Document Mariposacounty_doc_96720a6d5a

Time Description 9:13 a.m. Meeting Called to Order at the Mariposa County Government Center Blaine Shultz, Fire Chief, led in the Pledge of Allegiance. Introductions Lee Stetson, Board of Supervisors, Chairman; Resolution and Tile Plaque Recognizing Blaine Shultz Upon his Retirement from Mariposa County Fire Department BOARD ACTION: (M)Turpin, (S)Bibby, Res. 06-551 was adopted and presented to Blaine Shultz, along with a tile plaque/Ayes: Unanimous. Blaine Shultz thanked the Board and the volunteer fire department staff and his office staff and Deputy Chief Middleton for their support. 9:34 a.m. CLOSED SESSION: Public Employee Appointment; Position: Fire Chief (County Administrative Officer); and CLOSED SESSION: Conference with Real Property Negotiator; Description of Real Property: Juanita Moore/SPCA Property on Corner of Bullion Street; Agency Negotiator: Thomas P. Guarino; Name of Party who will Negotiate with County (Not Party’s Agent): SPCA; Closed Session will Concern Price and Terms of Lease/Purchase (County Counsel) BOARD ACTION: (M)Pickard, (S)Turpin, the closed sessions were held/Ayes: Unanimous. 10:19 a.m. The Board reconvened in open session and Chairman Stetson announced that the Board took action in closed session to appoint Jim Wilson as Fire Chief to start no later than January 30, 2007. He introduced Jim Wilson; and Jim noted that he is looking forward to coming back and serving the community. Public Presentation: For Non-Timed Agenda Items including Attention, Information, and Consent Agenda, and for Items Not on the Agenda Kenneth Gosting, TIE (Transportation Involves Everyone – a 501.3 entity under the Brower Fund in San Francisco), provided information on his personal experiences with the YARTS schedule and problems with the buses not showing and with security. He referred to a Sierra Club Yosemite email relative to a meeting of YARTS with Fresno civic leaders concerning possible expansion to the Highway 41 corridor, and he advised that he has concerns with this and he feels that the Board should be kept informed. He noted that he attended the last YARTS JPA meeting and there was no discussion of this issue. Chairman Stetson advised that he plans to attend the meeting in Fresno. Board Information Supervisor Bibby advised that she attended the Mother Lode Job Training meeting the previous week and funding issues were discussed. She plans to attend the Merry Mountain Christmas Parade this weekend, and wishes everyone a happy holiday. Supervisor Fritz advised that she attended the CSAC Conference the previous week in Anaheim; and she provided information on the Merry Mountain Christmas activities scheduled for this weekend. Supervisor Pickard advised that he attended several meetings in Sacramento the previous week relative to AB 473 funding (gas tax) for the three counties without incorporated cities; transportation MARIPOSA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONFORMED AGENDA December 5, 2006 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 12-5-06 funding issues, including self-help funding issues; and funding for improving the alignment of the interim bridges at the Ferguson rockslide. He advised that he plans to be in Sacramento on Wednesday for the RCRC (Regional Council of Rural Counties) meeting and on Thursday for the Environmental Services JPA meeting and the Bio-Diversity Council meeting and relative to legislation that would designate an invasive weed council. Supervisor Turpin advised that he plans to be in Don Pedro on Thursday with the Public Works Director to evaluate encroachments on the equestrian trails. He plans to attend the meeting with the Stanislaus National Forest Service on Friday and they will discuss the 100’ fuel reduction requirements and the update of the MOU with the Forest Service for the maintenance of roads in the Stanislaus Forest. He advised that the Red Cloud Friends of the Library is holding a home tour fundraising event this weekend. Supervisor Bibby provided information on the comment period for the El Portal Road (Pohono Bridge) reconstruction project and encouraged everyone to provide comments to the National Park Service. She commented on the self-help transportation funding issues and that the General Plan Update contains items to support a self-help community. She commented on scanner traffic over the weekend relative to an attempted suicide incident that occurred in the North County. Supervisor Turpin suggested that the Board consider providing official comment on the El Portal Road reconstruction project. Supervisor Stetson advised that he will bring an item to the Board on this matter, and he advised of a meeting he attended the previous week relative to this matter. Supervisor Stetson advised that he plans to attend the YARTS meeting in Fresno on Friday and discussion will include expansion possibilities. On Monday, he plans to attend a meeting in Stockton relative to Highway 140/Ferguson Rockslide. Approval of Consent Agenda (See End of Minutes) BOARD ACTION: Supervisor Turpin pulled items 10 and 11. Supervisor Bibby noted that the application was received for item 6 as referenced in the package; and she pulled item 8. (M)Fritz, (S)Bibby, the balance of the items was approved/Ayes: Unanimous. Consent Agenda item 1 – appointment of Keith Williams as Acting Treasurer, Tax Collector and County Clerk. Marjorie Wass, Treasurer, Tax Collector, County Clerk, provided input on this request. Consent Agenda item 8 – agreement with the Fairgrounds for the COPS for Kids event. Supervisor Bibby commented on this program and the “socks” program; and she encouraged support of these programs. (M)Bibby, (S)Fritz, item 8 was approved/Ayes: Unanimous. Consent Agenda item 10 – change order with Wickum Construction for the Indian Gulch Road bridge. Dana Hertfelder, Public Works Director, responded to questions from the Board relative to the change order. (M)Turpin, (S)Bibby, item 10 was approved/Ayes: Unanimous. Consent Agenda item 11 – amendment to agreement with Freeman and Seaman Surveyors for the Greeley Hill Pedestrian Walkway. Dana Hertfelder, Public Works Director, responded to questions from the Board relative to this project. (M)Turpin, (S)Pickard, item 11 was approved/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/County Administrative Officer) BOARD ACTION: Chairman Stetson advised of his conversation on Monday with Dinah Bortner and Grace Macayo of CalTrans relative to the long-term fix for the slide area. The idea of adjusting the approaches to the temporary bridges will be assigned to the long-term solution committee. Input from the public was provided by the following: Kenneth Gosting, TIE, proposed that the emergency declaration be expanded to cover the El Portal Road reconstruction project area due to the potential for failure of the road and the resulting disaster. He also suggested that the Board obtain a copy of a letter dated November 9th signed by Assistant Superintendent Cann for Superintend Tollefson concerning this matter. Discussion was held relative to the El Portal Road reconstruction project as a result of the 1997 flood damage. Supervisor Pickard suggested that contact be made with Congressman Radanovich and the National Park Service relative to allow emergency work on this section of the road. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 12-5-06 (M)Pickard, (S)Bibby, Res. 06-561 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/Ayes: Unanimous. Supervisor Pickard advised that he could work with the Chairman and Congressman Radanovich and the Superintendent’s Office to see what can be done to expedite the El Portal Road (Pohono Bridge – Big Oak Flat) reconstruction project, and place the matter on the December 12th agenda – the Board concurred. Leroy Radanovich, Interim Tourism Coordinator, provided input on the meeting he and Supervisor Stetson attended on Friday relative to the El Portal Road reconstruction project and the need to recognize that this is a serious situation. 11:20 a.m. – LUNCH 1:28 p.m. GENERAL PLAN WORKSHOP Kris Schenk, Planning Director; PUBLIC WORKSHOP to Review Changes to the General Plan Since October 17, 2006 and to Consider the Changes Recommended by the Planning Commission on November 17, 2006 BOARD ACTION: Kris Schenk, Sarah Williams/Deputy Planning Director, and Andy Hauge/Hauge Brueck Associates, were present. Kris Schenk advised that the Board’s last review of the General Plan Update was on October 17, 2006. Since that time, the document has been reprinted and the “November 2006” version is now being used. There were some printing problems that resulted in some sections being ineligible and they were reprinted. The Planning Commission reviewed the Plan on November 17, 2006, and made some additional changes to the Plan. Those revisions, as recommended by the Planning Commission, are dated December 5th and titled “Mariposa General Plan Planning Commission Recommendations and Staff Edits” and he advised that they were distributed to the Board and additional copies of the document are available for the public. This document also includes the changes the Board recommended at its October 17th workshop; and it includes some additional editorial and technical and policy changes that were made because of discussions with counsel on specific language of some of the policies and measures since October 17th. He advised that the final version of the General Plan Update is scheduled for public hearing for adoption and for certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the Board’s agenda for December 6, 2006, starting at 2:00 p.m. and going on from 6:00 p.m. He asked that there be closure today on any questions about what is the appropriate language that is in the General Plan Update. Chair Stetson suggested that the “Mariposa General Plan Planning Commission Recommendations and Staff Edits” be reviewed and he advised that public input would be accepted following the Board’s review; and the Board concurred and reviewed the following issues. Andy Hauge advised of a global change that is recommended in the implementation measures throughout the General Plan to add “ongoing” in front of the review standard; and the Board concurred. The cover pages were revised to include the former Planning Commissioners and Board members that worked on the Plan; and the Board concurred. Andy Hauge referred to page 5-6 and advised that the recommended language change was suggested by County Counsel to clarify the code section that was inserted in response to the Board’s direction relative to “mother-in-law” units; i.e., additional dwelling units – this clarifies that the County complies with State law and allows for the creation of an additional dwelling unit on parcels. The Board concurred with the language. Andy Hauge advised that the change in Implementation Measure 5-2a(3) (page 5-10) is to reflect the Planning Commission’s recommendation, and staff’s concurrence, that the language of preventing premature urbanization of the planning study areas should not be limited to the Mariposa Town Planning Area, but is for any of the planning study areas. Discussion was held relative to the recommended change and the definition of “urbanization.” Andy Hauge advised that the Plan is suggesting that industrial uses and more intense uses occur within the planning study areas; and this policy would require that when reviewing development outside of a planning study area, that a finding be made that it is an appropriate use outside of the planning study area versus encouraging it within the ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 12-5-06 planning study area. This policy is a mitigation measure of the EIR and the EIR specifically suggested the Mariposa Town Planning Area until it is updated. He advised that the Planning Commission discussed this and recommended that it apply to all planning study areas; and they removed the requirement that the town plans be updated before this occurs. Kris Schenk advised that LAFCo (Local Agency Formation Commission) would have to make sure that if there is going to be a service area, where water and sewer are going to be provided, that it is a logical expansion of the growth from the existing area; and that would have to be part of the service plans. He noted that this also applies to Lake Don Pedro. So if there are several different community projects being proposed, they will need to make sure that there is a logical and orderly plan for that entire area to develop over a period of time. He feels that they will need to come back and develop criteria in the future that will specify what is meant with this policy. Further discussion was held. Supervisor Pickard asked whether