Document Mariposacounty_doc_9f1eebcd79

Time Description 9:05 a.m. Meeting Called to Order at the Mariposa County Government Center Pledge of Allegiance Introductions Discussion and Possible Further Action Regarding Continuation of the Local Emergency Due to Landslides on Highway 140 Enroute to Yosemite National Park (County Counsel/Interim County Administrative Officer) BOARD ACTION: Allen Johnson, U. S. Forest Service Incident Command Team, gave a power point presentation on the landslide, which has been named the “Ferguson rock slide.” He advised of the objectives developed by the Incident Management Team. He advised that they have people in from the Army Corps of Engineers and geologists to evaluate the situation and the potential situation if the slide blocks the river. He noted that they now feel that the worse-case scenario would be a 100-foot dam. Discussion was held relative to their review of options for keeping the river flowing and for removing the debris. Supervisor Fritz suggested that an opportunity be given for the merchants to sell the rocks. Supervisor Stetson advised of public meetings scheduled in Midpines and El Portal this week to provide the public with information on the status of slide. Dave Martin, District Ranger for the Sierra National Forest, advised that all of the agencies, including CalTrans, the National Park Service, and the Sheriff’s Department are working on this situation and trying to find solutions to the hardships of those being affected by this disaster. Kevin Cann, Yosemite National Park, advised of issues they are working on. He advised that they have not been seeing an increase in the other entrances to the Park. He noted they are working with their gateway partners to alternate press releases to be more effective. Chairman Stetson noted that the Sheriff’s Department has been preparing evacuation plans for worse-case scenarios. Jim Allen, Sheriff, provided input on their notification planning and he advised that they have been in contact with those that could be affected. He also commended the Interim County Administrative Officer for his assistance. Supervisor Turpin commented on using Highway 132 as an alternate route. Input from the public was provided by the following: A lady from the audience commented on using Tioga Pass. Ken Gosting, TIE (Transportation Involves Everyone) commented on attempts to correct the message information system. He stated they feel there is a need for people to get together on the information that is being put out. Leroy Radanovich introduced Jeanine Scott of White Water Rafting Expeditions. Jeanine Scott commented on the information that is being put out relative to the status of rafting; and she advised that they are rafting every day below the slide, and she asked that the information to the public be correct. Ken Gosting referred to TIE’s previous input relative to the trail improvements along Mariposa Creek, and he suggested that the project be expedited as it could be used by the tourists. Dick Hutchinson, speaking for the downtown merchants, asked that a positive attitude be put forth. Supervisor Fritz noted that this is the time when everyone needs to be shopping locally. Eleanor Keuning stated she agrees that the public should be encouraged to visit. MARIPOSA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONFORMED AGENDA June 13, 2006 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 6-13-06 (M)Pickard, (S)Turpin, Res. 06-217 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. 9:50 a.m. Recess 10:02 a.m. Public Presentation: For Non-Timed Agenda Items including Attention, Information, and Consent Agenda, and for Items Not on the Agenda Supervisor Stetson congratulated the victors in the June 6th election: Bob Brown/District Attorney, Jim Allen/Sheriff, Keith Williams/County Clerk-Treasurer-Tax Collector, Judge Parrish, Superintendent Patrick Holland, Becky Crafts/Assessor-Recorder, and Supervisor Bibby. He noted that the District I Supervisorial election is still to be resolved. Len McKenzie, MERG, commented on the General Plan Update and the draft Environmental Impact Report, and he stated they are concerned about potential growth, development, and preservation of the rural character. He advised of the responses they received to the surveys that they sent out. He advised that they are concerned about the potential for development before the Update is adopted; and he stated they believe that time is needed for staff to finish the Plan. He requested that the Board adopt a temporary moratorium on additional parcelization of land in Catheys Valley and Hornitos. He stated that MERG is not opposed to growth, but they believe it must be sustainable. He also advised of the change of what “MERG” stands for – “responsible growth” has been changed to “responsible government.” He