Document Mariposacounty_doc_47bc9fb5cd

Time Description 9:15 a.m. Meeting Called to Order at the Mariposa County Government Center Pledge of Allegiance Introductions Lee Stetson, Chair; Congressman George Radanovich and USDA Rural Development State Director Ben Higgins will present a Ceremonial Check to the Mariposa County Board of Supervisors for a Combined Total of $5,761,000 in Loans for the Don Pedro Wastewater Facility Project BOARD ACTION: Ben Higgins gave background information on the USDA Rural Development and loans for this project. He thanked the following members of his staff who were present for their work on this project: Jose Guardado and Rich Brassfield. Supervisor Turpin advised that staff and everyone’s efforts with this project is appreciated. Supervisor Bibby expressed appreciation for the efforts that are put into rural communities. Congressman George Radanovich and Ben Higgins presented a ceremonial check to the Board, and thanked the Board for its diligent work on this project. Bob Pickard, Supervisor District V; Presentation of a Certificate of Recognition to Congressman George Radanovich in Recognition of Securing $2.8 Million Dollars for Transportation Projects BOARD ACTION: (M)Pickard, (S)Bibby, the Certificate of Recognition was approved and presented to Congressman Radanovich/Ayes: Unanimous. Supervisor Pickard acknowledged Dana Hertfelder/Public Works Director’s efforts in this matter. Input from the public was provided by the following: Ruth Sellers thanked Congressman Radanovich for his success in securing the funding for transportation projects, and she advised that she continues to be an advocate for the roads in Mykleoaks Subdivision, and she referred to a petition that was submitted requesting work on these roads. She commented that federal funds are used in the YARTS program and she does not feel that everything is fine with this program and that the Board should look into this. Eleanor Keuning stated she feels that Ben Hur and Old Highway need to be improved to provide for alternative ingress and egress to the County. 9:32 a.m. Recess 9:50 a.m. Public Presentation: For Non-Timed Agenda Items including Attention, Information, and Consent Agenda, and for Items Not on the Agenda Paul Chapman referred to the closed session for the Fire Chief interviews and he advised that qualified people have asked to review the applicants. He feels that the Board needs to get someone qualified for this position. Dick Hutchinson referred to the closed session for the Fire Chief interviews and he stated he feels that we need to fill the position with the best person that we can get that will work with the volunteers, the government and the public and know how to protect this community. He stated he feels the applicants should be reviewed by equal ranking; i.e., use chiefs from other departments that know the job. He stated he does not feel that it is the Board’s job to pick this person. MARIPOSA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONFORMED AGENDA October 17, 2006 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 10-17-06 Eleanor Keuning advised that the Mariposa Orchestra has a performance on Sunday and she encouraged everyone to attend. Board Information Supervisor Bibby advised that the Sheriff’s Department utilized new fingerprinting equipment at the Contractors Fair last weekend. Supervisor Fritz advised that she plans to attend the Gateway meeting in Yosemite on Thursday. She noted that the Harvest Festival is this weekend; next Tuesday the Chamber of Commerce will host its business after hours event at Alpine Builders for the dedication of the new shelter/safe house for Mtn. Crisis Services; and the 4-H dinner/awards banquet is scheduled at the Best Western on October 28th. Supervisor Turpin advised that the Fly-in at the Airport the previous week was a tremendous success; and he advised that he attended the Contractors Fair and the Farm Bureau dinner/auction; and he met with the Groveland Ranger District relative the OHV routing. Supervisor Stetson advised that he plans to attend the meeting of the Resource Advisory Council for BLM on Wednesday at 6:30 p.m. at the Government Center and it is open to the public. The issues to be discussed include the Sierra Resource Management Plan and EIR. He advised that the Midpines Community Advisory Committee is scheduled to meet on Thursday at 7:00 p.m. Approval of Consent Agenda (See End of Minutes) BOARD ACTION: Supervisor Bibby pulled item 11. (M)Pickard, (S)Bibby, the balance of the items was approved/Ayes: Unanimous. Consent Agenda item 11 – lease agreement with Secure Alert for the use of TrackerPal equipment. Supervisor Bibby initiated discussion relative to equipment and costs and reimbursement. Gail Neal, Chief Probation Officer, responded to the questions. (M)Bibby, (S)Pickard, item 11 was approved/Ayes: Unanimous. Gail Neal, Chief Probation Officer; Presentation by Secure Alert in Response to the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 BOARD ACTION: Gail Neal provided information on the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006; and she introduced Richard Nelson with Secure Alert. Mr. Nelson gave an overview of their ankle bracelet monitor and their software. He advised that they are the only company offering a combined cell and GPS technology. Discussion was held relative to the system and its operation. Input from the public was provided by the following: Ruth Catalan asked about the upfront costs for the equipment and the program. Mr. Nelson advised that there is no charge unless a system is activated for an offender. David Butler asked about using different carriers for cellular service in different areas of the County. Mr. Nelson advised that they will review that option if obtaining cellular service is a problem. Supervisor Bibby asked that a report be provided to the Board on how the system is working. Lee Stetson, Chair; Proclaim the Week of October 23 through 31, 2006 as “Red Ribbon Week” BOARD ACTION: (M)Bibby, (S)Fritz, the Proclamation was approved and presented to Brian Muller, Undersheriff/Ayes: Unanimous. Discussion and Possible Further Action Regarding Continuation of the Local Emergency Due to Landslides on Highway 140 Enroute to Yosemite National Park (County Counsel/Interim County Administrative Officer) BOARD ACTION: (M)Turpin, (S)Bibby, Res. 06-488 was adopted finding the local emergency due to the landslides on Highway 140 enroute to Yosemite National Park continues to exist, and continuing the local emergency based on the findings. Chairman Stetson advised that CalTrans is looking at a mechanism with a field trial to allow specific vehicles, i.e., garbage trucks and buses that exceed the 28- foot limit over the bridges. He also advised that a team manager has been identified for the long-term fix committee, and he has asked for information on the first meeting. Ayes: Unanimous. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 10-17-06 Approval of Minutes of September 18, 2006, Regular Meeting, Continued from September 12, 2006 (Board Clerk); Approval of Minutes of September 19, 2006, Regular Meeting, (Board Clerk); Approval of Minutes of September 21, 2006, Regular Meeting, Continued from September 19, 2006 (Board Clerk); and Approval of Minutes of September 22, 2006, Regular Meeting, Continued from September 21, 2006 (Board Clerk) BOARD ACTION: (M)Bibby, (S)Fritz, all of the minutes were approved/Ayes: Unanimous. 10:56 a.m. CLOSED SESSION: Conference with County Labor Negotiator: Name of Employee Organization: SEIU (Services Employees International Union); Name of County Designated Representative: Rick Bolanos (Interim Budget/Personnel Manager) BOARD ACTION: (M)Fritz, (S)Bibby, the closed session was held with Sandi Laird/Administration- Administrative Analyst, and Mike Coffield/Interim Budget-Personnel Manager present/Ayes: Unanimous. 11:34 a.m. - LUNCH 2:11 p.m. The Board reconvened in open session and Chairman Stetson announced that direction was given to staff as a result of the closed session. Kris Schenk, Planning Director; Continuation of Public Workshop to Consider the Revisions Contained in the October 2006 Draft General Plan and EIR, Accept and Evaluate Written Comments and Oral Testimony from the Public and Provide Direction for the Final Versions of the General Plan and EIR Volumes (Workshop Continued from October 11, 2006) BOARD ACTION: Kris Schenk, Sarah Williams/Deputy Planning Director, and Andy Hauge/Hauge Brueck Associates, were present. Kris Schenk advised of the distribution of revisions to Chapters 5/Land Use and 10/Agriculture and to the Glossary of the 2006 Draft General Plan Update with language changes as directed by the Board at the General Plan workshop held on October 11, 2006. He advised that these revisions were also posted to the website for Planning, and they are available for the public. He suggested that the Board begin with a review of Chapter 5, as revised, then go to Chapter 10, as revised, then go to Chapter 9/Circulation, Infrastructure, and Services; and then go to Chapter 11/Conservation and Open Space before going through the rest of the document. He noted that this will allow review of the chapters that contain most of the changes from the March 11, 2006 meeting and from the last workshop. Chairman Stetson asked that staff note the areas where there have been significant changes or issues that the Board wants to discuss as the document is reviewed. Kris Schenk initiated discussion relative to the policy of land development regulations defining thresholds within which uses are complimentary to the concept of rural character and he asked for clarification of whether the Board wants “should” or “shall” to be used in Implementation Measure 5- 1a(3). He advised that his recommendation is to use “shall” because the thresholds and CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) determinations do not now have defined thresholds in them, and that causes a lack of certainty for people who want to know whether they will have to do an EIR (Environmental Review Report) or what kind of an initial study will need to be prepared for developing a project. Without a threshold, it is handled on a case-by-case basis. A threshold will provide consistency in the decision making, and the decisions on a project will be more defensible; and it helps people to design projects that are self-implementing. He advised that the thresholds would say what the standards are for things like water and roads; and roads is a very big issue, especially as we are going through the process of the development fees with the capital improvement program. The process to establish the thresholds would require the public hearing process and an ordinance for adoption. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 10-17-06 A review of Chapter 5 – Land Use was held. Chairman Stetson called for input from the public, and the following was provided. Attorney Gregory Chappel stated he was representing John and Margaret Schroeder, and he presented a one-page handout concerning certain issues with the zoning of their property in the Natural Resource Land Use Classification. He advised that he spoke with Andy Hauge relative to his concerns; but today he is attempting to address the special language in Section 5.4.05 with the land use classifications, attempting to make those consistent with the current zoning. He referred to the information in his handout relative to the objective of the language to avoid down-zoning or other negative impacts on subdividing existing parcels assigned to this classification. He reviewed what he feels are internal inconsistencies with the minimum parcel sizes and potential impacts on future proposed projects. He recommended and encouraged the Board to continue to pursue the objective since many of the parcels assigned to this classification have a zoning that would be inconsistent with the rest of the parcels assigned to this same land use classification; and that there be further review on these and related issues; and to refer this matter back to County Counsel, the consultant, or independent counsel, to carefully review the matter and to attempt to come up with a definitive answer or as close as one can get to it regarding whether or not this effort is going to be successful. Andy Hauge advised of his review of these issues and he noted that they are continuing to evaluate this. Preliminarily, he feels that the language is consistent. But they want to make sure that there is not going to be a challenge in the future, and so they are adding the due diligence of examining the “what ifs” and making sure that the language is solid. Attorney Chappel asked if this matter is going to be further reviewed or if additional information is going to be provided to the Board on this. Andy Hauge advised that the next step, after the Board gives direction to prepare the General Plan for consideration of adoption toward early November, is that the Plan will be re-released and the final EIR will be released on the Plan. Attorney Chappel advised that he will communicate with Mr. Hauge further on this matter. Andy Hauge stated he would prefer that he communicate with County Counsel. Thomas P. Guarino, County Counsel, advised that many changes have been seen as the Plan has evolved through the workshop process, and there has been an ongoing process of reviewing each change. He noted that this is an issue that is being reviewed, and he will be working with staff and outside counsel to take another look at this issue. If further review raises any issues, that would be brought back to the Board’s attention. Laurie Oberholtzer, representing MERG (Mariposans for the Environment and Responsible Government), advised that their big concern is that the Land Use Map not erode because they feel that a compromise has been reached on the Map. If any changes are made to the Map because of this wording issue, they would have concerns about that. Plus, she noted that we are supposed to be going from the general to the specific and not the other way around on the Land Use Maps. Don Starchman, Starchman & Bryant Law Offices, referred to Section J. Ready to Build Land, and he expressed concern with the language for “individual onsite sewage disposal systems.” He also stated he feels that the title gives a false impression for this section. He noted that there has been discussion concerning the individual onsite sewage disposal systems, and he noted that another section calls for “approved areas for individual onsite sewage disposal systems.” He commented that we do not know what changes the State may make for sewage disposal systems. Instead of clarifying this, he feels that we are back to extending sewer lines to property lines; and he asked that the Board give some direction on this to reflect approved “areas.” Discussion was held. Supervisor Pickard stated he agrees with the suggested change, and he feels that the intent of this was to demonstrate that the property does have the carrying capacity to put a sewage disposal system in. Andy Hauge agreed and advised that they are just looking for verification that the applicant can demonstrate that they can provide sewage to the site and this Plan doesn’t define how that shall be done, and he advised that this section was added just to restate the headings. Supervisor Bibby suggested that the wording be changed to be consistent with Section E(3) and that both sections read as follows – “New parcels must have approved areas for sewage disposal if sewer connections are not available and will obtain an approval from the Health Department.” and the Board concurred. Supervisor Bibby referred to the last two sentences that were added to Section M. Existing Contracts and Agreements, and she asked how an exemption could be given to existing Williamson Act contracts. She suggested that the last two sentences be deleted, and the Board concurred. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 10-17-06 Don Starchman referred to Section N. Existing Zoning Consistency and stated he feels that this is part of what Attorney Chappel was discussing relative to inconsistencies that still exist with the existing zoning consistency. He noted that there is reference to Agriculture/Working Landscape and Natural Resource land use, and he asked whether residential use should also be discussed so that everything is consistent. He feels that all underlying zones/diagrams should be consistent. He advised that he will come back to this when reviewing the individual breakdown on each one of those sections later in the document. Andy Hauge advised that residential was not included because the issue was of the five-acre lot size; and residential five-acre lot size in the residential land use designation is consistent and the density recommended. He clarified that the issue the Board was dealing with was for the Agriculture/Working Landscape and Natural Resource land use and trying to recognize those existing parcels with a land use designation that had lots under 160-acres or under 40-acres. Attorney Starchman asked what happened to Rural Residential and stated he still feels there are internal inconsistencies in the document and that this should be included. Andy Hauge advised that Rural Residential only allows 2 ½ acre lots if you are clustering if you have the appropriate engineered septic system and that is provided for in the General Plan, so that is an acceptable approach. Discussion was held. Attorney Anita Bryant, Starchman & Bryant Law Offices, stated she feels Rural Residential should be included in the list of land use classifications. Andy Hauge noted that the zoning name may change in the Plan; however, the Plan provides that the density can continue. He feels that Rural Residential and Mountain Home may be eliminated from Title 17 as zoning classifications unto themselves, and be modified in Title 17. Kris Schenk provided input on the make-up of the document, and he advised that if the Board sees something that is wrong and needs to be changed or if something isn’t said somewhere appropriately, staff would support making those kinds of changes. But, we are trying to get to a document that will be indexed and readable and with references and not necessarily one that repeats itself in various places. Andy Hauge provided more background on why Rural Residential was not included in the Plan – from the earliest Planning Commission discussions, it was decided that they wanted development concentrated in our plan areas where the services are; and therefore, they did not want to see the expansion of Rural Residential in the County. If the County wants Rural Residential and that is considered a consistent use, the Board could consider that. Supervisor Turpin stated he wants to be sure that this Plan does not take anything away with the zoning changes. Tolley Gorham stated he hopes that we are not going to try to get through this to save staff work or time and end up with a document that is not readable or clear. He referred to Section N. Existing Zoning Consistency, and he referred to the December 1, 2006 timeline that has been established. He stated that when he looks back to the EIR that says we have increased and decreased the various zones by significant acreage amounts, he is led to believe that those changes are absolutely in place as of December 1, 2006, which would mean that zoning has changed on those specific parcels where amounts of land use changes were made. If that is the case, he feels we have gotten ahead of ourselves. County Counsel responded that this is not what is happening. He feels that the changes referred to are different versions of the maps based on previous direction of the Board on the diagrams. The diagrams were reset to the new amount of acreage that was reflected by the change in the colors – in other words, some parcels were taken out of the various colors and some were put in, and the Town Planning Areas (TPAs) were reduced down. Andy Hauge advised that those are the land use designation acreages on the land use diagram - that is different than zoning. The language of Section N. talks about the zoning in place today; and December 1, 2006 was chosen because it was felt that they could not pre-determine the date that the Board would adopt the new General Plan. He does not believe that there are any zoning changes running through the County at the present time. The land use designations are what the numbers are talking about with the increases and decreases in acreage. County Counsel advised that this goes back to the separation of the diagram from the underlying zoning. The diagram is where you see the acreage changes, and that had to be done so that when the impacts were examined in conjunction with the EIR that they could make sure that the EIR supported the various acreage designations. He advised that a date certain is necessary for when things will occur, so the December 1st date was selected as the break point. Tolley Gorham asked that he be assured that the Agriculture/Working Landscape increase in land use of 30,000 acres is not the result of any land being changed to Ag Exclusive or Timber Preserve or anything like that – and he asked why changes ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 10-17-06 were made in the diagram and not in the zoning. County Counsel provided a further explanation and advised that no acreage went in or out of any zoning classification; and he advised that no land will move in or out of any zoning classification by the change in colors on the maps. That is just a policy of general direction of where the County wants to head. Supervisor Turpin stated he feels the changes in the acreage numbers more closely reflect the existing zoning than previous maps; and he noted that there are still some areas to be adjusted. Ken Melton noted that he presented a written outline of concerns; and he referred to the wording in Implementation Measure 5-1a(2), and he stated he does not feel that “neighbor’s enjoyment of nearby property” should be included. He feels that is taking his property for the enjoyment of another without compensation. He suggested that it be deleted, or that language be added to state that it is compatible and doesn’t interfere with the rights of another or the rights of a neighbor. He agrees that what he does on his property should not interfere with the rights of another. Discussion was held. Andy Hauge noted that when subdivisions were addressed there were some areas of compatibility that were discussed. He feels that this