there is a conflict between Implementation Measures 5-2a(3) and 5-2a(4) in the Mariposa Town Planning area. Andy Hauge replied that he does not feel that there is a conflict as 5-2a(4) deals with the sewage disposal system and water system and it is specifically addressing the existing Mariposa system at the present time. This is to make sure that there is coordination with that system, whether there is a new system or an expansion of the existing system. Supervisor Turpin asked for clarification of the status of the study areas with the adoption of the General Plan Update. Andy Hauge responded and he advised that the General Plan says that the Board of Supervisors has determined that the study areas are areas that it wants considered at the time that the planned area modification or update is going through the process. The Board concurred with the recommended change for Implementation Measure 5-2a(3). Andy Hauge advised that the Planning Commission recommended that “shall” be replaced with “should” in Implementation Measure 5-4a(3) as they felt it would allow some flexibility during the community planning process relative to assigning land use for industrial uses and home based industries. Following discussion, the Board concurred with the change. Discussion was held relative to the recommendation to revise the language in Goal 5-11 and Policy 5-11a relative to legally existing nonconformities. Supervisor Bibby noted that the recommended language does not match the November 2006 version of the Plan; and she asked for clarification of the recommended language change. Andy Hauge advised that if the Board concurs with the revised language, the changes will be made to the November 2006 version of the Plan. Kris Schenk advised that the language was recommended to be revised as a result of comments that were received and it was thought that it would be better to have this as a more general provision so that areas other than just Yosemite West could be included. The Board concurred with the change recommended by the Planning Commission. Andy Hauge advised that counsel recommended that Policy 5-11b, policy of maintaining compliance with the zoning as of December 1st of this year be placed in the Plan as a Policy and Implementation Measure. The recommendation was to modify the goal to add this new language to facilitate the transition from the 1981 General Plan. Following discussion, the Board concurred with the recommendation. Andy Hauge advised that counsel recommended that the language on page 5-18 be modified to remove the portion relative to coinciding with zoning boundaries, and just talk about following legally defined boundaries. The Board concurred with the recommendation. Andy Hauge advised that one of the comments provided at the workshop was that the 8 ½ x 11-inch Land Use Diagram was too small to read. The Planning Commission recommended making the Map an 11 x 17; and staff suggested that a 24 x 24-inch map be produced and placed at the back of the General Plan. The Board concurred with the recommendation for the larger map. Andy Hauge referred to Section F(2) Traffic Generation and the Planning Commission’s recommendation to use the “baseline” average daily traffic “of 7.5 trips per day…” The Board concurred with the recommended change. Andy Hauge referred to page 5-46 and advised that “for” was missing and was inserted in the sentence referring to parcels within the Agriculture/Working Landscape land use designation on the Land Use Diagram. The Board concurred with the recommended correction. Andy Hauge referred to page 5-48 and advised that “Williamson Act” was added for clarification as to what contract was being discussed. The Board concurred with this change and with adding “or” before “if the land is not within a Timber Preserve zone.” ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 12-5-06 Andy Hauge referred to Implementation Measure 9-1b(1) relative to defining the capacity of all roads and advised of revision to use “shall” as previously directed by the Board. The Board concurred with the correction. Andy Hauge referred to Implementation Measure 9-2a(1) relative to implementing the Transit Plan and advised of revision to use “shall” as previously directed by the Board. The Board concurred with the correction. Andy Hauge referred to page 10-5 dealing with the issuance of a certificate of compliance and advised of recommendation to add “new” to clarify that this is only for “new” (Williamson Act) contracts. The Board concurred with the recommended change. Andy Hauge referred to Implementation Measure 10-1b(2) and the recommended language change by the Farm Bureau that referred to the agriculture for the classroom. Discussion was held and it was noted that there may be new agriculture programs in the future. The Board concurred with further revising the language to delete reference to specific agriculture programs Andy Hauge referred to Implementation Measure 10-2a(1) concerning areas of the General Plan classified as Agriculture/Working Landscape; and he advised of recommendation to add “and Agriculture Advisory Committee” to responsibility; and to delete “very” from the consequences. The Board concurred with the recommended changes. Andy Hauge referred to Implementation Measure 10-2a(2) concerning lot line adjustments in the Agriculture/Working Landscape land use classification and dealing with parcels (including Williamson Act lands) that are non-compliant as far as the parcel size is concerned. He advised that the Planning Commission directed that consideration be given to modifying the policy and that it be placed in Chapter 5. Staff reviewed the request and decided it could stay in Chapter 10. However, there has been further discussion, including discussion with Don Starchman and he noted that there may be other situations such as with parcels in the Natural Resource that do not meet requirements; and the thought was that this should be a new implementation measure under Goal 5-9. Staff presented revised language for this policy for consideration which was referred to as Implementation Measure 5-9a(2). This would allow the County to approve the modification to an existing parcel/lot line adjustment as long as the findings were made that it was in compliance with the General Plan and with the underlying land use classification. Discussion was held. It was clarified that the recommendation is to include the new language as an implementation measure in both Chapter 10/as Implementation Measure 10-2a(2) and Chapter 5/as Implementation Measure 5-9a(2); and the Board concurred. The Board also concurred with deleting “very” from the consequences. Andy Hauge referred to Implementation Measure 10-6a(2) and recommendation of counsel to delete language relative to historic parcels. The Board concurred with the recommendation. Andy Hauge referred to page C-15 and recommendation to add bulleted items to the “wish list,” including additional language to Implementation Measures 10-2a(3) and 10-6a(2), and Implementation Measures 6-2a(2). These items are recommended to be considered at some time in the future. Discussion was held. Supervisor Stetson suggested that the “wish list” could be referred to as “future consideration;” and the Board concurred. Andy Hauge noted that County Counsel advised that under Goal 10-6, Implementation Measure 10-6a(1) and 10-6a(2), the word “unmarketable” is to be removed. County Counsel advised that these revisions were because those sections were revised previously and the consequences didn’t get revised. He noted that on Implementation Measure 10-6a(2), the requirement for one Williamson Act contract for each parcel or group of contiguous parcels that are owned and managed as one unit, there was a discussion about that being prospective in nature and not retroactive. He asked for clarification of the status of the Measure, whether it is being placed on the future consideration list or being included in the Plan. Kris Schenk stated he feels it was staff’s belief that that Implementation Measure 10-6a(2) would remain as written. Discussion was held relative to Implementation Measure 10-2a(3), and it was noted that 10-6a(2) was not changed and so the language is not consistent between the two. Kris Schenk clarified that only the underlined portion/second portion of Implementation Measure 10-2a(3) is being recommended to be placed on the future consideration list; and discussion was held. County Counsel advised that it is his recommendation that beginning with the word “including historic parcels” down through the end of the word “unit” that that portion be omitted. As stated, there are existing Williamson Act contracts that this would affect. Implementing this ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 12-5-06 prospectively with new contracts is not an issue because it can be added as a new provision. He advised that this would also be consistent with the Planning Commission’s recommendation that the underlined language, which is a mirror of that language, be moved to the future consideration list. When the new version of the contract is being brought forward for approval in the future, this is something that can be considered with the revised contracts. County Counsel clarified that Implementation Measure 10-2a(3) will read “Standards shall be developed for issuance of development permits for substandard-sized parcels under Williamson Act contract.” Implementation Measure 10- 6a(2) will read “Review enforcement of Williamson Act provisions requiring one onsite residence to be actively performing qualifying agricultural activities on all contracted property.” The Board concurred. Supervisor Bibby asked that these contract issues be placed on the list for future consideration, and as a priority. County Counsel noted that the Board was going to modify the consequences section by omitting the last sentence on sections 10-6a and 10-6a(2) that discusses marketability; and the Board concurred. Chair Stetson noted that he reviewed the changes made as a result of the October 17th workshop, and he asked whether there were any comments on those changes from the Board. No comments were received. 2:50 p.m. Recess 3:18 p.m. Input from the public was provided by the following: Dennis Bunning, representing the Agricultural Advisory Committee and the Mariposa County Farm Bureau, commented on Implementation Measure 10-6a(2); and he recommended that only “historic parcels” and “enforceably” be deleted versus deleting the last portion of the paragraph so that the language compliments the existing Williamson Act contract. They are concerned that the County is not enforcing the current Williamson Act contract – they feel that when land is divided that is under the contract, a new and identical contract shall be issued for the portion that was divided and the original contract should be modified referencing the remaining land. Don Starchman, Starchman & Bryant Law Offices, stated he feels the reason for doing this is to be consistent with the Board action and advice of County Counsel; and this would make this consistent with Implementation Measure 10-2a(3) with the action the Board took. He noted that there is nothing in the existing contract that says that you shall have separate contracts. There is language where the Board could have required this, even merger of underlying parcels, and it did not. So he does not feel that we can retroactively change existing contracts. He feels the strikeouts in the draft Plan are correct. Until the Board adopts new policy or new contracts giving everyone the opportunity to either non-renew or accept the new contracts, he does not feel that it is appropriate to put this in the General Plan. He noted that this has been discussed by the Agricultural Advisory Committee, and it will come to the Planning Commission and then to this Board. So he feels that it is premature to assume that the Board will adopt it as recommended by the Committee. Dennis Bunning advised that he never suggested that we merge the parcels, he is only suggesting that we follow existing law in the contract that does say that when land is divided, you will issue a new contract to the new owner. Discussion was held on this issue. Sarah Williams advised that the current County Resolution No. 77-157 has one policy that states that multiple parcels “should” be merged when they are put under a contract; and historically, the Board has never mandated that multiple adjacent parcels be merged when applicant submits an application to put multiple parcels under a contract. She advised that Dennis Bunning is correct that the language that is in the current policy is a “shall” for the statement that when land is divided, a new contract shall be executed. They have required that when existing contracted land undergoes a subdivision. They have not required it when someone submits a request for a Certificate of Compliance. Further discussion was held, including the situation with the Visher property; and whether language could be included in the Plan that reflects the policy that is being used. County Counsel noted that the existing policy could be referenced; however, it would be in effect whether it was noted in the Plan or not. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7 12-5-06 Rita Kidd, Catheys Valley resident, advised that because they have worked actively with the Farm Bureau and with the Agricultural Advisory Committee, and with the community planning effort to conserve the agriculture lands in the western part of the County, she suggested a wording change on Implementation Measure 10-6a(2) and 10-2a(3) to eliminate the word “review.” She suggested that the policy is “Enforce Williamson provisions requiring on-site residents to be actively performing (she suggested that “and contract holders” or some other terminology that applies to the person who is holding the contract be added whether they are living on the land or not) qualified agricultural activities on all contracted property. She suggested that “in compliance with Williamson Act law” be added at the end of that statement. She feels there are some amendments, January 1, 2006, that clearly spell out what is a breach of contract, and it clearly says that the limitations on use of the land that qualify for breach of contract shall not be increased by any issuance of underlying Certificates of Compliance. She recommended looking at that wording very carefully, and she feels this is a serious situation because we have tended to see these new parcels as individual and that they have the opportunity for people to use them, live on them, and try to make them viable for agriculture, irrespective of that new amendment to Williamson Act law. She feels now is the time to state that policy, and she recommended that the Board restore some level of the language that has been struck out in Implementation Measures 10-2a(3) and 10-6a(2). County Counsel provided input on the fiscal impact that would occur if there was full blown enforcement activity by the County. He noted that the State law is enforced with the resources and economic ability that the County has been able to allocate at this time. David Butler stated he feels the problems with the Williamson Act did not occur overnight, and some of them have gotten worse over the generations. Not all changes occur through sales or land divisions; changes happen through death, etc., so he doesn’t feel that we need the harsh language that will slam the door on some of the soft changes that need to come through with the Williamson Act contracts. He feels the way the Plan is written will give a little more leeway and gives more time to deal with the issues; and he recommends that the language not be changed in Implementation Measure 10-6a(2). Supervisor Pickard recommended that the Board proceed with the language as recommended by the Planning Commission, the Planning Department and by County Counsel. Discussion was held relative to enforcement issues. No further changes were made. Laurie Oberholtzer, representing MERG (Mariposans for the Environment and Responsible Government), referred to their November 2006 letter, and she advised that are supporting Alternative Five. They support the Farm Bureau on their recommended wording. Tolley Gorham referred to page 5-8, under Land Use, paragraph N that was added to this section, and he stated he feels that the language is missing something – he questioned why only the Agriculture/Working Landscape and Natural Resource Land Use Designation is being protected as of December 1, 2006. Andy Hauge advised that the reason these are the only two land use designations mentioned is because five-acres is a minimum within the County, and all of the other land use designations allow the five-acre parcel. The two land use designations that were addressed have a minimum parcel size of 160 or 40-acres. Tolley Gorham asked what happens with the parcels that are larger than five-acres that are residential in nature or are of some other land use that is not of these two. He is concerned that down-zoning has happened to some of the parcels where the land use has switched from residential to Agriculture or some other land use. Supervisor Pickard asked him to identify those parcels that are residential and will become Agriculture/Working Landscape or Natural Resources, as the map has been thoroughly reviewed and the Board is not aware of any. Don Starchman referred to Implementation Measures 10-2a(2) and 5-9a(2), and he suggested some wording changes that he feels would tie this together better with Title 17. He referred to his letter that he submitted earlier in the week where he referenced the existing language for lot line adjustments on Title 17. He feels that it would help to clarify that we are improving the circumstances of both parcels or lots, and it would help to take care of problems with fences and setbacks, etc. Discussion was held. Supervisor Bibby asked for clarification of when there is a lot line adjustment, whether the revised property description is reflected in the Williamson Act contract. Sarah ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 12-5-06 Williams advised that if there is a lot line adjustment that is proposed between a contracted parcel and non-contracted parcel, the contract is amended to reflect the adjusted property description. If the lot line adjustment involves two parcels that are under the same contract, they do not need to amend the contract. If the parcels are different ownerships, the contracts need to be amended. Kris Schenk agreed with inserting the language from Title 17, section 17.108.040 of the Code. It would continue on to say “and the modification result in improvement of the circumstances…” and with keeping the section about the other findings that would need to be made to have this consistent with the Agriculture/Working Landscape and General Plan. The Board concurred with the suggested language changes. Ken Melton referred to the change of “should” to “shall” and he advised that the previous Board actions to use “should” was to compromise not to obligate future Boards with a “shall” so that there could be some discretion. He referred to Policy 5-2a and Implementation Measures 5-2a(1) and 5-2a(3) and the answer that was given as to what happens to an application of a project in an area of study – he noted that it has been changed to “shall” and he feels that this is a tentative situation with unknowns. He asked that “services” be identified; and he feels that “outward” is very restrictive – if you are the second parcel out, it doesn’t give the prerogative for a review. He stated he feels that activity is being prevented in the study areas. David Butler provided input on the change of “should” to “shall” to these sections; and he agrees that this prevents activity in the study areas with the change. It creates a “dead zone.” He suggested that “may” be used. He thought that maybe the “shall” was used because there were timelines with the town planning updates. He referred to Implementation Measure 5-2a(4) and he noted that there is a lot of town planning area in Mariposa that topographically doesn’t work with MPUD (Mariposa Public Utility District) and that creates another “dead zone.” He feels there are viable sewer and water facilities that can be used, but perhaps could be monitored by MPUD, but don’t need to be tied into their system. Discussion was held. Supervisor Pickard clarified that this does not limit a project to the sphere of MPUD – this would allow a project to be considered that could support a water treatment or water delivery system independent of MPUD. David Butler stated that is the way this appears to be written, but he doesn’t feel that is the language that came back to staff after it was discussed – it went to LAFCo (Local Agency Formation Commission) and then to MPUD. Supervisor Pickard questioned whether the study area is necessary to support the goals of the General Plan. David Butler feels the town planning area advisory committees should be able to make recommendations on these issues. Autumn Bernstein, representing the Sierra Nevada Alliance, provided input on their organization – they are an umbrella organization and work throughout the 24-counties of the Sierra Nevada to protect and restore the natural resources, while at the same time protecting the rural communities. They have 80-member groups, including MERG and the Upper Merced River Watershed Council. They are happy with where this General Plan is to date. She provided input on what the idea of premature urbanization is, and she advised that Goal 5-2 is to create land use density and development patterns to manage growth and patterns avoiding sprawl. The problem with premature urbanization is that you might get some things that preclude future options, and she cited an example in the City of Jose where they sprawled and have no where to grow so they are trying to do “in-fill” in their downtown. But, they put an airport just north of their downtown and the flight path goes right through the downtown and there are height limitations. She encouraged the Board to maintain the existing language so that good development is not precluded in the future. Laurie Oberholtzer advised that in most cases, the “shalls” were because the EIR required them. If the “shalls” are changed, there will be a significant impact that can’t be mitigated and staff will have to figure out some over-riding consideration. The “shalls” made them feel a lot more comfortable and they encourage the Board to keep the “shalls.” David Butler stated he feels the problem with the word “shall” is the definition on page A-3, which states that it means mandatory. So flexibility isn’t there. Discussion was held. Andy Hauge advised that this set of policies is intended to make sure that you are not precluding options in the future to develop and grow, and it goes back to the basis, the guiding principles of the General Plan and focusing the development in the planned areas – growing ---PAGE BREAK--- 9 12-5-06 outward, and making sure that you can handle the infrastructure in a way that is economically viable and makes sense. Under these policies, it is mandatory – you “shall” prevent premature urbanization. So the Planning Commission and the Board will need to determine whether a project is premature urbanization within the study area and whether it is something that you want to occur. It does not prevent you from being able to do something, but it does require that a finding be made that it is not premature and it forces moving forward with the community planning area updates. Further discussion was held relative to this matter and how it will work. David Butler referred to Goal 5-2 and Policy 5-2a relative to guiding development and the study areas; and he stated he feels that Implementation Measure 5-2a(3) creates a “dead zone” with the wording “shall prevent.” When a larger project wants to come on line with a planned unit development, it will be proposed as a package with infrastructure, but he does not feel that this type of language will allow consideration of this type of development. He feels the people that have lived here a long time have concerns about growth for the area, but he doesn’t feel that “dead zones” should be created around the town planning areas. He feels that you will need to allow for some development. Supervisor Bibby asked about putting the timeline back in for the town plan updates. David Butler clarified his statement, and advised that he feels it made some sense when the rest of the paragraph was included. However, he is concerned that the town plan updates could be drug out over a long period of time. He stated he feels that if people want to preserve open space, they should buy the land so they have control. Discussion was held. Laurie Oberholtzer stated they feel that the Mariposa Town Planning Area should be decreased/down-sized. But when discussing the options, she feels they are to prevent premature urbanization of the planned areas. But this all started out with the Mariposa Town Plan area because it is 19-square miles – it is bigger than most of the towns throughout the foothills. She feels the option is either to shrink it back down or the wording is needed so that growth can occur concentrically outwards. Further discussion was held with Andy Hauge relative to the Planning Commission’s review of the area between Mariposa and Mt. Bullion, and he advised