Table Of ContentFrom:
From: Anita Madore <
From:
TABLE MOUNT.AJN JlANCH
18 March 2015
TO: Pe.er Maurw. Calaveras County Planning Director
391· Moontain .Ranch Road ·
San~ Californui 95249
Section II: Goals and Policies
Community Plan Land Use
D. Communitv character and quality of life.
As I attended all the meetings of the 1984 Community Plan Committee (revised in 1986 and 1988), I may
be the only one still around with institutional memory of that Plan (as well as retaining notes and
minutes). At that time provisions were made to include a formal Design Review Process. Two years
later, however, a new Board of Supervisors was elected and that section was removed (MDFCP1988: 13,
24). Since that time, numerous buildings and complexes have been developed in downtown Murphys with
no architectural guidelines. Luckily, however, due to the sensitivity of the developers (primarily the
Drammer family and their architects), the buildings have been consistent in mass, size, and design with
the existing structures. With another developer, however, this lack of guidelines might have resulted in a
horrendous mix of modern, ersatz Victorian, and cement-pebble architectural styles, colors, sizes, and
mass.
Section ill: Community Plan Implementation
1.2 Implementation Program and Priorities
Measure 6f Encourage architectural compatibility
Measure 6g Develop community architecture guide
Neither of these implementation measures has been implemented. As noted above, and below, this has
not been accomplished due to resistance from the Boards of Supervisors, both in 1986 and continuously
since that time. As one supervisor noted, "Wl1y should Murphys be different from Valley Springs?"
Because it IS different; folk are drawn to diverse communities because they are "different." The
Community Plan is the document through which local residents can preserve the fabric oft heir
community and should be decided by them., not by those from other constituencies.
3.0 Review and Amendment
3 .l Periodic Review. As stated, "actual development and implementation of the Plan should
periodically be reviewed for consistency with the desires and values of area residents. As written, this
Plan should be valid through the end of the century." It is now 15 years since the end of the century and
the Plan has not been reviewed since its adoption in 1988, 27 years ago. Since that time, there have been
several Town Hall Meetings held at the instigation of the Murphys Community Club, all of which
stressed the importance of local history, architectural resources, Native American sites, open space,
agriculture, tourism, etc., but no updates have been conducted.
3.2 Although community plans may be amended, and local residents and business people have
expressed an interest, they have been discouraged from attempting amendments due to the politics of
some members of the Board of Supervisors. With a new Board seated, we will yet again attempt to
amend the Plan so that it is more consistent with the realities of Murphys today than 27 years ago.
Developers were then the most important constituency in the County, but with the lack ofw ater for
additional developments, water rationing, and the end of the building boom in 2008, tourism is now more
important than ever, especially to Murphys. Tourists and visitors come to Murphys because of its
character, trees, small town atmosphere, and historic buildings; not because it has a CVS or Taco Bell.
