsXMX6Osq8iuIGBDtekF-g2PKs7MSj6O48qMe1vdeWd00xkKP595FptygHdWSNwLQYLOYyDtVo9HEDUj6g0vtdGmy7PmJYEytiYj5yS4pb76Ss6uyt9FBA-1fZIvAYmaRbeX2hA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Mariposa County Planning Commission on Aug. 8 approved an amendment to the conditions of approval for a conditional use permit that will allow a 2,000‑square‑foot expansion of the residential use at 5001 County Park Road.

Planning Director Steven presented slides and a staff recommendation, saying the parcel is a 0.7‑acre lot in the Mariposa Town planning area and that the existing residence is about 2,650 square feet. Steven said staff proposed amending “condition number 1” to permit an additional 2,000 square feet for residential amenities and accessory structures such as a concrete patio, pergola, turf area, hot tub and retaining wall. He said public sewer and water were available and that the site’s slope where the improvements would be made is about 6 percent.

Steven told the commission the change had to come before the body because the proposed expansion exceeded the 10 percent administrative expansion allowance and therefore could not be handled at staff level. He said the project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA guidelines as a minor addition to an existing facility and that staff circulated requests for comment and received no agency objections. A notice of exemption was included in the staff findings.

Commissioners asked whether the code should be changed to permit larger accessory expansions without coming to the commission; Steven said there is latitude to adopt a different percentage in future CUP conditions and that the restrictive original condition created the present situation. After public comment (none at the hearing) a commissioner moved and another seconded the resolution to adopt amended conditions for application DIS2020‑5‑00022 (conditional use permit #231). The motion passed unanimously.

The commission’s action amends the condition of approval to allow the described residential additions on the parcel. No subsequent implementation deadline or additional permits were specified in the record; usual permitting steps such as building permits and any required grading or utility permits remain necessary before construction.

For the record, staff said the parcel is in the general commercial zone but used as single‑family residential under the prior CUP, and that the original CUP had restricted expansions by specific square footage. The adopted amendment removes that specific restriction and authorizes the described 2,000‑square‑foot allowance, subject to the findings in the resolution and normal building permit review.

The commission did not adopt any county‑level change to the administrative percent expansion allowance on the wider code; members discussed that as a possible future code update but made no formal change at the Aug. 8 hearing.","The Mariposa County Planning Commission on Aug. 8 voted to amend a condition on a conditional use permit to allow a 2,000‑square‑foot expansion of a residential use on a 0.7‑acre parcel at 5001 County Park Road; staff said the project is exempt from CEQA.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission hears concerns about slow permit processing, CEQA timing and incentives for clustered housing

Commission debates nonconforming‑use rules, lot‑line adjustments and workforce‑housing language

Planning Commission unanimously approves amendment allowing 2,000‑sq‑ft residential expansion at 5001 County Park Road