that they created this large study area because they feel there is a true opportunity to look at the whole area comprehensively and not divide/parcel it up. It is the one place in the County where you can do multiple uses and the land is usable and the services can be provided. Don Starchman stated he does not feel this language was included until the November version, and the language of “shall prevent” wasn’t in the document and did not come from the Board – it showed up in the October version of the Plan. He suggested that to get to the same intent, but without using “prevent” that Implementation Measure 5-2a(3) be reworded to say the following: “The County “shall” make findings that the development will not result in premature urbanization of the planning study areas.” This gives an option; however, it still needs to come to the Board and all of the services and everything involved will be reviewed. Discussion was held. Andy Hauge stated he feels the suggested wording achieves the same policy. Ken Melton asked for clarification of the definitions of “premature growth” and “urban sprawl.” He noted that there are restrictions and processes for hooking up to district services, such as with MPUD. He noted that the rules are already in place for that type of development. He is still concerned with the definition of “shall” and what will be permitted in the study areas. He feels this workshop is an opportunity to discuss these issues versus the formal public hearing scheduled for Wednesday. Autumn Bernstein stated she does not feel that this language is about “preventing” urbanization of these areas; it is about allowing time for staff and the communities to do a good plan so that when development does take place, it is the best development for the community. She suggested that language be included about making it a priority to get the plans updated as quickly as possible so that development can go forward in these areas. Supervisor Pickard asked Planning for their interpretation of the use of “premature.” Andy Hauge advised that “premature” was used because it is a quantifier that the Board and the Planning Commission are going to have to find that the development and the kind of development is at the right time; i.e., you are not putting a large shopping center out in the middle of an area where it is premature ---PAGE BREAK--- 10 12-5-06 for it to be built; or that a large development is being built that doesn’t have services connected. Discussion was held. The Board agreed with the language suggested by Don Starchman for Implementation Measure 5-2a(3) - “The County shall make findings that the development will not result in premature urbanization of the planning study areas.” Tolley Gorham suggested that “premature” be replaced with “out of place.” County Counsel advised that the dictionary’s definition of “premature” is basically whether or not it is too early; and he read the definition. Bob McHugh, on behalf of the Airport, suggested that “inappropriate” be used. Andy Hauge noted that the General Plan has a number of policies that deal with inappropriate land uses and rural character and there are policies on the Airport to preserve and protect it because it is a major transportation facility for the County. Robert Kroon stated he feels there is an inconsistency in the Plan with permitting legally existing nonconformities to continue use and operation; and he referred to Goal 5-11 and Policy 5-11a and Implementation Measure 5-11a(1). He stated he reads these sections to say that the County wants these uses to continue. He noted that as he reads on, it says “except” signs and/or billboards…and there was a reference to major transient rental management activities in Yosemite West which has been stricken. He referred to Implementation Measure 5-4a(3) which states that all community plans shall include land area to accommodate local rural home industries that out-grow their home-based location. He stated he feels that if a community plan gives a place for these legally existing nonconforming businesses to go to, that would be okay. In the special plan being developed for Yosemite West, there is a five-year phase out for the legally existing nonconformities. By the wording in the General Plan, he feels the special plans and community plans are being given the power to eliminate these uses; and he feels that this power should be with the Board and not from planning committees. He suggested that Implementation Measure 5-11a(1) be changed to delete the wording after “signs and/or billboards.” Discussion was held. Supervisor Pickard noted that the community makes recommendations through their process and through the Planning Commission and then to the Board. It would be up to the Board to make the final decisions. Robert Kroon provided additional input relative to his concerns, and he stated he doesn’t feel it would be right to permit legally existing nonconforming uses everywhere other than Yosemite West. He commented on the transient rental operations in the area. He does not feel this should be implemented in the General Plan . Supervisor Bibby commented on the review process of this issue in Catheys Valley; and asked about the possibility of allowing these uses to continue as long as there is a continuation of the business, with provisions. Kris Schenk stated he feels the Board can look at the issues in the Yosemite West Special Plan when it is brought forward in the near future; and this language is allowing that discussion to come forth and it is not automatically inconsistent with the policy in the General Plan. Sarah Williams noted that currently the Mariposa Town Planning Area and Wawona have different nonconforming provisions than does the countywide plan. Robert Kroon again reiterated his concern that this allows legally existing nonconformities to continue unless you are in Yosemite West. He noted that these uses exist throughout the County. Tolley Gorham referred to section D(2) Maximum Acreage and Minimum Lot Sizes; and he expressed concern with the maximum of ten contiguous acres of gross land area, as he feels this is a small piece of land for something that could be a fair-sized commercial operation. He noted that this might be one way to stop something like a Safeway store or a distribution center from coming to the County, and he suggested that either the maximum size be deleted or that a larger size be used – perhaps 20-acres as it used to be. Andy Hauge clarified that this section is only dealing with the Rural Economic land use and is for neighborhood shopping that is fairly distant from the town planning areas. Discussion was held. Laurie Oberholtzer advised that the ten-acre revision is something that they were really happy to see. She provided information on a maximum scenario – you could get 10,000-square feet per acre with a shopping center. So, 20-acres would allow for up to a 200,000-square foot shopping center, and ---PAGE BREAK--- 11 12-5-06 that is including parking, etc. She feels that is way beyond the idea of this classification which is for rural commercial neighborhood uses. Tolley Gorham asked whether a developer would have to subdivide his property if he has more acreage than is allowed to do a project; and he questioned whether subdivision is a goal. He feels that if there is concern about the size of a project, it should be project related versus parcel size. Discussion was held. Kris Schenk advised of consideration of this issue, and he advised that the policy is saying that commercial expansion shouldn’t occur on more than ten-acres. Supervisor Pickard asked if he had a 40-acre parcel and wanted to put in a tack shop and something else comparable and it utilizes less than 9,000 square feet, whether this policy would prevent him from proposing this without going through a subdivision. Kris Schenk advised that the land would need to be subdivided and a parcel could be Rural Economic and the remaining land would need the appropriate zoning to do whatever you want to do on it. David Butler stated he doesn’t feel that people will be able to afford to subdivide their property to develop something like a tack shop. Supervisor Turpin asked what would happen if someone needed twelve acres to do a project. Further discussion was held. Andy Hauge advised that there could be a request for a General Plan change or the Planning Commission or the Board could decide that it is appropriate because the ten- acres is not the right limit. However, you need to account for the fact that with many properties in this County, this is not a hard standard to meet. Supervisor Turpin commented on the growth that has occurred in the County over the last ten years, and if a developer has used all ten-acres and the demand is there for more, what can be done. Andy Hauge further noted that when this was discussed with the Planning Commission, it was felt that if the development has occurred, then it is time to make it either a community area or a town planning area. So he feels there was a logical sequence from the Rural Economic subclassification into those larger areas; i.e., planning area. Further discussion was held. Don Starchman said the Planning Commission set the 20-acre minimum, and the Board chose the ten-acres. Andy Hauge agreed, and he advised that the ten-acres was specifically addressed after that with the Planning Commission, and the Commission concurred with the ten-acres. Ken Melton stated he finds it baffling that this is even under discussion. He questioned what the size of a parcel has to do with a project. If he lives on 15-acres and is in the Bootjack town planning area that allows for a particular commercial endeavor and he wants to retire and use a half- acre of his property to put up a shop that is allowed in that zoning, he feels the rules should address the size of the development – i.e., be project driven. He does not see what the amount of acres has to do with developing a small business as long as the other standards are met. Supervisor Pickard noted that this standard is for Rural Residential which is outside of the town planning area. Ken Melton stated he feels the same concern applies to parcels outside of the town planning area – he does not see what the acreage has to do with anything. He feels property rights are not being protected. Supervisor Turpin initiated further discussion and cited a specific example of the Black Hill Market and stated he feels that ten-acres is too small with all of the restrictions. Andy Hauge stated he feels the issue being discussed is whether zoning can be done that doesn’t follow parcel lines; and he suggested that if the Board doesn’t want to see subdivisions occur in the situations discussed, that an evaluation of the policy of having zoning lines that do not match parcel lines be placed on the list for future consideration. Normally the zoning lines match parcel lines so if you want to sell that commercial property, it could be sold separately. Anita Starchman Bryant referred to the hearing before the Planning Commission in November, and she stated she does not feel there was any discussion about this language. David Butler suggested that if the dual classification is used, that would allow a business to get established and to get in an economic position to subdivide later. Further discussion was held relative to this issue and the existing businesses that fall in this category and meeting the criteria for these uses. Supervisor Turpin asked about the possibility of development of a commercial project that is being considered in the Merced Falls/Barrett Cove Road intersection (Don Pedro) area and whether that would be covered as project specific under the EIR for the General Plan. Andy Hauge advised that project specific is not covered under the EIR. The property is in the planning study area, so it could be evaluated as a part of the overall planning area and this provides an opportunity for a good decision to be made about the commercial uses for the area. Based ---PAGE BREAK--- 12 12-5-06 on the potential size of this suggested development, Andy Hauge stated he feels that this is a project that goes beyond the neighborhood services and should be considered for incorporation in the town planning area. Supervisor Turpin asked for clarification of whether the planning area update needs to be completed before the development proposal can be submitted. Kris Schenk advised that the language that the Board discussed earlier calls for the Board to make a finding that it is not a premature urbanization of the planning area. Supervisor Bibby asked for further clarification of the existing uses and whether they are required to meet the criteria for population, etc. County Counsel advised that he