APPENDIX 1
MURPHYS GENERAL PLAN COMMENT
MURPHYS NRHP LIST
1981/2014
1 Heulard, Mitchler House, 1860s Burned
2 Valente Bakery, 1891 – Vina Moda Winery
3 Shearer, Schaeffle House, 1855 - Alchemy complex
4 Kimball and Cutting, Hauslet, 1880s
5 Thompson House, 1859 Demolished, NDGW
6 Murphy Bros. Trading Post Monument
7 Rhodes, Manuel House – Bottomley house
8 Manual Lumber Co. Office – candle shop
9 Besso, Solari, Cadematori Store – UPUD office
10 Carlimbretti, Chase, Mercer House – Hovey Winery
11 Gardella House, 1904 – doctor’s office
12 Cadematori, Troski House, 1909 – Twisted Oak
13 Native Sons Hall, 1882 Burned
14 Vassaelo, Ruiseco, & Orengo, Segale Store, 1860 – Lavender Oak
15 Dr. Jones Apothecary, Stephens Store, 1860 – Gallery
16 Dunbar, Fisk Saloon, 1860 – Retail
17 Carley Building, 1900 – Tanner Winery
18 Stephens Store, Murphys Grocery, 1893 – SNAC
19 Manuel Saloon and Stone Cellar, 1893 – Ice Cream Parlor
20 Sperry and Perry, Mitchler Hotel, 1856 – Murphys Hotel
21 Union Water Company Office, 1860 – Retail
22 Rufe and Keilbar Meat Market, 1893 – Aria Bakery
23 P.L. Traver Stone Store, Murphys Museum, 1856 – Murphys Museum
24 Thompson Building, 1860 – Retail (ECV Wall of Comparative Ovations)
25 Heinsdorff, Thorpe Bakery – Gallery
26 I.O.O.F. Hall, 1902 – DEA
27 Thorpe, Dibble House, 1899 Burned
28 Taylor House, 1890 – Retail, addition
29 Garland, Heinsdorff House, 1899 - Residential
30 Stephens House, 1900 – Residential
31 Mitchler, Scantlebury House, ??? – Residential
32 Bonnet, Compere Store, 1859 – Residential
33 Deep Cut Site
34 Heinsdorff House, 1900 Burned
35 Snyder House and Barn, 1860 Demolished
36 Pump Hole Site
37 Million Dollar Hole
38 Heard House, 1885-1915 – Residential
39 Martell House, 1880s – Residential
40 Warehouse Explosion Site, 1893
41 Putney, Sperry House, 1857 – Residential
42 St. Patrick’s Catholic Church, 1861
43 Kaler House, 1860s Demolished
44 True House, 1870s – Residential
45 Schwoerer Barn, 1860
46 Matteson House, 1860s – Residential, remodeled
47 Kerins, Hatch, Baratini House, 1860s – Residential, remodeled
48 Wignal, Fisk House, 1857 – Rectory
49 Congregational Church, 1895 – aluminum siding
50 Floyd House, 1860s, - Residential
51 March House, 1883 – Residential
52 Barnes, Stephenson, Jenkins House, 1858
53 Hughes, Senter, Keilbar House, 1885
54 Masonic Temple, 1902
55 Jacqueth, Schwoerer House, Veterans, 1860s – Residential
56 Forrester House, 1900 – Law Office
57 Dunbar House, 1881 – Bed and Breakfast
58 Traver House, 1858
59 Dr. Jones House, 1858 – remodeled, Shafer Law Office
60 Charles Curtis House, 1907 – Residential
61 McQuade House, 1870 – Bed and Breakfast
62 James Inks House, 1860s – Residential
63 Murphys Jail and Park, 1915
From: ron massei <
March 13, 2015
Mr. Peter Mauer - Calaveras County Planning Director
Calaveras County Board of Supervisors
Cliff Edson - Chair
Christopher Wright - Vice Chair
Michael C. Oliveria
Debbie Ponte
Steve Kearney
Government Center
891 Mountain Ranch Rd.
Regarding: Calaveras County General Plan Update
Dear Mr. Maurer,
Here are my comments on the Calaveras County General Plan Draft update dated
December 18, 2014 on issues that will impact the Copperopolis / Lake Tulloch area. I
feel these proposed changes to the General Plan will have negative impacts on the
citizens of our community, on positive long range planning and sustained economic
growth. There are significant inconsistencies between the Copperopolis Community
Plan, the Board of Supervisors directives and what your department has presented. I
served on the original effort for a Copperopolis Community Plan, in 1992. The
Community Plan Committee was reorganized in 1998 and I again served as a
committee member and a final completed plan was submitted and accepted in 2009. I
also served on the Lake Tulloch Taskforce that coordinated efforts with the planning
committee and I was associated with the Copperopolis 20 / 20 Vision study that
contributed to the community planning process. During this lengthy and thoughtful
process the committee worked shoulder to shoulder with planning department directors
and staff who were at every meeting. However now your planning department has
completely ignored the community’s input. Please understand the County Planning
department needs to take direction from the Copperopolis Community Plan as it relates
to the Copperopolis planning area. Additionally, (per the 4 excerpts below), it is very
troubling that the stated goals for the General Plan update are specifically being ignored
in the Copperopolis planning area:
“In guiding growth and development, the General Plan recognizes that Calaveras County is made up of
small communities, each with its own unique character and goals”
“promoting the orderly and cost‐effective expansion of public infrastructure (thereby minimizing
extraordinary demands on public services)”
“the General Plan seeks to promote economic prosperity, respect private property rights, and maintain
Calaveras County’s unique blend of the historic resources and innovative economic pursuits for all to live
in, work among, and enjoy.”
“The Calaveras County General Plan is intended to guide growth and development in a way that
balances the needs of the individual with the needs of all of the County’s residents by encouraging
economic growth”
The Planning Department’s proposed General Plan update has specifically shrunk,
eliminated, reduced and over-simplified the recommendations of the Copperopolis
Community’s input. Options for future economic growth that your department has
unilaterally removed must instead remain open and available. The General Plan update
cannot therefore shrink the Copperopolis Community area boundaries or down grade
land use designations to the point of limiting future economic growth options.
It appears as though the Planning Department has simply ignored the community’s
desires, and embraced Environmental Lobbyist Policy of reducing future land use
designation’s in a wholesale fashion. If embracing these extreme policies is allowed, I
fear for all of us who live and work here. On the other hand I recognize there are always
changes to land use designations that need to be made to comply with zoning changes
that have occurred etc. and there should be down grading or upgrading of designations
where reasonable. BUT, this mad rush to reduce land designations to “resource
production” is irresponsible for the Copperopolis planning area per the following few
examples:
1. Land with unique characteristics that would be attractive for destination tourism and
targeted for development for many years that currently has future land use designations
of “Community Center, Residential Center and Future Single Family Residential 5 acre
minimum” and is adjacent to existing neighborhoods, water, sewer, power and fronts a
major road should, NOT be reduced to “resource production”.
2. Land where a possible future day use road connecting Copperopolis to New
Melones would merge with O’Byrne’s Ferry road with possible future retail commercial
activity, should NOT have a designation of “resource production”.
3. Areas where Castle & Cooke have applications for entitlement that were accepted
and deemed complete and have prime attractive characteristics that would generate
more tourism and economic growth should NOT have reductions in land use
designations to “resource production”.
4. The commercial center “Copperopolis Town Square” and its adjacent area intended
for further development that are within the Copperopolis Community area boundaries,
should NOT have a designation of “resource production” or any similar designations..
The above are a few of the proposed unacceptable, inappropriate land use designations
that are imbedded within the General Plan update. If approved these actions taken by
the Planning Department will essentially remove future options for economic growth for
our community. If you as Planning Director allow your Planning Department staff to
embrace the above mentioned failed, misleading and misguided policies and
downgrade our community land use designations in this manner you will then have