is basically saying that when Title 17 is developed that any regulations take into consideration, not only the property you are dealing with, but adjacent properties. This would include issues such as noise, vibration, smells, and all kinds of things. He feels that this is saying to try and be compatible when you are looking at land uses that would be allowed on property as the zoning ordinance is developed. Ken Melton stated he doesn’t have an issue with compatibility with surrounding areas and zoning. The Board concurred with deletion of “a neighbor’s enjoyment of.” Ken Melton referred to Policy 5-3a relative to new subdivisions, and he expressed concern with maintained road requirements. He doesn’t feel that a neighbor should be able to stop a subdivision from occurring if you have an easement through your neighbor’s property and they do not want to join a zone of benefit or something of the like, and if you have off-site neighbors and an easement that meets all of the other County requirements. He feels that if there is a method where the road can be maintained, but the property owner(s) that the road goes through are not required to participate, and the property owner(s) can not shut you down by non-participation, his concern would be alleviated. Discussion was held, and Andy Hauge provided input on the previous discussion and direction. County Counsel stated that as he reads this section, if you want to build a subdivision and the only access to your piece of land is through someone else’s land where there is an easement for roadway that is insufficient to qualify your piece of land from being subdivided and you can’t find a way from your piece of land to get to a maintained road, this section wouldn’t force that private party to give it up nor to give the party to develop any right to force that individual to allow an expanded use across their land. This is part of the market place and not part of the government regulation. The Board is setting its minimum standards for development for health and safety and other reasons; but if you want to build five houses somewhere you need to have access to a maintained road to meet the statement of standards. If someone owns that chunk of land in between, you either have to go buy it from them or work out an arrangement with them or find some alternative access. This policy is setting a standard for development of a subdivision in Mariposa County. Ken Melton stated he agrees with County Counsel and he feels that this would apply when the easement or access is not sufficient. However, he doesn’t feel that this applies here. He clarified that he is talking about an easement that already exists across property that meets all of the standards for a road to the project. He asked if there is a type of zone of benefit/maintenance program that can be placed on the entire road back to the maintained County road or State highway that would leave out the adjoining property owners if they didn’t want to participate. Supervisor Pickard asked, based on the current system, whether there is an ability to condition approval of the subdivision by maintaining an off-site road as a method of direct access to a County road. The Board concurred with flagging this issue to come back to it later in the process. Laurie Oberholtzer noted that they support the policies under Goal 5-3, and they feel that it is basic land use planning – subdivisions should not be approved out in the middle of no-where without appropriately sized and maintained roads. Andy Hauge referred to the recommendation from October 11, 2006, to change the language in Section F(2) Traffic Generation from doubling to tripling the average daily traffic for a parcel within the Residential land use classification for requiring a conditional use permit for home-based businesses. Supervisor Pickard referred to the list of Plan changes and issues that staff prepared as a follow-up to the October 11, 2006 workshop; and he asked whether that was distributed. Kris Schenk advised that ---PAGE BREAK--- 7 10-17-06 it was distributed and advised that more copies could be made so the public could follow the discussion. Supervisor Pickard suggested that the issues on the outline be reviewed. Chair Stetson requested that copies of the outline be made available for the public. 3:25 p.m. Recess 3:44 p.m. Chair Stetson initiated discussion relative to the workshop process; and he suggested that the rest of the public comments be taken on Chapter 5, and then the Board could review the workshop notes from October 11th and those issues that were flagged. The Board continued with taking input from the public. Ken Melton referred to Implementation Measure 5-3a(3), and stated he feels there needs to be a clarification and definition of what “road capacity” is; i.e., private roads, subdivision roads, County roads; whether it deals with weight and speed and how often it is maintained; and what is the capacity in terms of gridlock. Discussion was held. Kris Schenk advised that after the General Plan is adopted, if there is an issue of adequate standards, a matter will need to come to the Planning Commission and to the Board, with Public Works Director being involved, to define the associated issues having to do with maintenance for pieces of property between the subdivision road and the County or State road. Those are issues that cannot be resolved with a statement in the General Plan. Ken Melton referred to Section E. New Subdivisions and creation of “ready-to-build” parcels, and he suggested that “infrastructure” be deleted. Discussion was held. The Board concurred with the requested change. Supervisor Pickard initiated discussion relative to the second paragraph in this section and reference to “basic infrastructure.” Ken Melton stated he feels the second paragraph should be deleted. Andy Hauge referenced previous discussion on the basic infrastructure requirements and noted that the original six or seven basic requirements have been reduced to three. He recalled that these were listed to assure that there are only three basic requirements – water supply, wastewater disposal and maintained roads. Supervisor Bibby suggested that sewage disposal replace wastewater disposal to be consistent throughout the document. No change was made to the second paragraph. Ken Melton referred to the last sentence in the third paragraph, and he feels the “deed-restricted to prohibit future land division of such parcels” takes future consideration out of the County’s hands. He suggested that there be some other way to restrict future development. He noted as an example that if a sewage disposal system is installed in the future, the Board may want to allow a higher density; and a deed-restriction would prohibit that. Discussion was held. County Counsel suggested that “deed” be deleted from the sentence; and on a case-by-case basis, a condition can be imposed that satisfactorily meets the needs of the County, and the Board concurred with the change. Bart Brown asked about being able to rebut the changes that are being made as the document is being reviewed. Chair Stetson advised that the Board will re-review the issues if requested by others; and he advised that the changes are only being concurred to at this point and are not set in concrete. Ken Melton referred to Section E(1) Road Capacity and Access, and he feels the requirement for “future through road connections to adjacent developable property” is a taking without compensation; and he asked where this language came from. Supervisor Pickard stated he feels that this language was in response to comments. Andy Hauge stated it is a mitigation measure for fire safety in the EIR. Supervisor Fritz noted that this was as a result of a discussion with a specific property owner who was unable to split the property because it was at the end of a dead-end road that exceeded the allowable length by a few feet. But if there was an easement, there could have been a through road; and CDF (California Division of Forestry and Fire Protection) offered to help support legislation to deal with these types of situations. Ken Melton stated he feels it should be up to the private parties to mitigate and not the County mandating it. Discussion was held. County Counsel stated this does not require easements on other people’s property. He noted that a typical example is that when you put in a road, you put a turn around at the end of it rather than having the easement go to the property edge. This is not requiring anything for the benefit of anyone else. It just allows flexibility and it is not a takings as written. Supervisor Turpin stated he can go along with the access for wildfire ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 10-17-06 access, but it should not be demanding – that should be up to negotiations between landowners. Andy Hauge noted that the California Fire Code addresses fire access. Supervisor Fritz advised that this matter is what CDF was interested in – this would alleviate some of the problem they have with the dead-end road issue and not being to get their fire trucks down the road and the people being able to exit at the same time. Ken Melton noted that an emergency egress could be provided to mitigate certain things; however, he feels that this section talks about access to developable property against your will. Kris Schenk stated this section would provide for the ability to have a through road rather than have a situation that now exists where someone can just say that that they do not want anyone to develop in the future beyond their property so there won’t be a through road and people won’t be able to get out if there is a fire emergency. In the subdivision design, and that is why the words “as appropriate” are included, the Planning Commission won’t think that it is appropriate for many properties, or the topography won’t allow it. But when it can be done and it appears appropriate to have a connecting road so that there can be a future through road coming through from the subdivided property, it will be required. Otherwise, you would be allowing the subdivided property to block access to those future developable parcels that are on the other side because the State fire access requirements would not be able to be met. Kris Schenk further stated that he feels that this is good planning and it should be a subdivision design that allows access to the next person who may want to subdivide. Supervisor Pickard stated he could not support requiring someone else to give up a piece of land or an easement for a road. He feels that it should be up to the subdivider to negotiate an easement. Supervisor Bibby noted that some of this is addressed in the circulation section and has to do with mitigation issues; and she suggested flagging this issue at this point to be addressed with the circulation. Supervisor Turpin advised that he could support access for fire protection, with any other access to be negotiated. County Counsel advised that you would not need to have a developable piece of land behind the subdivision for the County to request that the easement extend to the property line, it could be a health and safety easement as a condition of approval for the subdivision. So it is not just for future development, but there are many reasons that make it a reasonable request with a nexus in relationship to the development. It may be that eventually the County will require others in that area to allow easements as well to tie into County roads so that the circulation plan operates properly and so that the maintained roads are available for access for emergency vehicles, etc. There are many reasons for this requirement and it is not solely so that someone else can develop their property. Even without this requirement, the County could ask for it when projects are submitted. Chair Stetson noted that this could be further considered with the circulation section as suggested by Supervisor Bibby. Ken Melton referred to Section E(3) Individual Onsite Sewage Disposal Systems; and he asked that the Health Department be given more latitude by deleting the word “onsite” to allow for an easement for a system. This would allow for each case to be reviewed and the Health Department could still deny a request. However, the way it is written, he feels it prohibits the Health Department from having that ability. He asked if the Health Department was consulted for their input on this matter. Andy Hauge referred to the previous discussions by the Planning Commission and the Board on this issue; and he feels it got down to what guarantee you would have with an off-site system that it could be maintained and accessed without constraint. He believes that the Health Officer was involved in the discussion and it was Dr. Mosher’s suggestion that it be onsite, so the decision was to keep it as an onsite requirement. Discussion was held. Andy Hauge noted that we are talking about the subdivision requirements. No changes were made. Ken Melton referred to Section E(4) Potable Water Supply and he complimented staff for the last informational paragraph. He stated he would like language added for flexibility to drill a well at the time of sale as an option. He noted that this option currently exists and has worked well. He asked Mark Harris to provide information on his experience with drilling wells and issues he has encountered with developers, sales and homeowners and locations, etc. Mark Harris, well driller, noted that everyone has a different view of where everything should go when they are placing their wells; storage tanks, house, and septic. Sometime people change their septic location and that may alter where the well will go. It is expensive to change electrical or water lines, or to run the lines very far. He referred to his recent experience with drilling thirty wells for the Van Ness subdivision and advised that they didn’t miss getting water on any of the parcels; but some parcels are tougher. He doesn’t feel that the developer should be asked to put all of the wells in at one time before the map can be finaled. ---PAGE BREAK--- 9 10-17-06 The developer already has to put the roads in and get the power and the improvements take a lot of working capital. Some people want to buy property and drill a well later; and he feels that this should be allowed. Ken Melton asked that something be added to this section that would allow a buyer and a seller to reach agreement on the well location. Andy Hauge advised of CEQA discussions; and he noted that this language doesn’t require the well to be drilled; that there are different ways to prove up water, but you need to be able to demonstrate that you have a potable water supply. He noted that there are two options listed in Section e. and drilling a well is one of those options. Discussion was held. Supervisor Pickard noted that the difference with this Plan is that the small subdivisions will be treated the same as the large subdivisions; and he noted that Section e. also allows for other satisfactory proof which may consist of a hydrogeological study of the area. Mark Harris stated he feels that most people would prefer to drill the well in escrow. Supervisor Turpin stated he would be okay with requiring a well to be drilled to prove that there is water on the subdivision, and the rest of the wells for the individual lots could be done prior to close of escrow. Andy Hauge advised that the language allows for that. Ken Melton referred to Section E(2) Hillside and Ridge Top Design; and he stated he feels that the 15 percent needs to be clarified. He noted that a parcel could have slopes of different percentages. Supervisor Turpin agreed with using “average” slope of 15 percent. Supervisor Stetson suggested the wording be “parcels averaging in excess of 15 percent slope.” Kris Schenk cautioned that the Board needs to be careful to not write development regulations into this particular principal. He expressed concern with averaging a parcel that consists of flat ground and the other half of 30 percent slope. He noted that there is a provision in the Mariposa Town Planning Ordinance that deals with complex slopes to address these kinds of issues. Ken Melton suggested that perhaps the 15 percent could be dealt with at the building permit stage and applied to the homesite. Supervisor Pickard stated he feels that this policy would take affect if you can’t show a building site in areas where there are slopes in excess of 15 percent. But if you do have a building site, he doesn’t feel that the Planning Commission is relegated to review the property. Ken Melton stated that if this is the case, he doesn’t have a problem with this. If it is a matter of not being able to subdivide parcels that are 15 percent or not being able to subdivide parcels that you can’t show building sites on an area of 15 percent or less slope, he feels that it is unclear the way this is written. He asked that this be clarified and if this is reviewed as Supervisor Pickard suggested, then he doesn’t feel there would be a problem. Andy Hauge advised that there is policy that says that the Planning Commission will review subdivisions with slopes; and it doesn’t prohibit development. He noted that a subdivision would probably be ten acres or more because of the five-acre minimum parcel size in most cases; and the goal is to make sure that cuts and fills are minimized, that there will be lot flexibility and maybe some clustering, the proposed building site will be reviewed to make sure that they are appropriate for the slope, it may require building setback from ridge lines if that is appropriate, visual impacts will be reviewed, and there should be proof of slope stability as a condition of the final parcel map. Ken Melton referred to the second paragraph in Section B(3) Rural Economic/Recreation Subclassification relative to employee housing. He feels the cart is being put before the horse as they have no idea of where the employees may come from or whether or not they need housing. Once the demand is created, then he feels it would be appropriate for someone who is involved in developing apartments or housing to develop a project to meet that need. He feels that if employee housing is created and if there is not a demand for it, then it will be turned into rentals or overnight transient uses. He noted that Jerry Fischer created housing on his own without being required for his employees and the same with the SilverTip project. Supervisor Pickard questioned whether this would prohibit any future consideration for another type of inclusionary program or some other kind of a bonus program. Andy Hauge advised that this would not preclude a bonus program or other type of program. He advised of his involvement in a community where they built employee housing and it was available for any employee of the community that needed housing; and if it was not needed, it was used for rental property for the tourism – so it was done in a flexible way. Don Starchman asked for clarification that when the Board reviews the points in the outline from the October 11th workshop that the public will have a chance to provide input at that time. Chairman Stetson advised that the public will have a chance to provide input at that time. ---PAGE BREAK--- 10 10-17-06 Laurie Oberholtzer stated they like the through road policy and they think that is really good planning. They like the hillside and ridge top design policy and feel that is really good planning. She stated that as a person who has sat on a Planning Commission of a city for 18 years, she feels that having a concise list in the Plan to follow when you have a hillside project is great, and it serves as a reminder of the items that need to be considered. She feels the potable water supply is basic to the foothill areas and they like that policy. She referred to the issue of deed restriction for clustering, and she feels that is basic to the issue of clustering so that the density is kept to what was approved and not allow the open space area to be built on in the future. She referred to Section D(2) Maximum Acreage and Minimum Lot Sizes and asked why any of the uses need to be 20-acres in size for rural commercial; and she stated she would like to hear discussion on this issue. Discussion was held relative to the deed restriction issue. Andy Hauge stated he feels that the deed restriction is probably the way to go, but if there is another way to achieve this that the Board is comfortable with, that would be okay. Supervisor Stetson clarified that if “deed” is omitted, that a deed restriction could still be applied; it would allow for other approaches. County Counsel advised that whatever restriction is proposed, it will need to be satisfactory for the Board to feel secure. He is not aware of many other mechanisms to accomplish the restriction. He advised that the affect of the change requires more on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate something of equal force. Supervisor Pickard asked about the development agreement as an option. The Board concurred with changing the wording to reflect “enforceably restricted.” Discussion was held relative to the 20-acre size issue for rural commercial, and how that size was reached. Laurie Oberholtzer noted that 20-acres could accommodate a 200,000- square foot shopping center which could contain a big hardware store, a big grocery store, and a bunch of little shops – and she does not feel that is what the Board would visualize as a rural economic use. So she does not feel that this size of parcel should be allowed at it doesn’t make sense. Supervisor Pickard stated he feels this size was used in case there is another type of use such as Tavis Corporation proposed in the future. Laurie Oberholtzer stated she was thinking of retail uses and not light industrial uses. Supervisor Bibby asked that more information be brought back on the discussion and thinking behind the decision to use 20-acres at the Planning Commission; and she suggested that information be brought back on the amount of acreage being used by the existing uses that meet this criteria. Discussion was held relative to considering the use of 10-acres for now, and the Board concurred with obtaining more information on this. David Butler referred to ridge top development and restrictions (Section E(2) Hillside and Ridge Top Design), and he stated he feels all of the other restrictions need to be taken into consideration; i.e., setbacks and slope. He asked for clarification of the definition of “view corridor.” He stated he feels that roadside view can be just as obnoxious as or worse than a ridge top view. He asked where this policy is coming from and what the Board is after with this policy. He feels a downhill view can be as bad or worse than a ridge top view; i.e., views from the top of Guadalupe or Woodland Hill where you are looking down. He asked where the ridge top view starts, and who will make the determination of what is acceptable. He feels this is giving undue power to someone that has the ability to abuse or be coerced from a different group. Chair Stetson noted that the Planning Commission will review subdivisions with slopes intending to accomplish the objectives, and it doesn’t prohibit construction. David Butler stated he feels that this gives discretionary value to the planner. He feels it is forcing side hill development and that will create slope stability problems. Supervisor Turpin referred to E(2) Hillside and Ridge Top Design, and he asked that the first bullet be a part of the first paragraph. The Board concurred with this change. 