consulted with the Planning Director and it is both of their recollections that there was an intention expressed at one time to grandfather in the existing legally non-conforming facilities so that they could continue; and that is why those businesses were identified. Kris Schenk provided input on the Planning Commission’s review of the businesses that were identified. He advised that it is the Board’s choice of whether to designate the businesses as nonconforming legal uses or take the designation off and they will continue to exist. Supervisor Fritz stated she doesn’t want to tell the nonconforming businesses that they need to close because they don’t conform with the current General Plan; and she feels that the best use of the land for the project should be considered. Bob Rudzik, speaking as an individual, referred to previous discussions on this matter and the history of the recommendations, and he noted that several of the community areas/town planning areas were reluctant to include commercial development. The Planning Commission felt that the opportunity for a home-based business to stay local was appropriate. Don Starchman stated he feels that recognizing legal nonconformities creates financing problems for expansion, etc. He feels that recognizing the zoning for the existing uses and at the same time setting some stricter criteria for new businesses coming forward in the future is good planning. Andy Hauge clarified that the Planning Commission was provided the General Plan with the strikeouts and underlines showing the recommended changes on these sections; and when he says that they discussed these issues, they had the document and they had the opportunity to further discuss and recommend changes. Supervisor Bibby again referred to the criteria for the legal nonconforming businesses. Kris Schenk and Sarah Williams responded as to the requirements; and advised that a business has to be legally established in accordance with the existing standards at the time the business is established; then the standards change, and that is when the business becomes nonconforming. The current standards state that you may cease operation for a period of up to three years and still retain your rights to reestablish that use. Robert Kroon stated he feels that we should remember our area plans and community plans; and now we are grandfathering uses. Further discussion was held, including the acreage issues and various types of uses and whether they would be considered local or regional uses. David Butler referred to a residence on a 20-acre parcel and noted that if you separate the residence, you take away five-acres. Of the 15 remaining acres, only nine-acres are really usable after meeting all of the requirements for setbacks and turning radius, etc. He feels 20-acres should be allowed as he does not feel that is too much ground when you are trying to do a small commercial use and allowing for usage and future expansion. Further discussion was held. Laurie Oberholtzer stated the standard rule of thumb that planners use for neighborhood commercial is one thousand people generates the need for one and one-half acres. She can’t visualize what neighborhood use will use up ten-acres. Don Starchman noted that the planning rule cited is assuming that water and sewer is provided versus on-site systems, and that Mariposa County is different than Nevada City with the sewer line running down through the middle and the criteria (cited by Laurie Oberholtzer) are not relevant. Rita Kidd suggested that the Board ask that there be no more comments about their consultants, who come in from outside the area. She stated she feels we are dealing with acreages on the basis of how we live in the County and how we assume that we need acreage for our residences. She suggested that whatever decision the Board reaches tonight, that the option be held open for her to come back tomorrow with examples from the Sierra Business Council and from other communities of neighborhood commercial installations and their acreages so that the Board has a visual and something to reference. She cited an example in the Jackson/Sutter Creek area with “big box” stores, and she ---PAGE BREAK--- 13 12-5-06 advised that they will go out in the middle of nowhere to build their stores if they are encouraged to do so either by acreage or public policy to attract regional business. Further discussion was held relative to the acreage issue. The Board directed that twenty contiguous acres be used as the maximum acreage in Section D(2). David Butler referred to section E(2) Hillside and Ridge Top Design, and he stated the ridge top development issue was discussed extensively by the Planning Commission; however, there were no recommendations brought forward at the time as he feels that the message from staff was to not take the ridge top development out. He expressed concern that planner discretion could be involved with the third bullet – “The Commission may require buildings to be set back from ridgelines” and he suggested that this bullet be deleted. Discussion was held. Andy Hauge advised that the Board has reviewed all of the items that the Planning Commission presented, and direction has been provided on those items. He commended Sarah Williams for recording the direction on those items; and he advised that they will be on the Board’s agenda for the public hearing on Wednesday. Laurie Oberholtzer asked for clarification of the public hearing process scheduled for Wednesday and adoption of the Plan. Kris Schenk advised that they have drafted a resolution that has several sections, including a section for the findings that will support the Board’s decision at the conclusion of the public hearing. He noted that there are minor modifications as a result of today’s discussion. There will be a section that talks about any specific changes that the Board makes, and there will be a section that talks about statement of overriding considerations for the four or five areas where there is potential for significant consequences from adoption of the Plan. They will finalize the document; and if it is necessary for the Board to make its decision on Wednesday and to come back in order to make sure that the document is done correctly, then that might be a situation where the hearing would be continued to Thursday morning for final adoption. Kris Schenk further advised that today is the point at which staff would like to know the Board’s direction on the Plan; testimony will be taken during the public hearing on Wednesday, and the Board still has the ability to do whatever it feels is appropriate actions. At the end of the hearing on Wednesday, it would be appropriate for the Board to adopt the Plan and certify the EIR. Discussion was held on the following: Supervisor Bibby initiated discussion on page 5-6 and reference to California Government Code 65852 which provides for the creation of second units on a parcel zoned for single-family or multi-family residences. She asked for clarification of this and whether it is a subdivision. Kris Schenk advised that this language refers to a subdivision of State Code. 6:02 p.m. Recess 6:29 p.m. Chair Stetson advised that this would be the time for Board members and the public to bring up any other issues they have on the General Plan Update. Supervisor Bibby initiated discussion and stated she feels that we need to be careful when developing criteria for considering the trading of lands issue; i.e., Agricultural Exclusive for Residential. Supervisor Turpin referred to section K. Scenic Character, and he suggested that “scenic” be deleted from the second paragraph in the first sentence that reads “The viewsheds along the County’s scenic highways…” Following discussion, no change was made. ---PAGE BREAK--- 14 12-5-06 Supervisor Pickard referred to section E. New Subdivisions, and he suggested that the wording in the second paragraph be changed to replace “infrastructure comprises” with “development requirements are.” and the Board concurred with this change. Supervisor Turpin suggested that “approved areas” be added for wastewater disposal; and no change was made. Chair Stetson asked that the public let him know when they want to provide input during this part of the workshop. Supervisor Pickard referred to section E(1) Road Capacity and Access, and initiated discussion relative to his concerns with the second portion of the first sentence in the first paragraph. Kris Schenk advised that this language is intended to try and avoid “dead-end roads.” Andy Hauge suggested that perhaps consideration could be given to having provisions for future through roads versus requiring an easement. The provision could be that you don’t put a house there if you think there is a property that seems to be appropriate for a road to go through. This would help to provide for good circulation. Discussion was held. Don Starchman referred to Court cases on this issue; and he stated they are very clear that there has to be a nexus, there has to be some benefit to the parcel or some impact the parcel has had that you are mitigating by making this requirement. Otherwise, you can not ask for it. He advised that he has been involved with clients where all of the requirements for a subdivision were met and they did not require easements for future through road connections to adjacent developable parcels. He disagreed with Andy Hauge’s suggestion that consideration be given to having a provision that could result in a building site being taken away because there may be a road put through that location to serve a neighboring parcel in the future. Supervisor Bibby initiated discussion relative to previous discussions that were held where it was pointed out that without any provisions, a property owner could prevent property(s) behind him from developing if access for a through road is not granted. Ken Melton stated he feels the road associations where a neighbor could stop development of a property because they won’t allow their property to be a part of the association is a separate issue. He referred to the discussion of capacities and determining things, and he noted that will take some substantial research and time – no one has looked around this County and said where through roads should be planned for; and he feels that this would constitute a taking without compensation and that is wrong. He provided input on an example next to the Hospital of a development where a by-pass road was looked at for the town of Mariposa, and they physically went out and planned. Further discussion was held. County Counsel stated it is his opinion that it is an entirely appropriate planning tool that the Board of Supervisors as a matter of policy can require an extension of roads or easements for roads in subdivision developments. It is the Board’s prerogative to set a policy. He was part of the reason, in consultation with staff, that some of this language appeared, because they had several people come in where cul-de-sacs were placed at the end with no homes and there was no projection of where development was going to occur – there was discussion of fire access, dead-end road issues, and areas that were designated in the General Plan for development would ultimately be developed. He advised that there are two theories: 1) that this be left to the private sector and if people want to negotiate and buy the access or they find some other alternative; and 2) that you allow this as a planning tool – a recommendation that comes to this Board before it can be imposed. No staff member and no Planning Commissioner, under our rules and regulations, can extract from a developer this type of requirement without that developer having the right to come to this Board to make that decision. He works with Planning staff and recommendations are made to the Board and they do not usurp their authority, and he feels that is important to recognize. The policy decision is whether or not the Board wants easements, and it has the right to do that and the nexus can be demonstrated for some of the reasons he has stated. It is not based on the whim of some Planning staff member. Supervisor Fritz noted that she was involved in the discussion of including the recommended language in the Plan because of a situation with a constituent who was on the end of a cul-de-sac and they were trying to split their property. If the road had gone through their lot into the next parcel, they could have joined another road and it would not have been a dead-end road issue. Supervisor Bibby referred to easement abandonments that occurred that was a requirement that was made at the time there was a subdivision ---PAGE BREAK--- 15 12-5-06 as the easement was in a location where it was not developable; and