introduced Rita Kidd, MERG Committee for the Preservation of Catheys Valley and Hornitos. Rita Kidd read the letter into the record from the MERG Committee for the Preservation of Catheys Valley and Hornitos requesting a moratorium on the parcelization Western-lying lands in Mariposa County, and she presented a petition that she said contains nearly 500 signatures from Mariposa County residents and landowners in support of the moratorium. She also provided a copy of Amador County’s Resolution No. 05-477 imposing a similar moratorium. She requested that the Board place the moratorium to be effective until the adoption of the General Plan Update as a protection of health and safety. She also requested that the Board schedule a public hearing within thirty days of this request. She clarified that the request is not a moratorium for building permits for legal uses on existing parcels. She reviewed the history of Catheys Valley planning and advised that Hornitos has had no opportunity for input during this process. Tolley Gorham stated he feels it would be detrimental to the future of the County to place a moratorium as requested. He advised that he recently circulated a petition signed by mostly business owners, and he will present that to the Board later. He stated that people feel that this could lead to a moratorium in the rest of the County, and perhaps to a building moratorium. He stated he feels that it is wrong to say that the General Plan is no longer a viable document. He noted that all current development must comply with requirements, and he referred to recent subdivisions such as the VanNess Ranch that he feels are quality examples of how we can enjoy our rural lifestyle and not have sprawl. He stated he does not understand how there are health and safety issues that are not being addressed under the General Plan. Rick Uebner, Catheys Valley resident for 35 years, suggested that Tolley Gorham be present for the Redington Ranch appeal hearing this afternoon so that he can see the magnitude of the potential for growth. He read his letter into the record expressing concern with the potential for rampant development which he feels would destroy the rural lifestyle. He stated he supports the request for a moratorium of parcelization. Delores Cabezut Ortiz stated she lives in Merced; however, they are cattle ranchers and property owners in Hornitos, and she referred to her family’s history in the area. She asked for consideration of establishing a Hornitos planning area advisory committee. She advised of a community meeting that was held on June 9th and she presented a petition signed by area residents showing support for establishing the committee. Chairman Stetson noted that this is the time for public presentations and that action can only be taken on those items that are scheduled on the agenda. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 6-13-06 Brett Baumann stated he is a citizen of Catheys Valley and involved with real estate for Catheys Valley and Mariposa Homes and Land Company. He stated he is present with a neutral position. He advised that they have been involved in 71 percent of the sales in the Catheys Valley area in the last six years, and he is a member of the Farm Bureau. He noted that the people that want to develop in Catheys Valley are local citizens and business people. He stated he feels that the moratorium group has a targeted effort and did not send postcards to everyone. He stated he would like to protect Catheys Valley and he represents both sides; however, he is not a developer. He stated he does not feel that the County can only depend on tourism, we need tax dollars. He stated he feels that moratorium would be a wrong move. Tom Porter stated he is a developer in the Don Pedro area and he cringes at the word “moratorium” and he feels it has a creep value – it will expand. He urged the Board to stay the course with the General Plan Update and to not consider a moratorium. He cited a situation in Mendocino County and in El Dorado where a moratorium crept into development that he is involved with, and the impacts. Paul Chapman stated he agrees with a moratorium until the “whole mess with the General Plan” is done. He referred to the Consent Agenda items from Human Services and stated he feels that there are a lot of consultants and agreements in spite of the number of employees in the Department. In referring to other Consent Agenda items, he stated he feels that the Board needs to sever its ties with the Arts Council; he feels that County Counsel should not hire law firms to assist with the work; and he does not feel that the composting facility is working, so it is not complete. He referred to other agenda items and stated that he feels that the Fire Chief position should be advertised to obtain a qualified person; and he does not