5:30 p.m. Dinner 6:12 p.m. Chair Stetson suggested that the Board review the General Plan changes or direction (33 items) that staff prepared during the public workshop from October 11, 2006. Andy Hauge reviewed the items and identified how and where the changes were incorporated into the latest revision: 1) made sure that the text is clear that subdivisions of parcels pursuant to the existing zoning designations must be assured 2) modify Implementation Measure 5-9a(1) to clarify that it only applies to the residential land use – it was decided not to change this because of the changes made in items 14 and 15. ---PAGE BREAK--- 11 10-17-06 3) research State law regarding Williamson Act restrictions and John Gamper’s comments – is it against the State Law for property in the Williamson Act to be in the Residential Land Use designation? Andy Hauge advised that this is being researched by County Counsel, and he has recommended language that was presented for review with Chapter 10 in this workshop. 4) Ag/Working Landscape Land Use – extent of uses, and added text that Williamson Act land is subject to the terms and conditions of the contract 5) Ag/Working Landscape Land Use – population density and building intensity; changes were made to confirm that existing contracts are what are applicable 6) Ag/Working Landscape Land Use – extent of uses; agritourism is shown as a permitted use, but it is limited to being secondary to the primary use of agriculture. So there is still language for a conditional use permits on other agritourism uses on agricultural land. 7) Section I. Five-Acre Density and Rural Character – “land carrying capacity” language was added 8) a definition for “land carrying capacity” was added to the glossary 9) text for state law and secondary residences (state law, Government Code Section 65852, requires that local jurisdictions allow secondary residences on residential lands) was added to Section I. Five-Acre Density and Rural Character 10) reference numbers for other areas where ready to build is defined and described were added to Section J. Ready to Build Land. Andy Hauge noted that this was further modified during this workshop to include approved areas for individual onsite disposal systems. 11) discuss the suggested change of “should” to “shall” on Implementation Measure No. 5-1a(3) regarding thresholds. Andy Hauge noted that this was discussed earlier in this workshop. 12) recommendation to keep the new Policy 5-2b regarding prevention of premature urbanization of expansion of the Mariposa Town Plan until the Town Plan is updated – this has been incorporated as Implementation Measure 5-2a(3). Implementation Measure 5-2a(4) was flagged for further discussion – the Board concurred with keeping this in the document. Don Starchman stated he feels that we need to keep some sort of vehicle open for planned residential development/planned unit development for the areas that do lend themselves to a higher density use. He doesn’t want to see the ability of this Board or future Boards to be restricted to be able to review projects in the future. He feels that both Implementation Measure 5-2a(3) and were flagged for further consideration. He feels that if you are going to have a true clustering, there needs to be flexibility; and that we need to recognize that we do have in Title 17 a vehicle for planned residential development. He feels the growth will occur someplace; and he feels that areas like the Princeton property (which he represents) would lend itself to something like this and may be ready to go prior to a complete revision of a town plan area. He asked that the Board hold off on this item until discussion is held on clustering (item 32). Chair Stetson agreed with flagging this issue as requested. 13) come back and possibly delete new Policy 5-2c regarding expansion in the Mariposa Town Plan Expansion Area unless water and sewer from MPUD is available 14) discussion to add text to Goal 5-9 and Implementation Measure 5-9a(1) to clarify that this is for the residential land use designation only; and that this would be unless restricted by agreement, law, or contract. Later it was decided that item M on the Williamson Act would cover this. 15) add new Section M regarding existing contracts, restrictions, agreements and laws – this was already reviewed 16) add new Section N regarding existing zoning discussion – this was already reviewed 17) text has been added to clarify that Goal 5-10 applies to both minor and major subdivisions 18) added Implementation Measure 5-4c(2) 19) modified Implementation Measure 5-8a(1) by changing “should” to “shall” relative to collaborative planning with other public agencies 20) modified Implementation Measure 5-11a(1) regarding non-conforming uses Yosemite West 21) added new Goal 5-12, new Policy 5-12a, new Implementation Measure 5-12a(1) 22) corrected spelling error for “follow” in the last bullet in Section 5.4 Land Use Classification ---PAGE BREAK--- 12 10-17-06 23) added text in the last bullet in Section 5.4 Land Use Classification regarding policies for subdivision of parcels less than 40 acres which have multiple classifications 24) added “and organized recreation camps” to the last line of the third paragraph in Section 5.4 Land Use Classification 25) remove “historic patent” on Implementation Measure 10-6a(1) – this item was held for consideration with Chapter 10 Agriculture 26) further discussion of Implementation Measure 10-2a(3) regarding issuance of development permits to substandard sized parcels under Williamson Act Contract – this item was held for consideration with Chapter 10 Agriculture 27) further discussion of possibly allowing additional density when a parcel is at least twice the minimum parcel size. Andy Hauge advised that based on Planning staff review, there is a potential of about 1,415 parcels over ten acres in size outside of the planning areas, that based on the GIS system would be potentially available for that number of residential units that could be constructed with this additional density policy. Discussion was held. Supervisor Bibby stated she feels the purpose of the General Plan is to create accessible dwellings and ready to build, and she feels that this policy would by-pass that, and she can’t see the purpose for by-passing a land division. She noted that there is already allowance for a secondary dwelling. Supervisor Stetson asked how many of the parcels could reasonably be developed. Andy Hauge further advised that there are over 78,540 acres involved with the parcels; and he provided a breakdown on the parcels and improvements; and he suggested that at least some conditional review be required so that improvements could be situated in such a way that subdivision could occur in the future. Don Starchman stated he would be surprised if more than ten to fifteen of these additional units were built per year. He doesn’t know what percentage of secondary residences we have, but he feels that we have cut way back – perhaps 10,000 plus on what would be allowed today. He feels the impact fees should be at the building permit stage and that the fees should cover this. He hopes that this would be a way to keep people from trying to subdivide every piece of property, and he does not see this as a problem. He noted that a main reason that we won’t see a lot of these requests is that the financing is not available for this. He does not feel that we need “big brother” telling us what to do if we want to put in something for the in-laws or our children. He stated he supports this. Further discussion was held. Andy Hauge advised that if the Board proceeds with this, additional evaluation will need to be done as to where the parcels are located for review with circulation, etc. for the EIR. Rita Kidd asked whether last week’s decision was to allow a second primary residence and then an accessory residence, or is consideration being given to allowing two secondary residences. She stated that it seems to her that if there is that allowance on anything over ten acres, that you are not really talking about single-family residential zoning when it comes to Title 17, but that you are talking about what is equivalent in the city of R-2 zoning, where you are saying that you are allowed to have two residences on a single parcel. So she feels that this has zoning implications in the future and definitely changes the policy because the policy currently says that you are only allowed that accessory residence on single-family residential parcels. She urged the Board to think about the impact of this before proceeding. Don Starchman referred to Title 17 and noted its provisions for allowing a residence and secondary residence per five acres for Mountain Home zoning, etc.; so he does not feel that this is a change of existing policy. He noted that he wrote the Title 17 language. Discussion was held. Don Starchman noted that people have not built the additional residences, and that there are not that many secondary residences. Ken Melton stated he does not support the proposed current numbers of being able to build on the parcels. He commented that the potential number of residences that would be allowed if parcels were subdivided is higher than what they are asking for with the additional density. The only thing that would not be addressed with this is the access road issue – everything else would be addressed with the building permit process. He noted that people may not want to subdivide to be able to build a residence for their family. ---PAGE BREAK--- 13 10-17-06 Supervisor Turpin asked how many of the parcels are in the Mountain Home zoning – staff will need to review. Kris Schenk advised that from a Planning perspective, they regularly see situations where people can not split a parcel to separate residences that were built on a parcel. He feels that if the Board proceeds with this, they will have people coming in that can’t get financing; and the positive side is that it does provide opportunity. He advised that he is concerned about not knowing the outcome of the environmental analysis that will need to be done for this. But when Title 17 is being considered, the Board could consider this as a part of that study and package it with a General Plan amendment. Supervisor Bibby asked whether this would apply to all land uses. Kris Schenk advised that it would be up to the Board to determine what land use classifications would be appropriate for this kind of ability to have additional homes on a single parcel. Laurie Oberholtzer stated they are having difficulty with this because they do not understand what the environmental impacts are – it hasn’t been evaluated yet. But their inclination is to not support this proposal, but to support Supervisor Bibby on this issue. She feels this will take away the protections that you get with the standard land division process. She asked that if the Board goes forward with this, that there be a public noticing system so that the neighbors will be aware of the request for a new house. But she does not feel that this proposal is necessary. Supervisor Turpin asked for clarification – if the General Plan is adopted with what is written today, will Title 17 change the potential of the five-acre density. Andy Hauge advised that a list could be kept of things to review in Title 17, and the Board concurred with adding this to the list. No changes were made at this time for the additional density. 28) further discussion of Section F(2) Traffic Generation criteria for home based businesses and conditional use permits – Andy Hauge advised that the recommendation was to triple versus double the traffic before a conditional use permit would be required. He advised that the average daily trip per dwelling unit today is about 7 ½ trips – one round trip is two trips in this calculation. He advised that an example of doubling the trips would be 15 trips to include delivery service and a supplier and a trip or two by customers; and tripling the trips would be 22 ½ trips to include three delivery service trips and a couple of supplier trips and six customer trips. The impact on a residential street would depend on how many home businesses are on the street; and how big and how busy the street is. Discussion was held. David Butler stated he feels that traffic impacts from a home-based business are different than from a residence. He feels that residential traffic is time-based travel and will generally occur during the more congested time. The home-based business traffic will generally occur during the business hours when the roads are not used as much by the residences. So he suggested that the triple traffic base be used before it triggers a conditional use permit. He feels that most business will fall below an annual average, but may spike a little during the year. Don Starchman stated he feels that under the proposed language, one employee, two delivery trucks and one customer will require a conditional use permit. He noted that the document states that home-based industry is the backbone of our economy. Kris Schenk noted that the issues related to home-based businesses are not so much related to the number of trips per day as they are with traffic traveling over privately maintained roads. Supervisor Pickard suggested that consideration be given to looking at other options than the traffic count for addressing what the threshold should be. He noted that different kinds of businesses will generate different amount of trips, and there will be good neighbor situations where no one will complain. Supervisor Bibby noted the concerns received where there are privately maintained roads and impacts with the home-industry traffic with the dust and maintenance and width of those roads. Discussion was held. Ken Melton used an example of a day care center, and he noted that if you take care of four children, you will exceed the allowed average daily trips. Further discussion was held. Supervisor Fritz suggested that consideration be given to having a baseline for residential use and a threshold for the business. Supervisor Turpin asked for clarification of the definition of accessory dwelling and whether that would include an office or shop that is not attached to the house. Andy Hauge advised that an accessory dwelling is a ---PAGE BREAK--- 14 10-17-06 dwelling unit, so that would be your “mother-in-law” quarters. He advised that this section is for residential areas outside of planned areas and the purpose of this section is to try and define and maintain a rural character within the County. The home business is where the Planning Commission had the concern of generation of traffic that could become excessive. He does not have a solution and this might not be the right kind of approach, but he knows the Planning Commission was very concerned about excessive traffic generation destroying the rural character, and they were trying to come to grips with how they might be able to control that. Supervisor Bibby noted that this could be revisited in the future with a General Plan amendment. Supervisor Fritz asked when a home-based business would no longer qualify to be home-based and would need to move to a different zoning. David Butler stated he feels that having a threshold with a number will give the “bean counter” something to work on, and it will work both ways. He feels that this gives the person living on the front-end of the road that is choking most of the dust a little bit of leverage with the home-based neighbor(s) to control the amount of traffic being generated. County Counsel noted that the Board is only setting a threshold at which it will look at a conditional use permit, and it has a policy of encouraging these businesses. So when it comes time to consider a conditional use permit, the general theme will be to encourage the businesses. If a threshold is set and violated, he feels the process would be to advise the business to apply for a conditional use permit because the use is more intent than what was set by the threshold. He feels the issue is at what point the Board wants to have these issues come before the Planning Commission and the Board for a permit for the activity. Discussion was held. Andy Hauge noted that the language in the General Plan defines a home business as having one or fewer employees; a home enterprise as having greater than one employee; and a rural industry has a maximum of three non-family employees. Sarah Williams provided input on the costs and timeframes for processing conditional use permits. The Board concurred with allowing a tripling of traffic before a conditional use permit would be required. Supervisor Turpin asked that there be a clause regarding responsibility for road maintenance; and Andy Hauge advised that if that is required, it would be a part of the conditional use permit. Supervisor Bibby asked that this be added to the list of items to be reviewed during the first five years of the Plan to review whether there are any problems, and the Board concurred. Supervisor Pickard asked for clarification of whether the tripling of traffic applies to County-maintained roads, and was advised that it does. 29) removed text at the end of the 4th bullet in Section E(2) Hillside and Ridge Top Design, starting with the words “with consideration...” to the end of the sentence. 30) moved the 5th bullet in Section E(2) Hillside and Ridge Top Design to be the 1st bullet because it is a high priority. In earlier discussion today, the Board concurred with moving this bullet to the first paragraph. 31) added the words “County” before Building Department and before Fire Department in Section E(5) Wildland Fire Hazard and Emergency Services. 32) Supervisor Pickard had asked staff to review the Planned Residential Development (PRD) standards in Section 17.108.100. Supervisor Pickard believes subdivisions like Ponderosa Basin and Lushmeadows are good subdivisions and should be able to be considered in the future. He feels that changes in the state law for septic systems may make clustering with higher density and ability for community systems necessary in the future. It may be necessary to amend the General Plan in the future. Also, the need for affordable housing may make amendments to the General Plan necessary in the future. For now, 2.5 acres is the minimum for clustering. Kris Schenk noted that there was discussion on this matter at the previous workshop, and this was related to what was going to happen with AB 889. Supervisor Pickard asked if the ability to include contiguous property to the existing Mariposa town planning area will be prohibited until the Mariposa Town Plan has been updated; and he asked whether this was direction or a part of the mitigation as a result of comments. Andy Hauge advised that the policy came from the Planning Commission and part of the direction for that policy was that the Planning Commission didn’t want the premature development of areas outside the existing town planning area to start developing and limiting the choices that can occur within a planning area. They want the plan area to be updated, and that consideration be given to ---PAGE BREAK--- 15 10-17-06 the uses and how they are arranged before developing outside of the plan area. Discussion was held. Andy Hauge noted that Implementation Measure 5.2a(3) may make it difficult to make the finding necessary to allow a new subdivision or PRD within the Mariposa planning study area. Don Starchman stated he does not feel that this policy came from the Planning Commission, and he advised that it was not discussed by the Commission. Andy Hauge apologized and agreed, and he advised that this was a mitigation measure from the EIR. He advised that the issue did come before the Planning Commission about the development of the area which is now called the planning study area. Don Starchman questioned why future Board’s should be precluded from considering future projects, and he stated he does not feel that this is good planning. Kris Schenk referred to the Princeton Ranch property and advised that the question comes up as to whether or not Mariposa TPA is a logical and reasonable area for development – the property is adjacent to the TPA for Mount Bullion and to the Airport. He suggested that it might make more sense with coordinating the systems that it be done in conjunction with the Mount Bullion TPA. Discussion was held. Don Starchman noted that the preferred provider for both the County and the developer is MPUD – so to consider placing the Princeton Ranch property with the Mount Bullion TPA negates that. He feels it should be placed with the Mariposa TPA, and he advised that they have discussed this with MPUD and they showed an interest in this. David Butler referred to a parcel behind the Fairgrounds that is owned by his Mother, and he advised that he used to own a portion of it and then he lot-lined the rest of it to the parcel owned by his Mother. He advised that the TPA used to go over the West end of the property, and at that time he owned the Northern half of it. Leroy Radanovich appointed him to the Mariposa TPA Advisory Committee, and he was qualified to be a member of the committee because he owned property in the TPA. The property got taken out of the TPA when Mark Rowney (MPUD Manager) started doing the boundary for the water rights for the State for the South Fork and the property was taken out because a majority of it wasn’t in the TPA. But as it evolved, it also got drawn out of the TPA and he wasn’t around and wasn’t aware of the changes. In 2004 he had a meeting with the Planning staff and noticed that the property had been taken out of the TPA and MPUD boundary areas. He asked about it and was showed the new General Plan TPA proposed map and that map reflected that the property was included back in the boundaries, so he didn’t have a problem. Tonight he is finding that the property is not included in the proposed map. He feels that these changes make it difficult for residents to follow. With the proximity of the property to the Fairgrounds and commercial property and the light industrial uses, there are road issues. They own the right-of-way, and that right-of-way came from the State of California in 1963 when they took it away off of Stockton Creek. They are not restricting any access, they are just asking that approaches meet County road standards and they issue an easement for the use of the road so that they can control the maintenance. He does not feel that the slopes will allow the maximum density of 2 ½ acres allowed in the TPA, but it will allow the adjustment of where to put them and that is all they are trying to protect. 