she asked, from a Planning perspective, what they see at the County. She questioned whether more easements will be abandoned in the future because there is no development or because those easements could not be developed due to the terrain of the land. Kris Schenk advised that he has not seen very many; and the ones they have seen are because the easements were there for the wrong reasons or circumstances changed. Ken Melton stated he does not feel that easements can be abandoned if they were created by parcel maps, without the submission of another map. If the easements were created by a deed, then it would not be a problem to abandon them. Supervisor Pickard suggested removing the last portion of the first sentence in the first paragraph that says “…and will include, as appropriate, easements for future through road connections to adjacent developable properties.” Discussion was held. Autumn Bernstein reminded everyone that new subdivisions are being discussed and not individual parcels; and she provided input on the Subdivision Map Act provisions relative to roads and access roads. She stated she feels the Board has the authority to decide where the roads will be for each subdivision. Don Starchman stated there is no requirement in the Subdivision Map Act to take the roads to the adjoining property. He noted that there have been a couple of projects in the County that are gated communities and they meet all of the road requirements. He feels that they have no duty to extend an easement through to adjoining property owners and without the nexus he doesn’t believe that it can be legally required. Further discussion was held relative to the language in this section and the through road issue. Supervisor Turpin stated he agrees with providing access for fire protection. Supervisor Bibby noted that a fire access would need to be maintained. Sarah Williams noted that this policy could result in a subdivision granting access to a parcel that had no access before. Ken Melton cited an example on Spriggs Lane by the Senior Activity Center with a subdivision he did with 9,000 and 15,000-square foot lots and the road is 800 feet long with a cul-de- sac. He owns the two-acres from the cul-de-sac back out to Spriggs Lane, and he said the Planning Department tried to make him extend that easement through his two-acres which he feels would have absolutely destroyed it, because they wanted a circle drive. Most of the lots in the subdivision have been sold and the people are telling him they are glad that it is not a through road because of the traffic. He referred to Morningstar Lane where people have to take care of this through road and there is extra traffic with the people just traveling through from one County road to another. He feels that if he wants to do a dead-end road that crime is less than a through road with more traffic, and there is more privacy. He feels that there are a lot of reasons why the County should not be involved, and these things should be up to the neighbors. He feels that requiring a through road is a taking without compensation and it is wrong regardless of the law. He also noted that requiring a through road would give that next property owner a road to his property for possible future subdivision at no cost, and he feels that is wrong. Discussion was held. Andy Hauge referred to Policy 9-1e which states “Adopt comprehensive standards for all County roadways.” He advised that this policy deals with the safety issue. Don Starchman noted that if this through road easement is required – a 60-foot easement that is 660-feet long, which is fairly short for developing five-acre parcels, with setbacks equals about one and one-half acres of land on a 20-acre parcel with a four-split, and he does not feel the Board could make the findings to require this. Supervisor Bibby asked for clarification of whether changes in the language would require recirculating the EIR. Andy Hauge advised that EIR cites Policy 9-1e and 9-1d and their Implementation Measures as the mitigation for this safety issue. If the through road language is removed from the General Plan, there is still an obligation to review this from a safety standpoint and it is covered by the environmental document. The Board concurred with deleting the following from the first sentence in section E(1) Road Capacity and Access: “and will include, as appropriate, easements for future through road connections to adjacent developable properties.” ---PAGE BREAK--- 16 12-5-06 Supervisor Pickard referred to section E(3) Individual Onsite Sewage Disposal Systems, and he suggested that “onsite” be omitted from the title and the paragraph. Discussion was held, including whether this would allow for off-site systems. Ken Melton referred to a current example of a problem at the industrial park development on Highway 49 North. A developer submitted a subdivision map to create four parcels and a remainder, and when the percolation tests were done that was required, two of the five parcels were marginal to not so good. Two parcels had perfect percolation testing and there was adequate room on those parcels for septic systems, so the Health Department approved having two septic systems on each of the two parcels; and he feels that the proposed language in the General Plan Update would not even allow this to be considered. There was no way to adjust the property lines due to the terrain. He referred to a situation he has with a parcel that is approved for a two-bedroom septic system and the owner wants to add a third bedroom and they want to put one of the leach lines on the adjoining property if they will agree to it. He noted that this would still need to be approved by the Health Department. Andy Hauge responded to a question from the Board and advised that this applies to residential new subdivisions. The goal is to design a new subdivision so that the wastewater disposal is onsite; and he noted that the General Plan does allow for community systems, so there is some flexibility in the design of the subdivision. Laurie Oberholtzer begged the Board to not change the wording on this – she feels it is a health and safety issue. This applies to new subdivisions and if a site won’t perk for a septic system, then she feels the lot should be made larger or a different kind of subdivision should be created. She feels it is basic to good planning that any new lots that are created will have adequate septic system areas. Don Starchman urged the Board to be careful on this because of the town planning areas with two and one-half-acre zoning and rural residential zoning; and he noted that they talk about a community system. However, quite often that can be an engineered septic system and not sewer hookups. He doesn’t feel it is possible to divide a ten-acre parcel into four 2 ½ acres parcels and do a community system as required by Title 17 without putting it on more than one piece of property. He feels there needs to be some clarification. Further discussion was held. Supervisor Fritz asked staff for clarification of whether leaving “onsite” in the language would allow the Health Department to review a plan and approve an “offsite” system if it would work. Andy Hauge advised that the language crafted with the Planning Commission says a sewer connection could be an engineered system or a community system. You would need to have “onsite” or some form of engineered community system. The hope would be to design a subdivision where the system can be placed onsite. Don Starchman and Ken Melton provided additional input on this issue. Ken Melton clarified that approved areas are required for recordation of a subdivision map, and the system itself doesn’t have to be installed. Supervisor Pickard suggested adding “community disposal systems.” Ken Melton asked that it be clarified that two or more users of the same system is being discussed because there are state codes that talk about community systems. Andy Hauge advised that the County Code does say that a community system is two or more parcels. 7:48 p.m. Recess 8:02 p.m. Further discussion was held. The Board concurred with changing the sentence to read “New parcels must have approved areas for onsite or community system sewage disposal if sewer connections are not available and will obtain an approval from the Health Department.” Supervisor Pickard stated he feels that this would address the small parcel issues. Andy Hauge advised that this was intended to do that and it doesn’t change the policy, just clarifies it. The title for section E(3) was changed to read “Sewage Disposal Systems” and the Board concurred. Supervisor Turpin referred to section E(2) Hillside and Ridge Top Design and the second bullet that says the Commission may require buildings to be set back from ridgelines; and he noted that this section is talking about new subdivisions and not about buildings. Andy Hauge advised that when you ---PAGE BREAK--- 17 12-5-06 are looking at the subdivision of a parcel, you are also looking at building sites, especially if it is steep land. He suggested that it could be reworded to refer to “building sites” to clarify the intent. Discussion was held. Supervisor Turpin referred to the second paragraph in section 11.2.02 Summary of Major Findings, A. Scenic Resources, and the language relative to uncluttered hillsides and ridge tops. He noted that throughout the Plan, there is discussion about developing design reviews and he asked what the process will be for developing the guidelines. Andy Hauge referred to the Implementation Measures in Policy 11-1a relative to conserving natural and scenic resources through County programs and development standards. He noted that these are guidelines to be developed for the Planning Commission to go through the public hearing process and then to the Board for its public hearing process. Discussion was held. Ken Melton referred to the Implementation Measures in Chapter 11, and he agrees with Andy Hauge that is where this should be. He stated he feels the question is, at the subdivision level, how does the Commission require building sites to be set back from the ridgelines prior to the recordation of the map when there is no application for a building permit? Andy Hauge advised that when you are looking at the subdivision, especially steep parcels, you are going to be looking at building pads and where they are located and how you get a driveway to them and where you locate your septic system – he feels that this says that the Commission and Board will take a look at those placements and try to keep those building pads away from ridgelines if appropriate. Ken Melton asked for clarification of how this will be “required.” Andy Hauge responded that through conditions of approval on the subdivision, if that is what is determined to be necessary. Discussion was held. Laurie Oberholtzer referred to Implementation Measure 11-1a(1) and her experience with seeing subdivisions with building envelopes delineated on them, and it doesn’t have to be surveyed. It can be as simple, as long as you know where the ridgeline is, as drawing a line on your subdivision map. At the time a building permit is applied for, staff can review the map and it is a simple process. At the Board’s request to further respond to Ken Melton’s question, Andy Hauge advised that while you are doing a subdivision map, you can place a building envelope or a building pad and you can place conditions on the subdivision that would be applied at a later time. Supervisor Pickard stated he feels that Mr. Melton is also asking how this would be enforced. Andy Hauge advised that a setback can be used and during the inspection process, the conditions would be reviewed for enforcement. Ken Melton stated he feels that this issue should be addressed in Title 17 versus placing things on a map that he doesn’t feel can be rectified at a future date. Supervisor Turpin referred to the statement that the Planning Commission will review subdivisions with slopes on parcels in excess of 15 percent, and he asked for clarification of whether the Planning Department will require identifying building sites. Kris Schenk advised that in those cases they would need sufficiently detailed information about the contours so they could make a determination of what is a 15 percent slope. Andy Hauge advised that the subdivision map would need to be reviewed, and with slopes over 15 percent, you will need to look at cut and fills and where the road is going to go. It could be that to get the approval, you may need to designate a building pad. There is no mandate in this General Plan, but it could be a condition of a subdivision. Laurie Oberholtzer noted that MERG spent a lot of time on this issue, and she feels that