feel that we need or can afford a County Administrative Officer. David Raboy stated he and his wife discussed their move to here - the people and the community are diverse. However, he does not understand the thinking referred to by Tom Porter. He wants some growth, but there is a diverse array of people. He stated he feels that we need to step back and think about what we are doing and get the General Plan done and everyone will have a say of the rules to go by. Ruth Sellers referred to the Consent Agenda item relative to the Professional Services Agreement with John P. Trujillo, PhD.; and she suggested that the parenting classes be provided through adult education with credentialed teaching. Theresa Castaldi stated she owns a cattle ranch in Catheys Valley, and she agrees with Tolley Gorham. She does not feel that a moratorium is the answer. Walt Bonner suggested that there be deep-water testing in Don Pedro. He noted that his leach field could not keep up with the heavy rains this year. He feels a temporary moratorium would allow time for a study and controlled growth. He suggested that the Lake Tahoe growth moratorium be reviewed. Norm Miller, Catheys Valley resident, stated he did not receive notice of the Catheys Valley meeting. Most of the people that he discussed the moratorium issue with do not like a moratorium – they feel it will impact the County, especially with the slide. Manual Souza stated he had to go outside of the County to purchase a cattle ranch, he could not get enough land here. He stated he supports community activities, and he has not seen the developers do that. He stated he feels that if people in Catheys Valley desire to remain rural, they should have that opportunity. He understands the need for development; however, it should be done responsibly and respect the wishes of the community. He referred to recent development in Merced County and floods that resulted from the heavy rains because the farm land had been developed and there was no place for the water to go. He stated he feels that we need to be smarter and learn how to solve problems. He stated he does not feel that the committee picked and chose who to send the moratorium survey postcards to. David Butler stated he feels the response from the MERG committee is from a small group; and he agrees with responsible development. He referred to the history of the population changes in the County. He does not feel that a moratorium is the answer. He noted that we have a new General Plan coming, and he feels that we are still okay the way we are moving along; and he urged the Board to not impose a moratorium. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 6-13-06 Noreen Borba stated she is a resident of Merced; however, her family comes from Mariposa County. She sees the development being faced by Merced County – they are ranchers and are being surrounded by development. She begged the Board to consider how pristine the West/Southern region of the County is, and she noted that it is still viable for ranching. She stated the Snow Creek basin and Jerseydale area used to be beautiful areas in the County and now they have become developed. She stated she feels development should be prevented in the sense of subdivision as much as possible in the West/Southern region, including the White Rock area. Dick Wilkey stated he supports the moratorium. He stated he feels that infrastructure needs to be taken care of first. He referred to the earlier comments by Tom Porter relative to development of Don Pedro, and he noted the sewer problems that are being experienced in the area. He stated he is not against growth. 11:00 a.m. The Local Agency Formation Commission meeting was continued until after the following matters. Mike Coffield, Interim County Administrative Officer, advised of an off-agenda request received from Odella’s Antiques for support of a Street Fair in town. He advised that he did not receive the information that was necessary for this item in time for the agenda, and the event is scheduled for June 21st and needs to be publicized. (M)Fritz, (S)Pickard, the Board waived the rules requiring 72 hours agenda noticing to consider this request, finding that the information was not available at the time the agenda was prepared and it is a matter of timeliness as the event is scheduled for the next week. It was noted that Dell Knell, Odella’s Antiques, has been working with the merchants on this event. Ayes: Unanimous. (M)Fritz, (S)Pickard, the request was added to the agenda to be discussed later this date/Ayes: Unanimous. 