33) adding findings for converting Agriculture/Working Landscape land use and developing new exception for destination resort under the Rural Economic land use classification. If a parcel is not Agriculture Exclusive Zoned or Timber Preserve Zoned, then the County could consider the amendment; but there must be a project to consider the amendment. Andy Hauge advised that a new second paragraph was added to Section G. Criteria for Lands Proposed to be Removed from the Agriculture/Working Landscape Land Use Classification. He also advised that the third paragraph was modified to be specific that the General Plan requires these findings to be made by the Board of Supervisors for Agriculture/Working Landscape for these other areas – i.e., to support the changes made in the new paragraph. He advised that he believes that this is what the Planning Commission had intended because the Rural Economic is very carefully and finely defined with some criteria; and they realized that there are pieces of land in areas that couldn’t be anticipated today when doing the Land Use Maps. Kris Schenk advised that he feels that this language meets what he feels is a good solution to the issue that was discussed at the last workshop. ---PAGE BREAK--- 16 10-17-06 Don Starchman advised of an item related to this issue that was raised in a letter from Steve Allison concerning having at least the flexibility of being able to take land out of Agriculture Exclusive as long as parcels as large or larger are put back in; i.e., an exchange where you have property that is zoned Residential that will impact neighbors more so than if a switch were done with other land that is zoned Agriculture Exclusive. He advised that the five criteria would not allow for an exchange. This suggestion is not asking for any entitlement, but would just allow for a chance to come before the Board to request an exchange. Discussion was held. Don Starchman suggested that a requirement could be added that the land to be placed in Agriculture Exclusive be as good or better than the land that is requested to be exchanged. He noted that there has only been one request prior to the current situation in the last 24 years. Supervisor Bibby clarified that the letter was signed by Deni Smith and it may have been forwarded on Steve Allison’s behalf. Discussion was held relative to the need to maintain compatibility with the land uses. Rita Kidd stated she agrees with Don Starchman, and she referred to their letter presented on October 11, 2006, wherein they said they would have no objection to language that said no net loss of agricultural land and that they would in fact agree with any wording that achieved an exchange of agricultural and residential land where it makes sense – especially in areas where it protects agricultural land. Rita Kidd referred to the issue of carrying capacity, and stated she feels that we need very specific mitigation measures and very specific policies with regard to carrying capacity. She referred to the letter that she sent over the weekend and reviewed key points. She stated she does not feel that it is clear that the policies will prevent a density calculation from resulting in an excess of 2 ½ acre parcels, nor that the density will be based on the carrying capacity of parent parcels prior to subdivision. She reviewed the information she provided on concepts concerning carrying capacity, and the questions they previously raised in two comments on the draft EIR and the answers they received concerning: 1) the sloping topography in the County creating constraints for development and it being unrealistic for the County to calculate residential build-out densities at 100 percent of the parcel’s development potential; and 2) using a specific scenario, by default the minimum number of dwelling units is zero and the minimum density for new subdivisions is five parcels… Supervisor Pickard noted that he received the information by email and he asked for an opportunity to review a hard copy of the information. The Board recessed for the information to be copied. 7:52 p.m. Recess 8:10 p.m. Rita Kidd continued with her discussion concerning the concept of land carrying capacity. She feels it is the topography of the land in today’s policy documents and ordinances that determine carrying capacity. But, in spite of no change in terrain, some lands are reclassified simply as residential land use in the updated General Plan. They feel that means that the density calculation methodology in the updated General Plan’s policies when reviewed without Title 17 clauses would allow a significantly higher density residential development than would be permitted without benefit of today’s built-in mitigation factor. She noted that they raised this issue in two questions on the draft EIR with regard to densities and with regard to the adequacy of the EIR in evaluating growth and growth potential based on density policy. She stated she feels that it is very clear from the responses to that, that the intent is that carrying capacity is the factor that will determine density, and she quoted from the Plan. She feels there is a problem with the updated General Plan’s shift in density policy as written in that it has potential for a decidedly larger environmental impact than has been evaluated in the EIR because there is no concrete policy on this issue stated in the updated General Plan. Since the Title 17 rewrite could take up to three years, they believe that the necessary guiding language to support the rewrite is absent. She requested an additional mitigation measure in the Land Use Element, Section 5 that says the carrying capacity with the land will be considered in determining density calculation for 2 ½ acre parcels; and they asked for the addition of three implementation measures under that policy. She asked that the County establish standards for calculating the carrying capacity of the unsubdivided land for which an application for subdivision has been submitted. She asked that the carrying capacity ---PAGE BREAK--- 17 10-17-06 calculation be based on terrain, soils, slope, outcrops, and circulation limitations and availability of water and suitability for waste water management. They feel that the carrying capacity of portions of the unsubdivided land which are greater than five acres should be factored into the density calculation and the remaining parcel that results from calculating the maximum number of 2 ½ acre parcels when density factors are applied should be inclusive of carrying capacity of portions of the unsubdivided land. If a given portion is greater than five acres, it should have a deed restriction that permanently prevents future subdivision of the remaining parcel. Based on earlier discussion today, that would be an enforceable restriction and not limited to a deed restriction. She referred to the mention of the rationale for applying this calculation for the 2 ½ acre densities, and suggested that a discussion be held to determine whether the comments that are in the EIR are what the Board intend. They believe that the EIR was based on the premises that are in those answers. Discussion was held. Andy Hauge advised that the environmental document and the calculations of land and policies are very similar to what has been proposed here as a policy and as implementation measures. He advised that if every piece of property were built out to the allowed density, we would be looking at a population of over 100,000 (actually 130,000) in the County and that was the existing General Plan population number. With the goals and policies and implementation measures of the General Plan, the constraints of all of the systems (circulation, environmental, land, water, and sewer systems) have to be considered in approving projects. Rita Kidd stated she would agree if we look at what has been done historically; however, she does not feel that those days exist anymore. She feels that we will find places that are like the scenario that she presented last Wednesday, and she does not feel that there has been an evaluation of that situation and how likely it is; i.e., where you have a 160-acre parcel. Assuming the 80-acres that is buildable has circulation, septic capability, potable water capability, etc., that those things exist on that 80-acres, you could have findings that would allow for full build-out of the full density based on five- acre minimums in 2 ½ acre parcels at the foot of that hill with no regard for the fact that the entire 160- acres wouldn’t carry that. She stated this is her concern, and she feels that is MERG’s concern and has been since the very beginning. They believe that this leaves them vulnerable when those conditions can be met without any consideration for the initial carrying capacity of the land that we have recognized historically. She stated they feel that this is probably the most serious density and environmental issue before the Board; and she feels it how this is handled that will dictate how the agricultural lands and natural resource lands are protected. They are not opposed to the cluster allowance and that density calculation. She reiterated that they would be interested in hearing the Board’s discussion on this matter. Further discussion was held. Supervisor Stetson asked staff, that to the degree that Title 17 is hoping to carry a concept of carrying capacity, whether that same definition could be rendered when Title 17 is looked at for revision. Andy Hauge advised that the policies that the Board has worked on in Chapter 5 require setting thresholds in Title 17, along with the other policies, so it absolutely carries forward and he feels expands upon the protections that are currently within Title 17. Laurie Oberholtzer asked for clarification of the question that Supervisor Stetson asked; and she stated her concern with zoning is if we have 2 ½ acre clustering policy in the General Plan, she feels that will be a by-right kind of thing. She is not sure that there will be any ability to adjust that when it comes to the zoning criteria. Andy Hauge advised that there has to be terrain problems and other issues for clustering; but with clustering as the Plan is now written, you still have to be able to have sewage capacity on the property, water on the property, appropriate access, and those are going to be tough things to do in this County on 2 ½ acres. He does not see 2 ½ acre parcels as guaranteed, but something that you will see once in a while. Laurie Oberholtzer noted that the terrain is similar in Nevada County and clustering is occurring everywhere where the overlay allows for it. Andy Hauge asked how they are doing this, and asked if they are doing a packaged sewer system and other things like that. Laurie Oberholtzer advised that they are three to five-acre lots where they can have septic and well on the individual parcel. Discussion was held relative to the need for the developer to meet the criteria. Supervisor Bibby asked staff to respond to a scenario and how Planning would review the carrying capacity and clustering issues. Kris Schenk responded that they would pay considerable attention to the limiting factors and they will be doing more site visits. They would need to be convinced that the 2 ½-acre ---PAGE BREAK--- 18 10-17-06 parcel design is superior for, not just that it is a cheaper way to build, the overall layout of the property. He suggested that this issue be flagged for staff to provide a report back to the Board after a couple of clustering subdivisions have been processed, and for further review. Laurie Oberholtzer suggested that the wording in Section D. Population Density and Building Intensity, be changed to reflect 2 ½ acres of gross land area minimum parcel size “may” be considered. She suggested that we ensure that, when the new zoning ordinance and zoning map are adopted, that we don’t automatically give these areas a Planned Development Overlay. Otherwise, she feels that things can slip through the cracks and all of the criteria might not be reviewed. Andy Hauge advised that the current language is State law and it has to be black and white. But, he noted that there is text under the subdivision area that says the Planning Commission “may” go up to 2 ½ acres and you have to meet the criteria of the General Plan. David Butler noted that it will be the burden of the developer to show why clustering is better for the land, and he feels that this needs to be addressed for this County especially. He noted that we have seen the impacts from too many animals on five-acre parcels where the grass is stripped off and erosion results. He noted that there is a benefit of having open space with clustering, the service portion of the development for the roads is going to be better; the longevity for the buyers that move into the area will be better because we are a retirement community, and he agrees with the developer having the burden to show that it is a better project. Supervisor Bibby asked about regulating the maintenance of the open space. Kris Schenk advised that when going through the development project, enforceably restricted space will be for some designated purpose, and there would have to be maintenance of the provision. Discussion was held and he clarified that this would be different from a remainder parcel. Rita Kidd suggested that if there is mitigation based on the carrying capacity of the land, you don’t have to have a five or ten-acre parcel, you just have fewer 2 ½ acre parcels, and you have a larger remainder which is the issue that she raised on Wednesday. She feels you have a better quality of life for those 2 ½-acre parcels that are the outcome of that calculation. She feels there is a point where the County may not want to continue the proliferation of the five, ten, and twenty-acre parcels on land where you could cluster and you could share water and wastewater. She reiterated that they believe there is a carrying capacity to that overall land and to the County as a whole; and they are not opposed to clustering. They feel that the ability to share infrastructure is much greater in that regard, and the issue is the number of the 2 ½-acre parcels. Discussion was held. Supervisor Stetson suggested that this issue be flagged for further consideration, and Rita Kidd agreed. Larry Zurker stated the term “carrying capacity” bothers him as he feels it is being used in a way that is not the way that it is defined scientifically. Carrying capacity can be changed by technology – the same piece of land can carry different things. He cited an example that if you take a lifestyle of people in the United States; our carrying capacity is such that it would take 5.8 planets if everybody in the world lived the way we do. So not everybody can have our style of living; and we certainly are exceeding our carrying capacity now. He feels it has a lot more to do with slope, it has to do with air quality, vegetation, and with social and cultural and economic factors. He agrees with what he hears being said as Mariposa is writing its own definition for carrying capacity and the items being discussed relate to the sustainability and the regenerative nature of a piece of land. He feels the Plan should be looked at carefully to see if maybe that wording couldn’t be added, because being able to sustain a use is important. Being able to do things that regenerate are important. He referred to the home-based businesses and traffic impacts; and he noted that these types of businesses are one of the things that lessen the footprint that we have on the environment and that does make carrying capacity less. He stated Planned Unit Developments mean that the burden is on the developer, it is not an entitled thing. He feels the County should be asking for an inventory and analysis of the site, and that should include everything from slope to vegetation, social and cultural. When the Plan is developed, it should fit the site uniquely. If it is a good Plan, it should be adopted. The most important thing is that we want a rural context, and everything else should relate to that and give flexibility to be able to make a decision and justify it. He noted that one mobile home on a five-acre site is not a beautiful thing, some clustering might be better. He advised that taught for 37 years and never heard the term carrying capacity used with land, it is a scientific concept. But, he was told that the National Park Service is using it. ---PAGE BREAK--- 19 10-17-06 Laurie Oberholtzer provided input relative to the carrying capacity issue, and she stated she feels a compromise could be for the Board to take out the steep-sloped lands from what is allowed to be factored into the density credit. They know that the slopes over 20 percent are not developable. She is concerned that we are down to the less-developable properties and then credit is given for a piece of land that doesn’t have any building capacity and they can transfer that technically permitted density off of the slope down to the flatter area and get more units than they would have gotten without the clustering policy. They are concerned with the overall numbers and growth potential in the County. Supervisor Pickard initiated discussion held relative to topography-challenged parcels and the clustering concept; and he stated he feels this was to take into account for those parcels that did have slopes where smaller parcel sizes could be reconfigured without increasing density, but redesigning the parcel size – they wouldn’t get anything extra. Andy Hauge agreed that this is how the policy is set up; and he advised that if you have land, you have the ability to prove-up that you could actually develop the land. The difference is that the policy right now is that the Board says that if you have land, you have the ability to prove-up to build all of the units that are allowed on the land no matter what the slope. Realizing that even when you do that with 2 ½-acres, there are constraints to the property and in the environmental document, our assumptions are that you will not be able to develop all of the land. What he hears MERG asking for is that you recognize that you can’t build all of the land and build that into the General Plan and into Title 17, and pull those out of the calculations, and he noted that Laurie Oberholtzer mentioned 25 percent. It is a different philosophy from what the Board has done to date. He also noted that we do not have a density bonus in the General Plan at this time. Discussion was held. Kris Schenk advised that they would review how a project would be designed as a baseline, and they would compare the design and the environmental protection and the service factors and the public benefits of the project. They would want to know if the design using 2 ½-acre parcels would be a better design and accomplish a better purpose overall on a number of factors, and that is what they would present to the Planning Commission. Rita Kidd noted that two other speakers spoke on this issue on Wednesday – one from the National Park Service and Chris Casto. She urged that this issue be flagged for further review; and she noted that the concept of carrying capacity is finding its way into General Plans all over this state and on the very basis by which she has identified the issue. She agrees that it is a scientific concept and has not been carried into the land use field. Further discussion was held. Supervisor Pickard noted that these issues can always be revisited in the future. Supervisor Bibby stated that throughout the Plan, she has reservations on the County being able to continue to provide the level of service that has been provided, especially as outer areas grow and development is increased in rural locations. She sees sustainability being dictated by the future financial ability of Mariposa County, and it may not be determined by parcel size, it may just be determined by financial status of the County. Chair Stetson stated he feels that the Board is concurring with giving direction to keep what we have in existence now, and with asking staff to come back with a sense of sustainability and/or the definition necessary to accomplish some of the objectives that is agreed should be pursued. And, he noted that this issue can be revisited during the processes for the Plan. Supervisor Fritz asked for clarification of what was agreed to with the issue of being able to exchange residential and agricultural lands as long as there is no net loss of agricultural land. Andy Hauge advised that no changes were made, and stated that in his discussion with the Planning Director, they feel that this is an issue that they need to look at further. Supervisor Bibby suggested that John Gamper provide input on this issue. She noted that this has been a way in other jurisdictions to swap out less desirable land and use the high-use and quality agricultural land for development. John Gamper stated the “no net loss” approach is somewhat like carrying capacity; it has a different term of reference. If you are talking about no net loss and you are converting farm land/agriculturally zoned land to a residential land use classification; no net loss would say that you need to mitigate for that loss and protect in perpetuity this land that is being exchanged. There could be numerous unintended consequences that could be problematic for the neighbor if someone is allowed to just swap land that is designated Agriculture Exclusive for land in a Residential land use