the proposed wording is a compromise. They would have preferred that the Commission “shall” require buildings to be set back from ridgelines. They are willing to work on Title 17 so that the wording is implemented; and they feel that this language should have been tougher. Don Starchman referred to the last two words of the first paragraph of section E(2) Hillside and Ridge Top Design – “the following objectives” and he advised that this is not compatible with “may” that is used in the bullets that follow. He suggested that the sentence read “The Planning Commission will review subdivisions with slopes on parcels in excess of 15 percent and consider the following.” Following discussion, the Board concurred with this wording change; and the Board concurred with changing the third bullet to state “The Commission may require building sites to be set back from ridgelines.” Supervisor Fritz referred to section F(2) Traffic Generation, and she asked for clarification of what is included in the traffic count. Andy Hauge clarified that the baseline is set at 7.5 trips per dwelling unit; and he advised that if the home-based business triples that average of daily traffic up to ---PAGE BREAK--- 18 12-5-06 the 22.5, that is when a conditional use permit is required. The accessory dwelling unit (“mother-in- law” unit) will not be counted when calculating the average daily traffic. Supervisor Pickard referred to section E(4) Potable Water Supply, and he suggested that the last portion of the sentence in item be deleted, so that the item will read “other satisfactory proof.” Discussion was held. Laurie Oberholtzer stated she feels that this is one of the six remaining points of their letter that they would like to discuss. They were actually hoping that it would be more detailed. Instead of qualified professional, they would like it to read “State certified groundwater hydrologist” so that it is very specific as to the type of professional we want reviewing well data. They would also like it to say “and wells drilled on each parcel” so that it is clear that there is water on each parcel. She feels this is a really good policy; and she feels that the suggested change to item would create too much of a loophole. Discussion was held. Don Starchman asked that the “shared” well be remembered and considered with this section. Further discussion was held. Andy Hauge provided input relative to the Planning Commission’s consideration of this policy. County Counsel advised that the wording in item was added to allow for any other viable option that the Health Officer may accept as satisfactory. Ken Melton referred to a public meeting that MERG held in Catheys Valley and they invited a State official from the Water Resources Control Board. That official stated very bluntly and on several occasions that the people that would fall under hydrogeological study are all people that have credentials and do these studies for a living; and it is their best guess because they do not go out and drill holes on each of the parcels. That official said that the most qualified individual to make this determination is the local well driller, and he is licensed. Ken Melton suggested that this be clarified and added to item If you can get the local well driller to write out a statement that there is a reasonable expectation of water, it will be recorded with the map. The proof will be done at the time of sale when the well is drilled. Discussion was held with Ken Melton relative to his suggestions. Supervisor Stetson suggested that item be reworded to read “other satisfactory proof and wells drilled and tested prior to sale;” and Ken Melton agreed with this wording. Rita Kidd advised that her understanding of the listed items, is that is an option that can be chosen versus the list of items needing to be met in descending order; and she feels that this gives the developer an out from ever having to prove anything, except by a hydrologist study and the drilling of wells prior to sale. She feels that we have been very explicit in the area of quantity of water and what has to be proven; and item doesn’t even have a test and she feels that language should be added to include “and wells drilled prior to sale that meet the test of item She would still like to see a hydrological study of the area. She noted that a well driller is not insured and a certified professional hydrologist is; and that a well driller has a vested interest in drilling wells so there is a conflict of interest. Laurie Oberholtzer pointed out that this was a serious issue in the EIR; and she referred to page 4-47 of the Final EIR where it is noted that the Implementation Measure in the Circulation and Public Facilities Element that calls for a proven water supply is assumed as mitigation. So at a minimum, she asked that this wording not be weakened. Kris Schenk stated he feels that there are significant environmental issues around how potable water supply is defined. He advised that they became aware of these issues with the discussions held around the Moberly subdivision when it was challenged by a neighbor. He stated that is very important to have significant and specific grounds in the Plan because water supply has already been a difficult issue on routine applications, and from what he sees, it will be more and more of a big deal in coming years. Autumn Bernstein agreed with Kris Schenk, and she referred to a recent study in Fresno County’s foothills around this very issue, and they did find that well levels were dropping, and this affects all users on those aquifers. So it is not just an issue for new residents, but for everyone. Ken Melton stated he agrees with Rita Kidd’s suggested wording change to include testing. However, he noted that there is no State law that requires a well to be drilled be on each parcel prior to ---PAGE BREAK--- 19 12-5-06 sale; and he feels it should be taken into consideration that if wells are drilled and not used, there is contamination potential, cave-in potential, and other issues. Supervisor Stetson suggested that item read as follows: “other satisfactory proof and wells drilled and tested prior to sale to yield the demonstration indicated in item County Counsel noted that if the suggested revision was made to item it would strengthen the defense of parcel splits because there would be more certainty in the standard of water that is being proven and that would show in the findings that would be made for approving the project and render it less susceptible to challenge. Kris Schenk agreed that it would be better to be more specific. Discussion was held. Andy Hauge noted that if the language is added to item to include testing that item could be deleted. Don Starchman asked for clarification of whether the current procedure for approving major subdivisions in the County contains a provision that the wells will be proven prior to sale. Sarah Williams advised that the Commission has really wrestled with this matter because they have approved some in the past where they waived proof of water until prior to sale; but some of the more recent ones, they have not. On Friday, they approved a subdivision and required proof of water prior to map recordation; although they did add an option for the options in the General Plan Update to be met. Laurie Oberholtzer noted that the preamble to item says prior to recordation of a final map – so that is obviously prior to sale. Rita Kidd stated she feels that items and should address quantity of water and satisfy item Further discussion was held. It was noted that item is currently required to be met pursuant to Title 16. Don Starchman stated he feels looking at item solves the problem because it is saying that either you have satisfactory proof and prior to sale you shall meet Health Department requirements as pointed out in Title 16. County Counsel advised that item is the quantitative standard that Title 16 requires. Item was added to allow for other satisfactory proof so you could delay putting a well in. Don Starchman advised that item was put in to allow for proof of water to be done prior to sale versus recordation of the map. He agrees with the wording suggested by Supervisor Stetson. Sarah Williams advised that this language is currently what the subdivision ordinance does not have for major subdivisions. Every time the Planning Commission has allowed drilling of wells prior to sale, that’s been with a waiver action of the subdivision ordinance requirements. The Board concurred with item reading as follows: “other satisfactory proof and wells drilled and tested prior to sale to demonstrate the quantities described in Section above.” Supervisor Pickard referred to the third bullet in section E(1) Individual Onsite Sewage Disposal Systems, G. Criteria for Lands Proposed to be Removed from the Agriculture/Working Landscape Lane Use Classification. He feels this is too restrictive and he does not know how the finding would be made that there are no other lands within the proposed land use classification available for the proposed or similar project. Autumn Bernstein stated she feels that if there is a kind of project that the County would like to see done; for example a large retirement community and there was not enough land designated residential to build that development, the Board could say that there is not enough residential land available and that some of the Agriculture/Working Landscape needs to reclassified in order to accommodate that use. However, at this point, she feels the County has plenty of land designated for residential development, but theoretically a time could arise where there could be something where there is not enough land designated for it. Discussion was held. Supervisor Bibby noted that the Plan has a policy that calls for a no net loss to agriculture. Andy Hauge noted that the “no net loss” was stricken from the Plan, and there is a policy of trading of lands with guidelines to be developed. Under that policy, there is no net loss, but it only applies to trades. No change was made. Chair Stetson asked if there were any issues that the public wished to raise. ---PAGE BREAK--- 20 12-5-06 Laurie Oberholtzer referred their first item in the November letter, and she stated that they still feel that the Mariposa Town Planning Area is too large, and they are hoping that there will be more discussion on this tonight. She suggested calling the new area something like a “holding zone” to be considered in the future as a part of the TPA so that the idea would be that it is out there and is still under consideration for the future. They would still like to discuss the clustering issue, and she advised of their research with surrounding counties. She suggested meeting a middle ground and advised that the constraint of most concern is the steep slopes, and she suggested that this be taken from the credit list. She suggested that another idea would be that credit would not be given for 50 or 25-percent of the constrained area, so there will be some nod to the actual carrying capacity of the land. They are still concerned about the MPUD versus centrally managed water and sewer. They are concerned that the General Plan does not include policies that require mitigation fees so that new development will fully pay their fair share of costs for public facilities such as fire, general government, jail, etc. They know that the intent is there with the work being done on the development fees, but they would like to see the actual policy in the General Plan. They hope that it will be clear in the findings that Alternative Five was selected as the General Plan alternative rather than just listing all of the mitigation measures. Supervisor Bibby referred to the input on the Mariposa TPA, and she asked what would happen if an overlay area was created that would allow the two community advisory areas (Mariposa/Mt. Bullion) to define their boundaries; or to allow where there has to be a certain percentage of development that occurs prior to extending the boundaries. Andy Hauge advised that the Planning Commission wanted the large area because they wanted the advisory group to look at the entire area comprehensively to make decisions about what the real border of the TPA should be, how it interfaces with Mt. Bullion and how it interfaces with the Airport. It was not intended that it all be developed. In this General Plan process, they did not get into discussions about specific land use in the TPAs or the areas outside of them. So the Planning Commission created the study areas. Discussion was held. Supervisor Bibby noted that the Airport Advisory Committee would also be involved in the planning processes for the area. Ken Melton noted that the reason we don’t have a