classification. People with Williamson Act contracts, are committed to a long term in production agriculture. ---PAGE BREAK--- 20 10-17-06 David Butler noted that there is a lot of designated Agriculture Exclusive land in the higher elevation that is not good agricultural land, but would make real good residential land. He noted that the land may have County road frontage, accessibility to the State highway systems, and closer proximity to services; and so he does not feel that this should discounted totally. He also feels that this may relieve some of the pressure that is being felt on the lower elevation. There may be a residential parcel that is located among Agriculture Exclusive land that has circulation problems that could be exchanged. He noted that the land in the Mount Bullion/Bear Valley area is tough ground for carrying capacity when it comes to livestock and agricultural use. Discussion was held. Andy Hauge noted a thought for coming to a conclusion with this matter and in thinking about some of the spottiness of some of the lands around the community, that there might be some wisdom in looking at some kind of a transfer program to consolidate the agricultural lands to protect them. He suggested that as Chapter 10 is reviewed, a policy could be considered to look at this to enhance the agricultural lands and not just a “no net loss.” He stated he feels a closer look at the lands will need to occur; and something could be included in the Plan that this is something that will be looked into and studied and come back for future consideration – more work needs to be done to develop the criteria. Chairman Stetson suggested that discussion be held on this matter with Goal 10-2. Kris Schenk asked for clarification that the changes that have been discussed is the direction to staff for Chapter 5; and that the Board is ready to move to the review of Chapter 10 Agriculture. Supervisor Bibby noted that some of the wording when referencing Williamson Act in Chapter 5 sets forth language that in the future may need to be changed with changes in criteria for Williamson Act by the State or the County; so she suggested that the language include wording to be “consistent” or “compliant” with the Williamson contract so that there is flexibility for incorporating the changes so that the General Plan does not become inconsistent. Andy Hauge agreed, and stated he thought they caught all of those areas and they will review again, because the laws will change. Chairman Stetson asked that direction be given to staff to bring back everything that the Board has flagged as well as this issue for Chapter 5; and he asked that the information be made available to the public. Supervisor Turpin noted that the flagged items will be considered with the review of Title 17, and he asked whether any of the items need to be brought back for Chapter 5 for this General Plan process. Kris Schenk advised that staff will report back to the Board on the flagged items in the future, perhaps with the annual report on how things are going with the General Plan and some of it may be a part of the Title 17 process; however, he doesn’t feel that there is anything that needs to be considered further for this General Plan process. Discussion was held relative to the process for considering the flagged items. Kris Schenk advised that the items could be considered in the future for General Plan amendments. Supervisor Bibby noted that the environmental impact will need to be reviewed for some of things that were flagged to be revisited. Andy Hauge advised that the EIR will be rewritten based on the changes the Board has discussed. County Counsel asked for clarification of the status of the items that the Board asked that staff review and bring back information, and he asked when that would occur. Supervisor Pickard agreed with Chairman Stetson’s request for staff to prepare a summary of the changes discussed during this workshop; i.e., a recap of what is going to the Planning Commission. Kris Schenk advised that the next step in this process is for a public hearing before the Planning Commission, and then the Board will hold its public hearing which is scheduled for December 6th. County Counsel clarified that nothing is scheduled to come back to the Board after this meeting until December 6th. Discussion was held. Kris Schenk advised that they are not aware of anything at this point that needs to come back to the Board before the hearing. Supervisor Pickard initiated discussion relative to the town planning areas and the comment that was received from David Butler. He asked that staff review the status of the land that Mr. Butler referred to as having been in the town planning area and then was taken out. He feels that if there is any documentation to verify that it was in the town planning area, it should be included. He asked for direction to staff to make sure that the parcel is where it ought to be. Kris Schenk advised that, from staff’s point of view, it makes sense that if the property was a part of the town planning area and they can find documentation of that, then it would be reasonable to include it. The Board concurred. Supervisor Stetson asked whether it is possible that any other land was moved in or out of the ---PAGE BREAK--- 21 10-17-06 boundaries. Andy Hauge advised that there may be more things that people want in or out of the boundaries; but, we are close to a point where the Board will need to say what is going to be evaluated for the Plan. He noted that per discussion with the Planning Director, it is felt that the first update of the General Plan (after its adopted) needs to be set early in the process so that there is a date certain that they can tell people that we are coming back for the Board to review things. 9:29 p.m. Recess 9:42 p.m. A review of Chapter 10 Agriculture was held. Kris Schenk advised that new pages were provided reflecting changes from the discussion held during the workshop on October 11th. He advised that the changes were in the following three general areas: 1) language that made clear the distinction between existing and future contracted lands; the concern was that when the General Plan took affect whether it would apply policies that could be interpreted to affect existing Williamson Act contracts. He feels that this language makes it clear that it will not affect existing contracts, but it will provide guidance for the process that we will be going through to amend contracts. 2) there was reference in the earlier policies to historic patent parcels; and that language has been superseded with new language that talks about all parcels shall comply with the Agriculture Exclusive Zone criteria. 3) there was some specific discussion around Policy 10-2a(1) – consistency to make sure that the language that was in that section was fully consistent with the changes that are in the version for the Agriculture/Working Landscape Land Use Classification. Input from the public was provided by the following on Chapter 10: Don Starchman referred to Section D. Maintaining the Rural Character of the County; and he advised that there is still language in the section that “…the General Plan places a great emphasis on ensuring that substandard agricultural parcels are not recognized through the certificate of compliance process during the tenure of the contract…” He feels that if this language is included in the new contracts, it will be covered by those contracts; and an appellate process has determined that those certificates will be issued for existing contracts, and they are required to be issued under State law. He noted that there was discussion in Chapter 5 and codified today, that lands under Williamson Act contract are subject to the conditions and terms of the contract. He does not feel that there needs to be additional requirements placed on the contract; and he does not feel that it is appropriate for this restrictive language to be included in the General Plan. He referred to item number 25 that was discussed earlier under Chapter 5; referencing Implementation Measure 10-6a(1) and the removal of “historic patent” and the text toward the end of the end of the sentence. He noted that “historic patent” was removed as directed by the Board. However, the language at the end of the sentence was not removed as he feels the Board directed. He referred to Implementation Measures 10-2a(2) and 10-2a(3) on the revised pages; and he stated they should be written the same way; i.e., prohibit lot line adjustments on parcels that are subject to Williamson Act contract unless they comply with terms of the Williamson Act; and prohibit development permits on Williamson Act contract parcels unless they comply with the terms of the Williamson Act contract. He does not feel that this is the place to address the contract other than saying that you will enforce those contracts, and he has no problem with that. County Counsel referred to Implementation Measure 10-6a(1) and the instruction sheet prepared by staff; and he noted that it was the Board’s direction to omit the verbiage at the end sentence as noted by Don Starchman. He advised that he overlooked taking that language out when he removed “historic patent.” He advised that it would be consistent to correct that portion of the Implementation Measure. In looking at Implementation Measures 10-2a(3) and 10-2a(2), he feels that this is something a little different than merely the construction of residences contrary to the Williamson Act contract. This is developing policy with respect to how lot line adjustments are going to be handled and substandard sized parcels will be handled. Those issues are not contained within the contract (Williamson Act). The contract language doesn’t say you can get a lot line adjustment under a particular circumstance or that you can do something with a substandard sized parcel. He feels that these are development ---PAGE BREAK--- 22 10-17-06 standards with respect to these lands. Andy Hauge agreed. County Counsel referred to the other text change that was requested in Section D. Maintaining the Rural Character of the County; and he advised that it would be his recommendation that this be modified to be consistent with the earlier actions of the Board concerning modification of existing contracts with respect to certificates of compliance. He agreed that it could be reworded to state that it shall be the policy of the Board that future contracts have the condition that applicants have to agree with any new contract to not apply for a certificate of compliance during the lifetime of that contract. This would be consistent with the other change that was made stating that it only affects future contracts and not existing contracts. Discussion was held. Andy Hauge agreed with the recommended revisions to make this consistent with the Board’s earlier direction, and the Board concurred. Don Starchman asked where the language is that states that the condition is only in respect to new contracts. Andy Hauge advised that this is language that will be added. County Counsel referred to Chapter 5, Section M. Existing Contracts and Agreements; and reiterated his suggestion that this be modified to state that it doesn’t apply to existing Williamson Act contracts. John Gamper asked about the 1997 existing contracts that have restrictions on the recognition of certificates of compliance. County Counsel advised that he does not know if the 1997 contracts have this language; but there was a Board resolution that said that this should be a condition in the newer contracts and it took affect in 1997. Sarah Williams stated she thinks it is 1997 contracts and on that have this condition, and it is based on Board action each and every year on those contracts. County Counsel advised that if a contract today has a provision that you can not ask for certificates of compliance, nothing that he has said this evening would change that. If the earlier contracts that didn’t have the language with respect to certificates of compliance are still in effect, then they would be unchanged by any changes that are being recommended this evening. Further discussion was held. Supervisor Bibby asked for clarification that this will still allow for the County and State to have the ability to update contracts; and for the County to update, modify, and issue new agreements. County Counsel responded in the affirmative; and he advised that if the Board wanted to come back next week or next month and say that it is non-renewing all contracts unless a new contract is entered into with new terms, the Board would still have the prerogative to do that. That would remain unaffected by this. Discussion was held. County Counsel advised that the record and this Board has been made quite clear that it is the intention of this section that contracts can be modified. The Board concurred with being consistent and agreed with the changes suggested by County Counsel. Don Starchman referred to the remaining two issues: Implementation Measures 10- 2a(2) and 10-2a(3); and he stated it is his stand that the County can make those requirements, but that you can only make them for Agriculture Exclusive property. He does not feel that the County can discriminate against just properties within Agriculture Exclusive that have Williamson Act contracts. There should not be a separate set of rules for Williamson Act contracted land and another set of rules for Agriculture Exclusive land. He feels that it would be better to have the language in both of those Implementation Measures that says that lot line adjustments and development permits will not be issued unless they are in compliance with the contract. He advised that they have no problems with honoring the contracts. County Counsel advised that if it is the Board’s desire to be clearer that this is the policy with respect to all parcels, which it is as he understands it, the Implementation Measures could be changed to read that lot line adjustments, including adjustments of Williamson Act contracted parcels; and substandard parcels, including parcels under the Williamson Act, and that would cover all parcels. This would also maintain the emphasis on wanting to maintain Williamson Act compliance. Don Starchman questioned whether this is really where the County wants to go. He cited an example of an 80-acre or 120-acre Agriculture Exclusive parcel that is substandard and questioned whether the County wants to say that it will not issue a development permit to any of these types of parcels. He noted that under Title 17, substandard parcels have been allowed to have permits. He also noted that there is language in Title 17 relative to lot line adjustment and provisions that as long as it improves the situation on both of the affected parcels, that it will be approved. He advised that they are not asking for anything additional. He agrees that if it can be shown that it is in violation of the ---PAGE BREAK--- 23 10-17-06 contract, then they are not entitled to a development permit or lot line adjustment. But he does not feel that a separate set of rules should be set up. Discussion was held. Supervisor Pickard asked if it is necessary that these two Implementation Measures be included in the General Plan. Don Starchman stated they were not in the last version, and he does not feel that the Board directed this change. Supervisor Pickard asked if these were a result of mitigation from comments on the EIR. Andy Hauge advised that these Mitigation Measures have been in the document for awhile. County Counsel stated he does not see in the environmental mitigation that Implementation Measure 10-2a(3) is absolutely necessary. Implementation Measure 10-2a(2) is more a discussion of how lot line adjustments will be handled regardless of whether the land is under Williamson Act contract or not. He feels that Implementation Measure 10-2a(2) is more consistent with where the Board wants to go for avoiding the loss of agricultural lands. Implementation Measure 10-2a(3) really doesn’t accomplish this by standing alone. He feels that both of these are restatements of existing policy. Kris Schenk agreed that they were intended to make sure that the General Plan has clear statements of what the intent is based on the testimony they received from Department of Conservation, Farm Bureau, and from all of the people that provided testimony; and he feels that these do reflect the care with which they take when they review these issues. Supervisor Bibby noted that this language is close to the disclaimer on the certificates of compliances, but it includes a warning that you may not be issued a development permit. John Gamper, with the California Farm Bureau, stated they feel very strongly that the General Plan policies should reflect the fact that the Williamson Act is different than Agriculture Exclusive zoning. It is not discriminatory, it has a ag preserve overlay over the Agriculture Exclusive zoning; and there are statutory requirements and there are contract requirements. He appreciates all of the strong policies in the beginning of the discussion in Chapter 10 to nurture the agricultural sector; and to preserve agriculture and aid it owners, which the Williamson Act does. He noted that the viability of agriculture is dependent on conserving and managing resources for the future and the Williamson Act helps do that. It is the fundamental principle of the General Plan to retain Agricultural/Working Landscape and you can not do that without the Williamson Act in this County. He feels that unless we have policies that reflect the County’s goal to protect the Williamson Act and to protect real estate consumers from getting burned on buying property and then not being able to build a house on the property, or if they do and then they come back later and find out that they are in material breach of the contract – he feels that we need to have a bright light on this thing that we are going to do this right and our policies and General Plan are saying we are going to do it right because it meets all of the goals and objectives of what our General Plan is all about in the agriculture element. He urged the Board to keep these Implementation Measures in the Plan. He also stated he was surprised at the recommendation to delete “under common ownership” in Implementation Measure 10-2a(3) because a substandard parcel that is under Williamson Act contract shall not be issued a development permit unless it is managed with other contiguous contracted parcels. A management agreement may be of much shorter duration than the 20-year Williamson Act contract, so if they are not under common ownership, he feels there could be a problem of a material breach of contract where a development permit has been allowed on a substandard parcel without a joint management agreement. He feels that if certificates of compliance are issued for historic parcels that are substandard size, you are just saying that as long as the parcel is managed contiguously with the others, a development permit can be issued. He feels you could end up with two houses created by a certificate of compliance and a material breach of contract and massive fines. He urged that “under common ownership” be retained. County Counsel referred to the “common ownership issue” and the problem he sees with that is that we have parcels now under a single contract that are not under common ownership. He has not had an opportunity to fully evaluate what impact this will have on existing circumstances. If this wording is left in the General Plan, situations will need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. He feels that Implementation Measure 10-2a(2) is a substantial movement towards controlling some of the difficulties when people want to reconfigure substandard sized parcels or other parcels under the contract. It gives some ability to handle what is happening with those parcels. He feels that Implementation Measure 10-2a(3) is really in part controlled by 10-2a(2) because often it is the substandard size parcel that they want to adjust lines with other parcels. He agrees that these two Implementation Measures together have a greater impact than just one of them alone on what you can ---PAGE BREAK--- 24 10-17-06 do to deal with some of the developing issues. He noted that there is some undeveloped case law on what you can do with historic patent parcels; and there are two theories that exist. He feels that the General Plan should set policies that are squarely within what we believe is to be the enforceable law today, and allow the flexibility as those laws become clearer with what you can do, if it is the Board’s desire, to strengthen what it is doing with the Williamson contracts. John Gamper advised that his fear is that we are institutionalizing any General Plan past mistakes, and he does not feel that we want to do that. He feels that we should move forward and not make the same mistakes again where we are allowing development permits for residential structures on contracted land on substandard parcels. He stated that if the land is not under common ownership, he does not feel that you can build another structure on it. Don Starchman stated he feels that Mr. Gamper pointed out what he feels is a major problem this, because when he talked about substandard parcels, he talked about parcels less than 40- acres. He feels that if we define substandard parcels as being parcels less than 40-acres, that matches the old Williamson Act contracts and the new ones and there isn’t a problem. Right now, “substandard parcels” isn’t defined; so he feels the simplest thing is to say that we will be in compliance with Williamson Act contracts. Otherwise, “substandard parcel” needs to be defined and he suggested that it be a parcel of less than 40-acres as referred to by Mr. Gamper. County Counsel advised that under current law and our current contracts, people are not supposed to be building residential dwellings or getting building permits unless they are meeting the requirements of the overlying Williamson Act contract. Whether or not, that has been enforced vigorously enough in the past, or too vigorously depending on your point of view, is a fact that we have to deal with going forward. But that statement does not need to be put in the General Plan, for it to be true and for it to be required. The issue is to what extent the Board wants to put people on notice that the law is the law and that is the policy decision for the Board. Supervisor Bibby referred to an issue with AB 1492, and asked about the size of the parcel; and Sarah Williams advised that the parcel was 55 acres. John Gamper referred to the issue of size of the substandard parcel; and he noted that if you build a house on a 40-acre piece of contracted land, and there are numerous ones in the County, and there is no agriculture on the property, he feels that is a material breach of contract. He feels that the issue is whether the primary use of the property is agriculture and whether the house is incidental to that agricultural use. He feels that the Board needs to address the issue of residential construction on contracted land where there is no agriculture. Don Starchman noted that as Mr. Gamper pointed out, the issue is not parcel size, it is being in compliance with the contract. He feels “substandard” means absolutely nothing. Within the Williamson Act contract, there are three numbers: 40-acres which is the minimum and is also the minimum set by State law for non-prime agriculture; 100-acres which is the minimum set in the contracts for preserves, but we have allowed people in the County to piggyback onto some other contract that was contiguous to it to bring in parcels smaller than that. So he questioned that if someone was allowed to come in with 80-acres to a Williamson Act contract, that now we are not going to allow them to have a building permit? He feels this gets down to whether they had the agricultural use on the land, which is back to the contract. The third number is the 160-acres which is the underlying zoning for the Agriculture Exclusive. He questioned which of these numbers is being referred to when discussing “substandard.” He agrees that Implementation Measure 10-2a(3) does not belong in the Plan. In regard to Implementation Measure 10-2a(2), if it is the Board’s desire to not allow lot line adjustments in the Agriculture Exclusive properties in the future unless they come up to 160-acre minimum parcel size, then this is something that should be adopted for the whole Agriculture/Working Landscape, not just for the Williamson Act contracted land. County Counsel commented that if the Board wanted these two Implementation Measures for the new Williamson Act contracts, these could be included as policy direction for where it wants the new contracts to be. He understands that contract issues will be coming to the Board as a separate agenda item. He suggested that how you arrive at whether the policies will be implemented for everybody by non-renewal and asking for new contracts or just new contracts that are entered into, can be a policy direction for what the Board is going to do going forward. He feels Implementation Measure 10-2a(2) could be amended to apply to all lot line adjustments with the understanding that we ---PAGE BREAK--- 25 10-17-06 are dealing with all of the agricultural lands that are covered under this section with this policy. With Implementation Measure 10-2a(3), he noted that there is the existing difficulty of substandard sized parcels that have been allowed to be under Williamson Act contract; and if that policy is enacted going forward for the new contracts, those substandard sized parcels will be addressed by going in the direction of saying you have to enter a new contract or be out. If parcels don’t qualify, they will be removed. Otherwise, the problem will still be there and will have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. He summed up by recommending that Implementation Measure 10-2a(2) should include “under the Williamson Act” revision; and Implementation Measure 10-2a(3) should be revised to say that it is the policy of the Board that substandard sized parcels under new Williamson Act contracts shall not be issued development permits. John Gamper stated he is confused by the addition of new contracts in Implementation Measure 10-2a(3) because existing law does not allow for residential structures on existing Williamson Act contracts. He feels that if this issue is flagged, it should be specified that a building permit will not be issued for a substandard parcel. He noted that the zoning is 160-acres for the Agriculture Exclusive and you have to have a minimum of 100-acres to get into the Williamson Act. So you could have a 80- acre parcel and add it to someone else’s to get to the 100-acres. But he feels that to allow a 40-acre ranchette on non-contracted land, in a 160-acre zone, is a material breach of contract if there is no agricultural activity on the land. He noted that a couple of horses in a back yard is not agriculture, and he feels that this matter needs to be addressed. County Counsel referred to Implementation Measure 10-2a(2) and recommended that lot line adjustments, including those under Williamson Act contract, shall result in parcels that are in compliance with the underlying land use designation, including minimum parcel size. The Board concurred with this recommendation. County Counsel referred to Implementation Measure 10-2a(3) and recommended that it be the Board’s policy that substandard sized parcels under new Williamson Act contracts shall not be issued development permits unless they are managed with other standard contiguous parcels. Discussion was held. Supervisor Bibby commented on her review and suggestion that the best way to monitor contracts is that there be one Williamson Act contract per parcel due to future changes with divorce, death, and change in ownerships, etc. County Counsel advised that this is an issue, and he agrees that it would be easier to manage if the requirement was a contract for each parcel and that is something that the Board can ask for going forward in the process. But he does not know if this type of policy is something that is commonly reflected in a General Plan document. He noted that it is a clear direction from the Board to tighten up the policies on how the Williamson Act contracts are handled in this Plan. Andy Hauge noted that Sarah Williams suggested, and there has been other committee discussions concerning this issue of one contract per property owner. Sarah Williams noted that there has been discussion about one contract per property owner for contiguous parcels. She advised that the Agriculture Advisory Committee has made some recommendations on amending the policies to implement the Williamson Act to help resolve the problems that have resulted with multiple property owners per contact. The Committee has also addressed the issue that Don Starchman was discussing with the three parcels sizes; and they have come up with recommendations that were related to productivity of those different parcels. They were reluctant and did not want to say that the minimum parcel size for an agricultural preserve or a Williamson Act contract was just 160 or 100 acres. They wanted to establish some gross income criteria so that there was still the ability to have some of the smaller parcels under contract if those properties were being used for more intense agricultural activities. Further discussion was held. Sarah Williams advised that the recommendations for the amended agricultural policies will be brought to the Board and it will need to go through a public hearing process. She feels that the issue of the substandard sized parcel is best addressed by what the Agricultural Advisory Committee is recommending, which is a sliding scale criteria related productivity. County Counsel expressed concern that a general policy is being crafted for the General Plan to meet what the Board thinks is going to be the recommendations coming to it at some time in the future; and he suggested that an option is for policy direction to be given for standards to be developed for how substandard sized parcels under contracted land are dealt with. David Butler asked whether there will be a vehicle that can be placed in the General Plan that will deal with some substandard parcels that are created through death or divorce, but they are not ---PAGE BREAK--- 26 10-17-06 contiguous to another parcel owned that qualifies. He noted that with some of the early contracts, a substandard parcel could be brought in as long as you were the owner of a larger qualifying parcel, even if the parcels were not contiguous. Discussion was held. Sarah Williams noted that the Board has in the past considered non-contiguous parcels and it is problematic when portions of those then sell and are transferred. County Counsel referred to Implementation Measure 10-2a(3) and asked for clarification of whether the Board wants policy direction to develop standards or something that will give a standard tonight to deal with this. The Board concurred that standards shall be developed for issuance of development permits for substandard sized parcels under Williamson Act contracted land. David Butler reiterated his previous concern about dealing with existing contracts. Discussion was held. Supervisor Pickard responded that the revised standards would apply for new contracts after they are adopted. Laurie Oberholtzer referred to Implementation Measure 10-2a(1) and she advised that there is an inconsistency with the wording concerning reclassification of uses in Chapter 5, Section G. Criteria for Lands Proposed to be Removed from the Agriculture/Working Landscape Land Use Classification. Andy Hauge agreed that the wording should be identical, and he will fix it; and the Board concurred. John Gamper advised that he has been asked by the County Farm Bureau to express their sincere reservations regarding the size of the study plan area for Catheys Valley on the map and the provisions that are contained in the Plan relative to community plan areas. He advised that the issue is that there is a great deal of agricultural preserve land and a Agriculture Exclusive zoned land underneath the planning study area on the diagram map, and the language in the second to the last paragraph in Section D. Maintaining the Rural Character of the County says that we want to protect agricultural land and it is stated throughout the findings how important it is to protect farming and ranching in the County. But then it goes on to say that the community planning area and special planning areas are not necessarily for residential development. Once the community or special plan is developed, then all of the policies regarding protection of farming in these zones is off, based on whatever is in that community or special plan. So they are concerned about the future of this large area and protection of agricultural lands. He advised that he has suggested language for this paragraph and for the following paragraph. Discussion was held concerning this matter and the review process. Supervisor Bibby noted that protection of agriculture is important to the Catheys Valley community. County Counsel stated he feels that there is some confusion over the planning study area and the planning area. He advised that, per his discussion with the Planning Director, a planning study area does not qualify as the planning area within the General Plan – it is just the area that is going to be looked at. Any land that is going to end up in a planning area, still has to meet the requirements of the General Plan for handling agricultural lands and other lands. Supervisor Bibby clarified that they can be more restrictive, but not less. County Counsel advised that the standards that are within the General Plan itself are setting the baseline, so the only thing that can happen is they would end up being more restrictive with respect to those lands, unless the General Plan is changed as a whole. Supervisor Bibby stated that if all of the agriculture and Williamson Act land were taken away from the study area and if the community isn’t given a say over that, it will be less restrictive. And, you take away the opportunity of being more restrictive. County Counsel noted that for appointing members to the committee for the Catheys Valley area, that the smaller the planning study area is, the more concentrated the pool of people will be that is drawn from for membership and that will impact their attitudes. People that live in residential areas are going to have a different view. Further discussion was held. Supervisor Bibby noted that the old town planning area boundary consisted of 823-acres, and the current proposal consists of 18-acres of commercial, with 8-acres of reserve for that future development or fair share for home-based businesses to be able to locate – a total of 26 acres. Everything else is there today and they want to be more restrictive on the agricultural land. County Counsel noted that it is important to recognize that a planning study area doesn’t carry the connotations as “the planning area.” ---PAGE BREAK--- 27 10-17-06 John Gamper referred to the last sentence in the last paragraph concerning preservation of agricultural land and residential development; and he asked that it be modified. In his discussion with MERG, they suggested that the paragraph be deleted. Discussion was held relative to the requested change. Supervisor Pickard agreed with recognizing the importance of agricultural land in the County, and he noted that it is also important that we have a place for people to live. Rita Kidd stated MERG agrees with Mr. Gamper. They are not sure what is being accomplished with the last paragraph and whether it has any value. In regard to concerns about the size of the Catheys Valley community plan, she appreciates that it was made clear that it is a study area. She referred to the Santa Inez Valley, which has four unincorporated cities; and advised that they started with a study area of 225,000 acres and ended up with a planning area that still contained the four towns and 76 square miles. She noted that the Martis Valley ended up with a community planning area of almost 90 square miles. So, she feels that the size of the Catheys Valley’s planning area is insignificant when compared with these other two areas; and they were equally concerned about very similar situations – that you have a local area to manage the compatibility between the critical agricultural lands and residential lands that can encroach on the economy of agricultural interests. She feels that being able to keep the Catheys Valley plan together in the size that it is today as a study area will give them an opportunity to really have policies in place that protect that agricultural interest. Supervisor Bibby clarified that the request is not to take out the Williamson Act and agricultural land from the study area. Rita Kidd referred to their May meeting with the Farm Bureau, and she noted that they have not stipulated in areas like Catheys Valley’s community planning study area, that some portion of that advisory committee is mandated to represent agricultural interests. She feels that this will also be an issue in Hornitos as they begin to form their community planning area advisory committee; and she feels that we need to have by-laws that stipulate that. Following further discussion concerning the last sentence, the Board concurred with deleting the sentence. Supervisor Turpin clarified that red areas on the maps will be adopted; and any other areas are strictly study areas and we are not adopting them because those plans have not been submitted to the Board. Andy Hauge noted that the Board still needs to review the new policy or provide direction to establish a policy to develop the potential to transfer Agricultural/Working Landscape and Residential lands, perhaps with Policy 10-2; or it could be added to the “wish list.” Discussion was held. Supervisor Fritz stated she feels there should be a vehicle to allow for the transfer. Supervisor Pickard agreed with the development of a standard, but with the inclusion that it would be an enhancement to agricultural lands as well. He advised that he is aware of a situation where he feels that if it could be corrected by having a policy to allow the exchange of land that it would be a tremendous benefit to the public and preserve agriculture. John Gamper advised that they have reviewed the map of the specific property that they feel is being mentioned, and according to their sources, they feel that the land that is proposed to be swapped from Residential to Agriculture Exclusive has no where near the same quality. Supervisors Bibby and Pickard asked for information on the specific property that he referred to. Chairman Stetson reminded the Board that they are trying to establish policy and not to resolve a specific land dispute during this process. Cathie Pierce, Mariposa County Farm Bureau, advised that what they are concerned about is that in some of the land exchanges that the land will not be of equal value. She stated the case that is being discussed is the Dunn ranch – she borders both sides of the ranch and has been there her entire life. She knows the land; and the part that is being discussed is Agriculture Exclusive ground and it is very open and it is very flat. For many years it was permanent pasture and had a big sprinkler system. The back part that they are talking about trading it with is brushy and more rocky and it is not open – she does not feel that the land is equivalent; therefore, they have a problem because it is not of the same quality. Don Starchman stated he feels the Board is headed in the right direction; and suggested that the Plan state that a policy shall be developed. ---PAGE BREAK--- 28 10-17-06 County Counsel asked if it is the Board’s direction that a policy shall be developed. Supervisor Bibby stated she wants to see the goal included that the exchange results in equivalent or better land for agriculture. Andy Hauge noted that Goal 10-2 which is to avoid the loss of agricultural lands in the Agriculture/Working Landscape; and the policy is that agricultural lands should be retained. He suggested the Implementation Measure 10-2a(4) could be added for this. County Counsel suggested that the language be added that the County shall develop a land exchange policy that includes no net loss in the quality of the agricultural lands. Then the standards could be developed with the specifics. The Board concurred with this change. Kris Schenk asked for clarification that the other mitigation measures in the Rural Character Protection alternative are okay; and the Board concurred. Discussion was held. Andy Hauge noted that the alternative five measures were not included as there wasn’t direction to do that – those measures on Table 2-5 still need to be reviewed for Chapter 10. Supervisor Pickard initiated discussion relative to the mitigation measure in Alternative five Rural Character Protection that there shall be no net loss of agricultural lands. Andy Hauge advised that this was the rewrite of Policy 10-2a. Supervisor Bibby asked about defining “prime” agricultural land. Andy Hauge advised that the State’s definition would be used, and he doesn’t feel that there is any “prime” agricultural land in the County. Kris Schenk advised that his recollection is that this was a mitigation measure that was requested by the State agency comments. Rita Kidd suggested the policy be prefaced with a statement that says there shall be no net loss of agricultural lands in Mariposa County. Supervisor Pickard asked about a recent program in Merced County where they set up a farmland mitigation bank. Andy Hauge said he wasn’t familiar with that, but he could look into it. Laurie Oberholtzer stated she feels you can always be tougher than what the State agencies are asking; and she noted that the foothill counties do not have the “prime”/internationally perfect agricultural lands; and she stated she feels adding the local agricultural land into this is a good idea. Andy Hauge referred to the existing policies and changes that were discussed, and stated he feels it is the Board’s choice of which way to go. Supervisor Pickard stated he feels the existing language should be retained, and the policy substantiates that. Supervisor Turpin asked what would happen if a curve on a highway needs to be widened and it involves Agricultural Exclusive land. Andy Hauge noted that the existing policy says that agricultural land should be retained; it doesn’t say “no net loss” and he doesn’t feel that there was ever an intent that widening the highway would qualify under this. County Counsel advised that the current language provides sufficient flexibility to address those types of issues. A review of Chapter 9 Circulation, Infrastructure, and Services was held. Kris Schenk advised that the areas where there are language changes involve the areas of discussion of state highways capacity. There is discussion of County roads and there probably needs to be more discussion on this. He advised that there are mitigation measures that talk about airports and specifically our local Mariposa Airport; and discussion of infrastructure and a higher level of services for certain parts of the County in those policies. Input from the public was provided by the following on Chapter 9: Tony Kidd, a Catheys Valley resident and MERG Board member, read their letter into the record. He advised that MERG is committed to maintaining Mariposa’s rural way of life. They thanked the Board and the Planning Department for including Rural Character Protection as one of the General Plan’s alternatives, and they the residents of the County will benefit from adoption of this alternative for the long run. They feel that the new General Plan as written has policies that are more accepting of a low level of service and more traffic on the County’s rural roads. They are opposed to having the rural road standard at a level of service He noted that other foothill counties have a level of service for their rural roads; and this is a road standard which is defined as mostly stable flow of traffic. They feel that the level of standards needs be increased to ensure the safety of the residents; and they recommend that rather than using the average daily flow of traffic when considering ---PAGE BREAK--- 29 10-17-06 the allowable density of land development along County rural roads, that new language should be added that requires a peak daily a.m. and p.m. flow of traffic for the analysis. He referred to Section 9.2.02 Summary of Major Findings, O. Roadways, that states that land use planning and decisions will determine the need for road improvements. He advised that it is their recommendation that changes be added to this section that the achievable road service level for a given rural road must have a limiting effect on the total number of homes that will be allowed access. This limitation would remain in effect until the condition of the road is