Mariposa TPA Committee is because they finished the Specific Plan. He suggested that if there is discussion about the Mariposa TPA boundaries, that MPUD should be involved to coordinate with their services. Supervisor Bibby referred to the capacity of steep slopes issue and clustering; and she asked how you accomplish encouraging people to do better developments, and she suggested that if 100 percent credit is given that this issue be placed on the annual review list. Discussion was held. Autumn Bernstein advised that an accepted way to deal with this issue, rather than having an all or nothing (100-percent credit or nothing) is to use something called slope density formula. The higher the slope is, the less credit you get. Supervisor Turpin asked how many potential parcels there are in the Mountain Home land use classification that are on steep ground. Andy Hauge advised that they do not know. The policy is that the underlying zoning is not being changed, so those uses are out there now as far as being able to subdivide them down to five-acre lots. They do have to meet the other requirements of the General Plan. He noted that the conclusion on the population density in the EIR and the Plan has been reduced because it is still difficult to completely build out a parcel in the County. Don Starchman stated he doesn’t feel this is clustering, it is an averaging concept. The clustering concept is in Title 17 and did give 100-percent density bonus and it is not in this Plan. He noted that when we talk about sustainability, the water falls on the steep parcels as well as on the flat parcels. If you can go into a 20-acre parcel and you can prove out three 2 ½-acre parcels to the Planning and Health Department’s satisfaction, and leave the rest as one large parcel, he feels that is something that should be encouraged. It shouldn’t matter if it is steep, it means less roads and less breaking up of the land in the future. He feels it encourages good planning, and results in less environmental impacts. He noted that the Planning Commission agreed with putting this issue on the “wish list.” Rita Kidd referred to earlier discussions held today concerning the septic systems and about needing an opportunity to get easements on neighboring properties because of issues with septic. She feels we are now moving to the potential for 2 ½-acre parcels over a greater percentage of land than we have ever had, and the reality is that is going to change things. She agrees with Don Starchman’s ---PAGE BREAK--- 21 12-5-06 earlier comment that you will have 2 ½-acre parcels and they are going to have septic issues. She likes the slope density formula, or the percentage formula. She stated she feels that the water that falls on the land that is sloped runs off and it doesn’t percolate in and it doesn’t give ground water recharge. She feels this is an issue that should be addressed now and not be a long-term “wish list” issue. Discussion was held relative to the steep slope/clustering issues and prioritizing this on the “wish list.” No change was made at this time to the language. Supervisor Pickard referred to the issue raised relative to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), and he noted that there was direction from the October 17th workshop. Andy Hauge advised that the CIP is included in the second paragraph section of 3.2.13 Plan for and Ensure the Delivery of Infrastructure; and it is also referenced in Chapter 8 of the EIR as one of the policies being implemented. Laurie Oberholtzer advised that their problem is that there isn’t a policy that says that the County will adopt a CIP fee program that requires developers to pay 100 percent of their fair share of new development. Supervisor Pickard clarified that the CIP fee is being planned to be implemented at the building permit stage. Don Starchman agreed that the County is still assessing what a fair share is; and until there is are hearings on the CIP, there are decisions that haven’t been made final. He feels it is premature to adopt a policy before a hearing is held on the CIP. This is one of those areas that could be considered with one of the four amendments that are allowed to the General Plan each year. Laurie Oberholtzer questioned whether the County has any AB1600 fees for any of the facilities; and she was advised that the County does not. She reiterated her request that there be a policy statement in the Plan to adopt a CIP fee program that requires 100-percent of cost of new development to be paid. Supervisor Bibby referred to the impact fee study consultant’s warning that we have been all inclusive with the services that we have been providing, and that some of the determinations that will need to be made include whether the County continues with the level of service that we are currently providing and what that cost is. Ken Melton expressed concern with the reference to paying your “fair share.” He noted that he lives in a subdivision with over 50 parcels and most of them are approximately 2 1/2 –acres – it was created when the minimum parcel size was 2 ½-acres and not five-acres. He feels this type of subdivision is working and they have a shorter road and it is County maintained. If someone wants to get a building permit after the impact fees are established and has to pay his fair share, it is his fair share of what? He questioned what he and the other property owners are paying to take care of the road they have been using for over 30 years. He feels fair share should include everyone; i.e., everyone on their road should contribute to its maintenance and improvements. Laurie Oberholtzer provided more input on the level of service issue, and she noted that services are not provided or are provided at a lesser level, that savings will be passed on to the developer; and you can still require the 100-percent of whatever level of service is adopted for each of the facilities. She stated she feels that every community in the State that is working on its General Plan has this discussion on their fee program in their Plan. She referred to her previous experience serving as a city council member and their fee study. Discussion was held, including the fees for other areas. Rita Kidd referred to Laurie Oberholtzer’s comments on the introductory chapter’s discussion of the CIP and mitigation fees. She noted that there isn’t a mandatory position on it in the General Plan. She referred to a previous situation 26-years earlier when she worked with a School Board to implement school impact fees – they were $300 per lot at the time of development of the lot. Within ten years time, those fees were ended. At was some years later that the Board decided they had to implement the fees again. She feels that what Laurie Oberholtzer is trying to say is that without that mandatory language, and it is not to name the sum, it is to say that new development will pay its share and that the County won’t go into the hole for each new development. If it is not in the General Plan as being mandatory, future Boards could be pressured to choose to end those fees. Don Starchman does not understand how you can reach 100-percent fair share without having the hearings on the impact fees. He noted that the expenses for everything from parks and recreation to ---PAGE BREAK--- 22 12-5-06 the cemetery to the roads are not all being created by the new development. There hasn’t been that much new development. He feels it would be more logical to charge a fee for burial at the cemetery versus charging just the new development for this service. The new development is not having any more impact on the cemetery than existing residents. He noted that the process is moving forward and he feels that the language should remain unchanged. Supervisor Bibby noted that the Board went from no impact fees in this General Plan to having the fees addressed in the Plan. Ken Melton referred to Chapter 11 Conservation and Open Space, section 11.2.01 Introduction; and he asked for clarification of the 52 percent figure in the second paragraph and 56 percent figure in the third paragraph where acreages and percentages are being discussed. Rick Benson clarified the percentages that were used. Chair Stetson advised that the workshop will be closed, and that the Board meeting would be continued to December 6, 2006, at 2:00 p.m. for the public hearing on the General Plan and EIR, and continued for an evening session at 6:00 p.m. He thanked the Planning Commissioners and staff for their efforts on this Plan. Supervisor Turpin referred to the “shalls” that are in the Plan and he noted that this will increase costs, and he asked for feedback on Wednesday relative to these costs. Kris Schenk stated he feels there should be discussion on the implementation of the Plan, and he noted that they will be reporting to the Board every year on the programs that are in the General Plan, and what is in their work program because of the General Plan, and a report on the staff time that will be required. That will be a factor in Public Works and Environmental Health and in other departments’ budgets. If we get to a point where this is what the General Plan says, but it is way too much money, a determination will need to be made of whether to move that item to a different program year. Discussion was held. Chair Stetson thanked the members of the public for contributing to this process. CONSENT AGENDA: CA-1 Adopt a Resolution Appointing Keith M. Williams as Acting Treasurer, Tax Collector and County Clerk upon the Retirement of Marjorie Wass Effective December 31, 2006 in Order to Cover the Period Between the Current Treasurer, Tax Collector and County Clerk’s First Day out of the Office Through the Start of the New Term January 8, 2007 (Treasurer/Tax Collector/County Clerk); Res. 06- 552 CA-2 Appoint John Croll – District 5 as Mariposa County Unified School District Trustee and Governing Board Member and Appoint Candy O’Donel – Browne and Robert L. Rudzik as John C. Fremont Healthcare District Directors (Treasurer/Tax Collector/County Clerk); Res. 06-553 CA-3 Approve the Statement of Votes Cast as Certified to the Secretary of State on November 27, 2006, and Declare Elected Those Persons in Local Races as Set out in the Statement (Treasurer/Tax Collector/County Clerk); Res. 06-554 CA-4 Accept the Resignation of Gary King From the Drug and Alcohol Advisory Board (Human Services Director) CA-5 Re-appoint Gail Neal to the Alcohol and Drug Advisory Board for a Term of Three Years Expiring December 5, 2009 (Human Services Director) ---PAGE BREAK--- 23 12-5-06 CA-6 Appoint Catherine Lara to the Drug and Alcohol Advisory Board for a Term of Three Years Expiring December 5, 2009 (Human Services Director) CA-7 Appoint Colleen Charlton, Tim Davis, Karen Keyser-Shank and Sally Uribe to the In-Home Supportive Services Advisory Committee and Accept the Resignation of Les Wenger From the In-Home Supportive Services Advisory Committee (Human Services Director) CA-8 Approve an Interim Rental Agreement with 35-A District Agricultural Association for Use of the Fairgrounds Facilities for the Annual Cops For Kids and Food Give Away (Sheriff); Res. 06-558 CA-9 Adopt a Resolution Approving a Change in Work Hours for the Sign Shop Crew in the Road Division (Public Works Director); Res. 06-555 CA-10 Approve a Change Order with Wickum Construction for Additional Work on the Indian Gulch Road Bridge Project #07-07 and Authorize the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to Sign the Change Order (Public Works Director); Res. 06- 559 CA-11 Approve an Amendment to an Agreement with Freeman and Seaman Surveyors for a Survey of the Greeley Hill Pedestrian Walkway and Authorize the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to Sign the Amendment (Public Works Director); Res. 06-560 CA-12 Approve Budget Action Transferring Funds within the Planning Department Budget to Purchase a New Infocus 34 DLP Power Point Projector ($1,800) (Planning Director); Res. 06-556 CA-13 Approve Amendment Four to the Contract for Services with Hauge Brueck Associates, LLC for the Mariposa County General Plan Update, and Authorize the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to Sign the Amendment; Approve Budget Action Transferring Funds within the Planning Department Budget for the Professional Services of Hauge Brueck Associates, LLC for the Mariposa County General Plan Update ($1,500) (Planning Director); Res. 06-557 10:32 p.m. The Board recessed in memory of T. William Fitzgerald, Jr., Mary Hollingsworth, and Mary Josephine Oliver; and the meeting was continued to Wednesday, December 6, 2006, at 2:00 p.m. for the public hearing on the General Plan and EIR. Respectfully submitted, MARGIE WILLIAMS, Clerk of the Board