improved. They feel that considering the quality of the road will provide a higher level of protection to the visitors as well as the residents. Discussion was held relative to the level of service and the versus standards. Andy Hauge advised that this objective will not be met for building homes on existing parcels; however, it could be met for new development and new subdivisions. He advised that the quality of the road issue is taken up with the road standards that Public Works is working on. Dana Hertfelder, Public Works Director, advised that there is an existing standard and improvement standards for new road construction. However, minimum standards for County roads need to be developed, as they have not been specifically identified. He stated he sees the issue being more of capacity versus levels of service. He noted that levels of service mostly apply to state highways and looks at delays and length of time, and do not address the issue of road surface and width. Andy Hauge reviewed the goals and policies in this Chapter and advised that they begin to deal with the quality and what this Plan requires. Kris Schenk noted that the policies discuss adequate capacity, but there is no definition in the Plan of what adequate capacity might involve. When he discussed this with the Public Works Director earlier, they feel there could be a definition which would make it clearer that we are not just talking about level and and one way of defining it would be to say that adequate capacity means a road which meets current County improvement standards for existing and proposed project traffic increases. The standards would still need to be developed through ordinances. Dana Hertfelder advised that the biggest issue facing the County is the width issue which would have more to do with capacity and safety than the level of service. He noted that if the definition for capacity is used that it meets current County improvement standards for the given ADT (average daily traffic), that will have the effect of possibly restricting development on certain County roads which currently do not meet any minimum width standard. The minimum width standard in the Improvement Standards is 18-feet wide, or two- nine foot travel lanes. Supervisor Pickard noted that there is allowance to mitigate this. Dana Hertfelder noted that changes have to be proposed as a part of the project for the subdivision; and a simpler solution is the route the County is pursuing with the study to implement the impact fees – these fees would be set aside to improve the roads up to the standard that would be necessary. Dana Hertfelder advised that capacity could be established by using a traffic study and level of service; by establishing a minimum width (and perhaps even road surface condition – whether it is paved or dirt doesn’t seem to matter as much as width) for County roads that meet the capacity and use that as a baseline – but that would impact the ability to develop on certain roads and he does not see something less than a width of 18-feet wide (two-nine foot travel lanes) as a minimum requirement. He noted that portions of Old Highway and Allred Road, and others would not meet this requirement. So until there is a mitigation measure, the ability to develop will be impacted. Further discussion was held. Dana Hertfelder noted that the only place where there is a current traffic congestion problem in the County is where Highway 49 South merges with Highway 140 in the morning; and on Eighth Street when people are dropping the students off for school. Dana Hertfelder advised the County does not have the ability currently to require off-site improvements to County roads for minor subdivisions; and he feels that this will be the area of greatest impact. Laurie Oberholtzer noted that they recommended in their comments on the EIR and on the General Plan that the Board adopt both a level of service standard and local roadway standards. Because we are a rural area, they feel it is important to go beyond just a level of service. She stated this usually involves making up standards that work for our community – there are a lot of samples being used by different rural communities that adopted their own standards. She feels it makes sense for the main arterials, the State highways and larger roads in town, to use level of service also. She noted that in reviewing the EIR, it looks like we only have one non-highway road that will go to level of service in the Plan – Greeley Hill Road. They feel a level standard should be adopted for the non- highway roads. She noted that the impact fee program is not discussed in the General Plan. Andy ---PAGE BREAK--- 30 10-17-06 Hauge advised that it is in Alternative five. Laurie Oberholtzer stated that the reference is Alternative five is for highways, and she feels it should be included in the General Plan, as well as for any other public facilities. Supervisor Turpin asked for clarification relative to the Public Works Director’s recommendation concerning the level of service and road standards. Andy Hauge advised that the current policy says that the Board will adopted comprehensive standards for all County roadways; and the intent is that includes width and construction type, etc. David Butler stated when we talk about rural character, we can remember the rural roads and still have some of them – i.e., Ben Hur Road and Buckeye Road. But he feels that as we improve those, we will also increase the speed and that will increase major accidents. He does agree with the Public Works Director on development fees. If development in the long run can’t carry itself, then maybe it doesn’t belong here. But he feels that the fees paid for a specific area should stay in that area to help work on those roads. He noted that we do not have gridlock and that is a problem with trying to say that the roads are substandard – perhaps quality wise, they are. And perhaps we would like to see wider roads. Tony Kidd stated he does not mind all the curvy roads, they control the speed by themselves. He feels that part of the problem is continuing to develop the land along these roads and putting more and more people onto these roads – this results in more traffic, speeding and more accidents. He is not advocating fixing the roads; he is advocating for not developing along the roads until the road is improved to handle the increase in the traffic. David Butler noted that there isn’t currently a speed policy on our rural roads. He suggested that perhaps this needs to be reviewed – perhaps a 40 mph speed limit countywide. Dana Hertfelder provided input on the speed limit restrictions and his research. He advised that it appears that the County probably can establish an overall speed limit. He noted that the existing speed limit for most rural roads is 55 mph or whatever speed you can safely travel; and that is generally what it comes down to – most of the accidents that occur usually involve unsafe speed and in most cases that is less than 55 mph. But unless the speed limits are enforced, they will not be effective. He noted that speed limits won’t make up for a narrow road. He used Old Highway as an example, and he advised that there is no real accident history that would suggest that to date that the road has been unsafe because of its narrow nature; however, each time more traffic is added to the road, you increase the likelihood that there will be accidents due to the nature of the road. He could not say at what point this becomes an issue. Supervisor Bibby stated she feels that there would be more accidents if people didn’t have to actually leave the pavement to avoid the oncoming car. Supervisor Pickard suggested that a way to fix this is for new development to pay its way and he feels that is a theme that the Board has been working toward with developing the impact fee program; and he asked whether there is a tool in this circulation element that needs to be addressed. Dana Hertfelder stated he feels that Chapter 9 sets the framework for developing a minimum County standard which can be looked at and applied to roads to make sure that they either currently have sufficient capacity or what would need to be done to improve the capacity. He feels that would allow for development, if not immediately, then eventually on most County roads. He noted that there will still be problems in certain areas with width because the County does not have the right-of-way on all of our roads; some are just prescriptive right-of-ways. Discussion was held. Andy Hauge suggested that the definition of adequate capacity be included in the Glossary. Supervisor Bibby noted that Section T. Solid Waste needs to be updated to reflect the construction of the co-composting facility and the increase in years in the useful life of the landfill. Andy Hauge advised that he will work with the Public Works Director to update this section. Further discussion was held relative to defining “capacity” as a road which meets current County Improvement Standards, including width for existing and proposed projects. Supervisor Turpin noted that the standards being required for new subdivisions are much greater. Dana Hertfelder provided input on the current standards, and stated the width could be reviewed to determine whether that level of a road is needed. Supervisor Stetson clarified that going forward, no new level roads would be created. ---PAGE BREAK--- 31 10-17-06 A review of Chapter 11 Conservation and Open Space was held. Input from the public was provided by the following on Chapter 11: Len McKenzie, representing MERG, stated he was also speaking on behalf of the interests of the Yosemite Area Audubon; and he read their statement into the record. He commended the Board, particularly the Planning Department and Planning Director Kris Schenk, for following through on the commitment to develop the Rural Character Protection alternative. They appreciate that this alternative requires that most of the implementation measures replace the optional “shoulds” with mandatory “shalls.” They feel this is environmentally superior to the alternatives presented in the draft Plan. However, they feel that Alternative five doesn’t go quite far enough in protecting the agricultural landscape and environmental values of Mariposa County. This is providing much stronger protection for the County’s environmental sustainability, its biological diversity, its wildlife populations and habitats, its watersheds and wetlands, scenic qualities and its open space including its agricultural lands. He noted that the Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center has pointed out in its comments on the Plan that this alternative would provide far more consistency with legal direction and the intent of CEQA requirements. He will not duplicate the comments provided by the other members of MERG, but he shares their concerns and views. He appreciates the comment made by Larry Zurker earlier tonight in his reference to environmental sustainability. “Keep Mariposa Rural” has been MERG’s mantra for some time; but they would also say that if there is an over-arching theme in the General Plan, it should be one of environmental sustainability. He noted that State law requires the protection of natural resources, and Alternative five Implementation Measure 11-4a(1), will help the County to comply with this mandate by stipulating rather than reviewing the preparation of an environmental conservation program. He suggested that this Implementation Measure be strengthened by specifying a timeframe for near-term rather than intermediate-term completion of the conservation program. They believe that Implementation Measures 11-4a(3) and 11-4a(4) in this alternative should specify target dates for completion and implementation. They also believe that Implementation Measures 11-4a(6), and should require assessments of cumulative impacts of the resources specified – not just site specific surveys, but also surveys that evaluate the cumulative impacts on those resources. They concur that these measures are needed to meet CEQA requirements. They believe that Implementation Measure 11-4a(7) should not be limited to breeding raptors and migratory birds; but that as a matter of stewardship that active nests of all nesting species should be protected until the nesting cycles are completed. He referred to Implementation Measure 11-4a(8), and they believe that to allow removal or destruction of up to 75% of sensitive plant communities is much too generous; and they recommend that the upper limit be reduced to 50%. He suggested that the language in Implementation Measure 11- 4a(9) for a comprehensive vegetation community map for a proposed development site be amended to specify native vegetation. He stated that project sites that are no longer populated by native plant communities need not be restricted to the 25% limit. They asked that a timeframe for implementation of this measure be specified and that mitigation be required for impacts on habitats of sensitive wildlife species. They believe that Implementation Measure 11-4a(10) is crucial to assure adequate protection of wildlife; and that Implementation Measure 11-4a(11) is mandatory as laws require no net loss of wetlands. They feel that the proposed mitigation measure in Impact BR-8 in the draft EIR concerning build-out of the proposed General Plan possibly resulting in the net loss wetlands, etc., must be added to the final EIR to assure compliance with this mandate. Len McKenzie made one comment on Chapter 13 – Regional Tourism that he feels is related to natural resources. He feels that this Chapter should strongly acknowledge, that not withstanding the attraction of Yosemite National Park, that protection of this County’s rural character and natural assets is essential to increasing and sustaining destination tourism to the County. He noted that visitors don’t come to Mariposa County to see development. They recommend that this section also place increased emphasis on the potential for agri-nature tourism and specifying additional implementation measures to further that potential. He noted that the Harvest Weekend in the Country is scheduled for this weekend and he encouraged participation. He again urged the adoption of the Rural Character Protection Alternative – the “smart growth” alternative that will enable us to realize the goals and policies articulated in the General Plan. Discussion was held. Andy Hauge noted that prior versions of the General Plan had short-term, mid-term and long-term timeframes; and those have been removed through the revisions. In the final ---PAGE BREAK--- 32 10-17-06 EIR, he has recommended that timeframes be put back in the Plan. He noted that the difficulty and challenge is determining the timeframes and the financial implications will need to be reviewed, as well as the staff commitment implications of those commitments. Kris Schenk stated he does not know if staff will be able to get back to the Board with the timeframes before the next draft Plan comes out. Andy Hauge suggested that the timeframes be placed in the EIR; and at the time of adoption, the Board could look at them. Kris Schenk advised that they are anticipating that when County Counsel has finished his review of the mitigation measures that it will be necessary to indicate when they feel that will be accomplished. Supervisor Stetson asked about the input provided relative to the upper limit for sensitive plant communities that could be lost and how a determination would be made. Andy Hauge advised that there could be a policy that the 75 percent is changed down to 50 percent; and that is in the Alternative five implementation measures. Discussion was held. Len McKenzie stated that perhaps he misinterpreted the wording in the statement: “if avoidance of more than 75 percent of the identified community is deemed unfeasible” and he asked for clarification of whether that means that if it is impossible to avoid more than 25 percent. He was reading it to mean that you could remove up to 75 percent. Andy Hauge noted that the measure reads “that measures will be implemented to prevent the loss of greater than 25 percent of the given area.” County Counsel clarified that “avoidance” means that above 25 percent you are triggering some sort of inquiry. You have to keep 75 percent, so 50 percent would be a lesser standard. Len McKenzie rescinded his requested change on this issue. Discussion was held relative to the request concerning the breeding of raptors and migratory birds. Andy Hauge noted that California is on a major migratory path and that is the reason that special preference is given. Raptors are hard to maintain, so they are also given special preference. Supervisor Bibby asked who will do the site specific surveys; she asked for clarification of defining native species; and she asked about wildlife migration and what is considered wildlife; i.e., wild pigs. Andy Hauge advised that people will probably need to be hired to do the surveys; and that information will be recorded both with the County and with the State data bases. He advised that native plant species are listed and documented; and he advised that the concern is that there are a lot of non-native species being brought in and there are invasive species being brought in – so this is to protect those native species and maintain those populations in Mariposa County. Supervisor Turpin noted that Fish and Game covers the wildlife issues and they have the opportunity to comment on every subdivision. Andy Hauge advised that inclusion in the Plan places it as a County policy. Rita Kidd advised that the reality is that when developments are proposed and an EIR is required, there is documented information already about Mariposa County that people that are hired will be able to do the surveys and pin point things. She referred to Mr. Fortner’s EIR for the Vallecito project and noted that that kind of documentation was clearly created for that development. There were references to native species that in order for development to take place, that they would have to have some relocation and some protection and that they were in fact protected species. Supervisor Bibby noted that this applies to all development and not just major projects. Rita Kidd referred to three minor subdivisions on Old Highway; and she noted that had they been dealt with cumulatively, it would have been a 27-parcel major subdivision. She feels the direction to look at all subdivisions is really smart. Supervisor Turpin referred to Table 11-1(c) – maintain construction vehicles and equipment according to manufacturers specifications; limiting equipment idling time to no longer than 20 minutes; scheduling on construction trip to non-peak traffic hours; and minimizing the length of construction truck trips; and the rest of the requirements. He asked for clarification of whether this means that you can’t haul materials to the County; and he stated he feels that we need to be realistic with these issues. He noted that businesses are under a lot of regulations already. Discussion was held. Andy Hauge advised that these are standard mitigation measures for projects to meet air quality. Supervisor Bibby referred to wood stoves and fireplace issues, and she asked whether this is mandated by the State. Andy Hauge advised that these are mandatory by the State, they have to do with overall improvement of air quality in the State. Laurie Oberholtzer noted that they are tired and asked if the meeting could be continued as they feel that these are important policies. The Board continued with the meeting. She stated she feels the air quality policies are standard and on the low side of what she sees in other general plans, and she noted that they largely relate to new development. She advised that the biotic issues are also ---PAGE BREAK--- 33 10-17-06 for new projects and new subdivisions. She noted that these are all mitigation measures that are recommended in the EIR. She asked that the Board consider their comments when the biotic issues are reviewed. Discussion was held relative to the proposed mitigation measures. David Butler referred to the vegetation issue, and he noted that you can’t kill 75 percent of the vegetation and keep it down. He cited an example on Highway 140 past Aqua Fria where there is 1400 acres that the Soil Conservation worked with his family, and have worked with others, trying to get it back to better condition for agricultural purposes, and the vegetation grows back. So he feels the implementation of this is nothing more than a constraint and trying to slow progress down. Len McKenzie pointed out that this is a reference to sensitive native plant communities and it is very clear that there are communities with species of special concern, and not necessarily the hillsides of chamise and other types of brush. He noted that the site surveys have been done for the past several years and he believes they have been contracted for by the Planning Department. Sarah Williams advised that the contracts have only been done for project specific cases. Supervisor Pickard stated he feels the last two sentences should be removed from Section 11.2.02 Summary of Major Findings, A. Scenic Resources, in the second paragraph to be consistent with the earlier discussions concerning view shed issues. The Board concurred with deleting the two sentences. He asked for clarification of the reasoning for the recommended mitigation measure. Andy Hauge advised that it is mitigating impacts that were found in the EIR. Supervisor Turpin stated he does not feel that the County should go any further than what is already mandated by the State. Further discussion was held relative to the issues and minimizing the length of the trips for construction. County Counsel advised that the Board previously directed for these measures to come back with the minimum that the County could do to comply with the various air quality and other regulations. He advised that this implementation measure is not saying that you will tell a person that they have to procure something from a certain vendor, or go to a certain place; it is saying that when you set up your construction project, you will need to show the County that you are doing something to minimize these impacts. He advised that the County will not be dictating that things be done in a certain way; but asking that business be handled in a manner that is more prudent. David Butler stated he feels that adoption of something like this will give ammunition for the “bean counters” to monitor and govern what is going on. He referred to his experience with storm water control measure monitoring requirements in the Bay Area. He stated he feels that this is like loading a shotgun for someone to shoot you with it. He does not feel that we should be constrained further than what is required by state law. Further discussion was held relative to the proposed mitigation measures for construction. Ken Melton stated he agrees with Supervisor Turpin, and he feels it is absurd to mandate more than what the State requires. He feels that this came from one person who decided that these should be the mitigation measures – he feels it is just an opinion and is not law. He agrees with doing the minimums that the State mandates. Supervisor Bibby referred to the temporary work on the Ferguson rockslide and the impacts these measures would have had on that project. County Counsel stated staff is looking for a policy direction, and he advised that they are required to address points and develop measures to mitigate them for the General Plan. The standard that has come forward is one that is used widely, and it may not be the best and it may not fit as the Board prefers. If the Board wants to direct staff to go back and come up with something else, staff does not feel that there is something readily canned or readily available to do that. Something would have to be crafted to address the air quality issues and the other issues that CEQA does require be addressed. Kris Schenk added to County Counsel’s input and advised that if the Board finds that the proposed mitigation measure isn’t going to be practical, they could prepare a finding of overriding consideration with findings stating why this is not appropriate to be adopted as a part of the General Plan. Supervisor Bibby asked if there is something that meets the needs of rural communities in unincorporated, non-urban areas; especially with reference to wood stoves and fireplaces. She also asked about the mitigation measure for the biomass program in cooperation with the County. Andy Hauge advised that this is generally going to be an education program, with the County working with the community in things that they can do versus burning. ---PAGE BREAK--- 34 10-17-06 Laurie Oberholtzer referred to the development related measures and she asked whether the Mountain Counties Air Basin Air Quality Management Plan has a menu of mitigation measures that could be referred to. She stated that this might be a way to handle the development measures. Andy Hauge advised that he could research this. Further discussion was held relative to the mitigation measures and proposed requirements. County Counsel suggested that perhaps instead of the specific requirements, and he referred to Mitigation Measure 11-1c(1), that if the measure were to list things such as dust mitigation, then you could let the developer propose what measures would be appropriate for that project. Supervisor Turpin stated that this is required today by law. County Counsel stated that there needs to be something in the General Plan that addresses it; and it could be worded to require dust mitigation measurements that meet State law would address the point and set the standard. He further noted that you could have dusty material handling that meets State and OSHA requirements. Andy Hauge suggested the language be to implement a program that reduces pollutant emissions from construction activities and then generalize the list, and he stated that’s going to place the burden on the County to develop standards for the code of ordinances and establish thresholds. The specifics would come back later and they could review what the Air Basin requires. The Board concurred with this suggestion. Ken Melton stated he feels that CEQA covers all of this as far as projects are concerns. Supervisor Bibby referred to Implementation Measure 11-4a(10) which states that the County shall analyze projects on a site specific basis for their potential to substantially block or disrupt wildlife migration or travel corridors; and she asked if this applies to wild pigs. Discussion was held as to whether the wild pigs are a native species. David Butler stated he feels this issue is covered under Fish and Game. Len McKenzie suggested inserting “native” in front of wildlife. Discussion was held. Supervisor Bibby asked what happens when the wildlife travel corridors change. Andy Hauge advised that they have been mapped for the most part, and this is saying that when the County is reviewing development projects, it will try to avoid the disruption of those corridors. Andy Hauge stated he does not believe that the State law covers this specific issue. Laurie Oberholtzer stated she feels that this is one of those macro planning things that you really can do on a land use level. She noted that she is an environmentalist who is not that wild about clustering because she feels it adds more people. However, a reason to do clustering is to preserve wildlife corridors and open space. So she feels that this fits into that policy. Supervisor Turpin questioned what “maintain paved highway in a clean condition” means. David Butler referred to the wildlife corridor and migration issue, and advised that in discussing this matter with the Federal trapper for Mariposa County, the topic of mountain lions came up. He was advised that they have collared mountain lions with GPA trackers in the back side of Fresno and tracked them going over the top of the Sierra Nevadas in the dead of the winter. He advised of an incident where a problem lion was trapped near Yuba City and was taken to Susanville; and two weeks later he was killed in Marin County by a car. He questioned how you could mitigate a wildlife corridor for this. He noted that there are bears in the San Joaquin Valley now. He feels they are using the riverbeds and the creeks for their corridors and those are mandated for protection. Supervisor Bibby asked how wild fire protection and fuel reduction will play into this; i.e., burning of brush piles and the mitigation measure. Supervisor Pickard suggested that the Board review each item and give direction to staff on which ones the Board wants to proceed with. Supervisor Turpin again stated that he feels that State law covers all of the items. Supervisor Bibby referred to the mitigation measure that control measures be adopted to reduce pollutant emissions from outdoor burning and asked how that would be done and still deal with the brush pile to meet fuel reduction. Andy Hauge stated he feels that the suggestion to look at the Mountain Counties Air Basin’s mitigation measures to see how they compare with the proposed measures in the Plan would be appropriate. He noted that a control measure could be to not burn while it is raining. Supervisor Pickard again suggested that direction be given to staff that these mitigation measures come back reflecting whatever the minimum State standard is; and wherever necessary that there be a finding of overriding consideration stating why this is not appropriate to be adopted as a part of the General Plan. County Counsel advised that with respect to the air district issues, he suggested that direction could be given to come back with the minimum standards to meet the Mountain Counties Air Basin requirements, and ---PAGE BREAK--- 35 10-17-06 that staff could bring something back. For the other issues, the comments in the environmental study have to be responded to. In order to meet CEQA requirements, when an impact is identified, there has to be something identified as a mitigation measure. These measures were designed to stay toward the minimum requirements; however, direction could be given to staff to review and revise the measures to the minimum that would still meet CEQA requirements. Anita Bryant referred to the noticing requirements for holding another workshop on this matter – she suggested that if a notice is placed in Friday’s newspaper, we could have another meeting a week from Monday. County Counsel advised that the Gazette informed the County that it isn’t doing public notices in their Friday paper. Anita Bryant stated a continuance would give an opportunity for the Board to review the changes that are being talked about before the public hearing on December 6th. Further discussion was held relative to the mitigation measures and response to comments. Supervisor Bibby referred to Implementation Measure 11-2b(3) concerning construction of a project and if an acre of land is disturbed that compliance with Federal and State legislation is required; and she asked for clarification. Andy Hauge advised that this was recommended as a water quality measure; and he believes that this was a response to a State comment. Supervisor Bibby asked that it be reflected that this is in response to a State Water Quality comment. Supervisor Pickard agreed that the requirements that are required by the State should be noted as such. Andy Hauge advised that they could include notes for those measure required by the State; and a brief review was held of the measures relative to native plant species. Chairman Stetson suggested that Chapters 1 – 4 be reviewed next, and then the remaining Plan. Supervisor Pickard asked about continuing the workshop. Chairman Stetson suggested that there be a short recess; and that a continuance could be discussed. Rita Kidd stated she feels that everyone is tired and that the workshop should be continued. 1:25 a.m. Recess 1:34 a.m. Chairman Stetson advised that the Board is going to try to finish the workshop versus continuing it. A review of the following chapters was held: Chapter 1 – The Mariposa County Setting; Chapter 2 – Issues Important to Mariposa County Citizens; Chapter 3 – Guiding Principles of the Board of Supervisors; and Chapter 4 – General Plan Administration. Supervisor Pickard referred to the cover page of the Plan and asked that his name be changed to show Robert “Bob” Pickard; and the Board concurred with the change. Supervisor Turpin referred to Section 2.3.14 Private Property Rights in the General Plan; and he suggested that the end of the second sentence of the first paragraph, after the Issue paragraph, be deleted – the portion that states: “…in balance with the rights enjoyed by others in the County.” Discussion was held. Supervisor Bibby asked about deleting the second paragraph in this section. The Board concurred with deleting the last portion of the sentence. Supervisor Pickard returned to the cover page of the Plan, and suggested that all of the department heads be listed, as well as the previous Board members and Planning Commissioners that contributed to the development of this Plan. Andy Hauge advised that if the Board concurs, the list of these people could be placed on the second page. Supervisor Turpin referred to Section 3.2.13 Plan for and Ensure the Delivery of Infrastructure; and suggested being consistent with the language for the approved sewage areas. Andy Hauge provided input and advised that this statement is just saying that you have to dispose of your sewage. No change was made. Laurie Oberholtzer referred to the issue of planned build-out population (Table 1-4: Residential Buildable Vacant Land), and asked how that will be handled with the new Land Use Map. Andy Hauge advised that the Table will be updated to reflect one number versus a range. ---PAGE BREAK--- 36 10-17-06 A review of Chapter 16 – Safety was held. Supervisor Bibby asked about addressing the natural occurring asbestos. Andy Hauge asked if the Board wants a policy to deal with this or just to recognize it in the Settings section in Volume 3. The Board concurred with the mention of it in the Settings section. Supervisor Bibby referred to Policy 16-1a and advised that Andy Hauge clarified for her that non-residential “development” shall be within acceptable fire department response time limits and coverage areas, etc. Supervisor Bibby referred to the second bullet in Implementation Measure 16-1b(1) concerning requirements for a connecting circulation system and emergency access maintenance; and she asked how this is addressed. Kris Schenk suggested that a phrase could be added to reflect “connecting and maintained.” The Board concurred with this change. Supervisor Bibby referred to Implementation Measure 16-2b(1) concerning continuing work with the Mariposa Fire Safe Council, and she noted that there is limited funding and there is a possibility that the Council will be asking for General Fund dollars. She suggested that this be changed to include County Fire. Andy Hauge noted that this is not a commitment to fund this, just to work with the Council. County Counsel suggested that language be added to reflect “or other appropriate agency or group,” and the Board concurred with the change. Laurie Oberholtzer referred to Implementation Measure 16-3a(2) and concerning identifying capital improvements, etc., and asked if this means that a fee structure would be adopted. If so, she suggested that adoption of a fee structure be included in both measures for new development to pay its way toward these needs. Supervisor Stetson noted that the previous item addresses creation of a strategic plan. Discussion was held. Laurie advised that they are concerned that the issue of development fees does not occur throughout the Plan for services offered or supplied. County Counsel suggested that a reference could be included that the County will develop a capital improvement program to determine fees. Andy Hauge advised that something could be added in one place for this versus repeating it throughout the Plan. The Board concurred with directing that this be included in the appropriate place in the Plan. Andy Hauge advised that it would probably be best to place it as an implementation measure in the Administration element to develop fees to implement the General Plan. A review of Chapter 13 – Regional Tourism was held. Supervisor Bibby referred to the third paragraph in Section 13.2.02 Summary of Major Findings, A. Expansion and Integration of County Regional Tourism Opportunities; and concerning the existence of additional recreational tourism opportunities. She suggested this Section be updated to reflect that the Art Park, Amphitheater and Skate Park are done; and the Board concurred with this change. Supervisor Pickard asked if the Board were to consider a countywide road improvement program, would that need to be consistent with the General Plan, and as to whether the General Plan allows the Board to consider this. Andy Hauge advised that it would need to be consistent, and that the General Plan allows for consideration of this. However, it doesn’t specify a countywide road maintenance program; and the Board concurred with adding this as an item to be studied. Andy Hauge advised that this could be added in Chapter 9 under circulation. Supervisor Turpin referred to the Glossary of Terms, item 93. Maintained road; and the definition; and he suggested that reference be made to all federal roads. Dana Hertfelder suggested using federal agencies. Supervisor Turpin referred to the Glossary of Terms, item 140. Road or street; and he stated he feels that this is contradicting what was discussed before in the Plan with maintained roads. Discussion was held. The Board concurred with deleting this term. Supervisor Turpin stated he feels that a definition of “paved road” needs to be included in the Plan as this term is used in the Plan. Discussion was held. Kris Schenk referred to Chapter 5, Section ---PAGE BREAK--- 37 10-17-06 E(2) Frontage on Maintained Road; and he advised that these are standards that apply to Rural Economic land uses and this section refers to “paved road.” He suggested that “paved road” could be replaced with language to reflect a road meeting adopted County Road Standards. Laurie Oberholtzer asked for clarification of whether all of the mitigation measures in Chapters 12 through 15 are being accepted; and she was advised that they are. Supervisor Bibby referred back to the Rural Economic issue and stated she thinks the roads should be paved, especially with commercial and recreational uses, and they will be servicing a thousand people. Dana Hertfelder advised that generally the road should be paved, and he advised that one of the problems is that there is no definition for a paved road. He further advised that almost in every case our standards would require a paved road, with requirements based on ADT. Don Starchman referred to Appendix C – Future Consideration regarding the Implementation Measure that home enterprises shall be an accessory use on parcels of 2.5 acres or more, etc. He stated he feels that this should be consistent with the previous direction for traffic generation in Chapter 5. The Board concurred with revising this to be consistent as suggested. Supervisor Bibby noted that Supervisor Turpin pointed out that the Implementation Measure relative to the Fire Safe Council in Appendix C – Future Consideration needs to be consistent with the previous direction in Chapter 16 to include other appropriate agency or group. The Board concurred. Supervisor Pickard referred to the safety mitigation measure for new construction and fire resistant construction material in the EIR, Alternative 5; and he asked if this is a requirement if you are in a 9 or higher ISO area. Andy Hauge advised that this is including, but not limited to, so it would be a requirement. Supervisor Pickard suggested that this be a suggested use versus a requirement as there are other ways of keeping a home safe from fire. Andy Hauge suggested changing the wording to “…encourage the use of fire resistant…” The Board concurred with this change. Kris Schenk asked for concurrence that the direction includes that staff continue to make technical and editorial corrections wherever they are necessary in the documents; and that staff continue to make changes as recommended by Counsel to make sure that the measures are appropriately framed, so there might be some additional language. Supervisor Bibby asked that changes be defined by underline and strikeouts. The Board concurred with the direction. Andy Hauge advised that the next version, with the changes, will be referred to the as the “November” version of the Plan. Supervisor Pickard thanked all of the people and staff for taking the time to go through this document during this workshop. Supervisor Turpin asked how Chapter 11 – Conservation and Open Space, will be addressed. Andy Hauge suggested that a new section be added to the Chapter that will discuss State regulation in the body of the text, so that in the environmental document, he can refer back to the State regulation and not have to create new mitigation measures or duplicate mitigation measures. He advised that there will be recommendations for measures that would further enhance things such as encouraging the use of solar for residential power. Supervisor Turpin referred to the historical sites and things that we should be doing to protect them; and he asked whether there needs to be a timeline on this. Andy Hauge advised that County Counsel has advised that timelines are needed on all of the things to make this a more solid document. So they will come back and make recommendations on timelines. He noted that the Board will see the revised document in early November when it goes to the Planning Commission. He suggested that if the Board has questions about the revised document, that members could provide comments to the Planning staff. He noted that the public hearing on the Plan is scheduled before the Planning Commission for November 17th. ---PAGE BREAK--- 38 10-17-06 Chairman Stetson agreed with Supervisor Pickard and thanked everyone for their participation. The workshop was concluded. Chairman Stetson advised that this meeting is being continued to Monday, October 23, 2006 at 1:00 p.m. for a closed session for Fire Chief interviews. CONSENT AGENDA: CA-1 Approve an Agreement with the Fair Agricultural Association for use of the Building to Hold Mass Influenza Immunization Clinics this Season and Authorize the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to Sign the Agreement (Health Officer); Res. 06-479 CA-2 Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to Sign a Declaration of Intent not to Contract for Emergency Medical Services Appropriation (EMSA) for Fiscal Year 2006-2007 (Health Officer); Res. 06-480 CA-3 Adopt a Resolution Establishing the Tax Rate on the Bass Lake Joint Elementary School District Bond for the Secured Property Tax Roll of 2006-2007 (Auditor); Res. 06-481 CA-4 Adopt a Resolution Establishing the Tax Rate on the Yosemite High School Bond for the Secured Property Tax Roll of 2006-2007 (Auditor); Res. 06-482 CA-5 Approve Sheriff’s Office Staff to Donate Accrued Vacation Time to the Sick Leave Account of a Sheriff’s Office Employee (Sheriff); Res. 06-483 CA-6 Appoint Ruth Catalan to the Mental Health Board to serve as a Member-at-large, Term Expiring October 17, 2009 (Human Services Director) CA-7 Appoint Tony Amundson to the Mental Health Board to serve as a Member-at- large, Term Expiring October 17, 2009 (Human Services Director) CA-8 1) Accept $10,000 in Anticipated Grant Revenue and 2) Approve Budget Action Increasing Revenue and Appropriations Accordingly in the Community Action Fund ($12,500) 3) Approve Budget Action Transferring Funds within the Housing Authority Fund ($16,752) 4) Authorize the Purchase of a Vehicle 5) Authorize the Human Services Director to Sign the Agreement with the State Department of Community Services and Development (4/5ths Vote Required) (Human Services Director); Res. 06-484 CA-9 Approve an Amendment to the Agreement with Value Options for Mental Health Services for Children Placed Out-of-County and Authorize the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to Sign the Amendment (Human Services Director); Res. 06-485 CA-10 Approve an Agreement with the State Department of Mental Health to Provide Community Mental Health Services to Mariposa County and Authorize the Human Services Director to Sign the Agreement (Human Services Director); Res. 06-486 ---PAGE BREAK--- 39 10-17-06 CA-11 Approve a Lease Agreement with Secure Alert for the use of TrackerPal Equipment and Authorize the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to Sign the Lease (Chief Probation Officer); Res. 06-487 2:20 a.m. The Board recessed and the meeting was continued to Monday, October 23, 2006, at 1:00 p.m. for Closed Session: Public Employee Appointment; Position: Fire Chief Interviews. Respectfully submitted, MARGIE WILLIAMS Clerk of the Board