11:06 a.m. MARIPOSA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS/MARIPOSA PARKING DISTRICT CLOSED SESSION: Conference with Real Property Negotiator; Description of Real Property: Garber Lot; Agency Negotiator: Thomas P. Guarino; Closed Session will Concern: Price and Terms of Leasing Property (County Counsel); CLOSED SESSION: Conference with Legal Counsel: Anticipated Litigation; Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Subdivision of Government Code Section 54956.9. Number of Cases to be Discussed: 1 (County Counsel); and CLOSED SESSION: Conference with Legal Counsel: Existing Litigation: California Government Code Section 54956.9(a), Name of Claimant or Case Number and Name of Adverse Parties: 1) Cooper v Swenson; and 2) Bird v Mariposa County (County Counsel) BOARD ACTION: Following discussion relative to the schedule for the meeting, (M)Bibby, (S)Pickard, the closed sessions were held/Ayes: Unanimous. Supervisor Bibby excused herself from the following closed session due to a potential conflict of interest as she has a remainder interest in an estate for real property with her cousin; and her cousin is employed at the Jail. CLOSED SESSION: Conference with County Labor Negotiator; Name of Employee Organization: Deputy Sheriffs’ Association (DSA); Name of Designated Representative: Thomas P. Guarino, County Counsel (County Counsel) BOARD ACTION: (M)Pickard, (S)Fritz, the closed session was held/Ayes: Stetson, Turpin, Fritz, Pickard; Excused: Bibby. 11:52 a.m. The Board reconvened with Supervisor Bibby excused for the following announcement. Chairman Stetson announced that direction was given to staff on the closed session matters; one matter was continued to later this date; and he read a statement into the record relative to settlement of labor negotiations with DSA. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 6-13-06 11:56 a.m. The Board recessed for LAFCo to convene, and Chairman Stetson announced that the Board would reconvene after the LAFCo meeting. Kris Schenk, Planning Director; LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCo) Meeting (See Separate Minutes) 12:26 p.m. The Board of Supervisors reconvened with all members present. Jacque Meriam, Librarian; Adopt a Resolution Approving an Agreement Between the Mariposa Museum and History Center and the County of Mariposa for the Preservation and Access to the Documentary Heritage of Mariposa County and Authorize the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to Sign the Agreement. BOARD ACTION: Discussion was held with Jacque Meriam relative to the request, and she thanked all of the affected departments and the Historical Sites and Records Preservation Commission and the Mariposa Museum and History Center for their work on this matter. (M)Pickard, (S)Fritz, Res. 06-218 was adopted approving the agreement. Supervisor Pickard noted the need to locate a storage place for the electronic elections equipment. Ayes: Unanimous. Jacque Meriam advised that she will come back with a process of how to retain the current records. Christopher Ebie, Auditor; A) Report on the Teeter Program for Distribution of Property Tax Assessments to Mariposa Public Utility District and Lake Don Pedro Community Services District and Approve Budget Action Appropriating Penalties and Interest to the General Fund Contingency ($25,200) (4/5ths Vote Required) BOARD ACTION: Discussion was held with Chris Ebie. (M)Pickard, (S)Turpin, Res. 06-219 was adopted approving the request/Ayes: Unanimous. Approve Budget Action Transferring Supplemental Property Tax Administration Fees to Increase General Fund Contingency ($81,162) (4/5ths Vote Required) BOARD ACTION: Following discussion, (M)Fritz, (S)Turpin, Res. 06-220 was adopted approving the request/Ayes: Unanimous. Authorize the Auditor to Purchase Cost Plan Software from A-87 Consulting and Approve Budget Action Transferring Funds from General Contingency for the Cost of the Program ($1,600) (4/5ths Vote Required) BOARD ACTION: Discussion was held, and Chris Ebie advised that he will bring a contract back for the software. (M)Bibby, (S)Turpin, Res. 06-221 was adopted approving the request. Supervisor Pickard asked that the Auditor confer with the Technical Services Director on this purchase. Ayes: Unanimous. Approval of Consent Agenda (See End of Minutes) BOARD ACTION: Supervisor Bibby pulled items 3, 11 and 21. (M)Fritz, (S)Pickard, the balance of the items was approved/Ayes: Unanimous. Consent Agenda item 3 – Agreement with John Trujillo, PhD., to provide parenting classes. Supervisor Bibby asked for clarification of spirituality as listed in the curriculum; and she asked for a response on the earlier input suggesting that the parenting classes be provided through adult certified education. The matter was continued to be scheduled for discussion with the Human Services Director. Consent Agenda item 11 – Agreement with Best, Best and Krieger for continuation of personnel counsel services. Supervisor Bibby asked for clarification of whether the services include DSA or SMA in any way. Tom Guarino, County Counsel, responded that the agreement covers the balance of legal matters. At 12:44 p.m., Supervisor Bibby excused herself from this matter due to a potential conflict of interest as she has a remainder interest in an estate for real property with her cousin; and her cousin is employed at the Jail. (M)Fritz, (S)Pickard, item 11 was approved/Ayes: Stetson, Turpin, Fritz, Pickard; Excused: Bibby. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 6-13-06 Consent Agenda item 21 – hazardous materials specialist job description. Supervisor Bibby asked for clarification of whether the position will be filled given the item on the agenda to discuss enhanced budget management. Mike Coffield, Interim County Administrative Officer, advised that it is the intent that the position will be filled. (M)Bibby, (S)Fritz, item 21 was approved/Ayes: Unanimous. Approval of Minutes of May 9, 2006, Regular Meeting (Clerk of the Board); Approval of Minutes of May 16, 2006, Regular Meeting (Clerk of the Board); and Approval of Minutes of May 18, 2006, Emergency Meeting (Clerk of the Board) BOARD ACTION: (M)Bibby, (S)Fritz, the minutes were approved, with a correction to the minutes for May 16th/Ayes: Unanimous. Discussion and Possible Action to Cancel the Board’s Regularly Scheduled Meeting for July 5, 2006 (Chairman Stetson) BOARD ACTION: Following discussion, (M)Pickard, (S)Bibby, Res. 06-242 was adopted cancelling the July 5th meeting/Ayes: Unanimous. Board Information Supervisor Fritz advised that she attended the Juvenile Justice Committee meeting on Wednesday. She noted that the Arts Council is open following the collapse of the wall on the Fremont Adobe building. She plans to attend the CSAC Board of Directors meeting in Sacramento on Wednesday and Thursday; and on Friday, she plans to attend a Child Abuse Prevention training in Modesto. The District IV meeting is scheduled for this evening at the Government Center at 6:00 p.m.; the event committee meeting is scheduled for June 20th at 6:15 p.m. and they are planning for the 4th of July event; Parking District meeting is scheduled for June 22nd at 6:00 p.m.; and the Street Fair is scheduled for June 21st. She advised that the Soroptimist of Mariposa applied for a $10,000 grant, and received $8,000 to help finish and furnish the shelter for Mountain Crisis Services. Supervisor Bibby wished the class of 2006 a happy and prosperous graduation. Supervisor Turpin advised that he sent a letter to Tuolumne County asking for their support to allow commercial traffic, including 45-foot buses, on Smith Station Road as an alternative route during the closure of Highway 140 due to the landslide. He noted that Lake McClure is within two feet of being full. They had a rockslide on Bagby grade on Saturday, and the Highway 49 North was closed for awhile. He advised that he plans to attend the School Board meeting this evening, and they will be addressing the agreement with Red Cloud Library. On Monday, he traveled to Oakdale and noticed the difference in taking care of the noxious weeds, and he noted that Mariposa County is ahead of the curve. Supervisor Stetson advised that he plans to attend the Emergency Medical Services Agency Board of Directors meeting on Wednesday at the Government Center. He advised that several meetings are being held in El Portal and Midpines relative to the landslide issue. Approve Budget Action Transferring Funds Within the Risk Management Budget to Accommodate the Workers’ Compensation Administration Fee that is Greater than Anticipated ($1,707) (4/5ths Vote Required) (Interim Personnel/Risk Management) BOARD ACTION: Following discussion, (M)Bibby, (S)Fritz, Res. 06-243 was adopted approving the budget action/Ayes: Unanimous. Discussion and Direction on Enhanced Budget Management (Interim County Administration Officer) BOARD ACTION: Mike Coffield, Interim County Administrative Officer, initiated discussion. Based on the unknown economic impacts with the landslide, he encouraged saving wherever possible. The Board concurred with deferring to the 2006-07 budget deliberations any requests for additional or supplemental discretionary funding; and with requesting all department heads to minimize expenditures for the remainder of the year, consistent with the provision of effective services, including leaving positions vacant until June 30th, if the workload can be absorbed. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7 6-13-06 1:00 p.m. Supervisor Bibby excused herself from the following matter due to a potential conflict of interest as she has a remainder interest in an estate for real property with her cousin; and her cousin is employed at the Jail. Authorize Implementation of the Last, Best, and Final Offer to the Deputy Sheriffs’ Association (DSA) Effective July 1, 2006 (County Counsel/Interim Personnel/Risk Manager) BOARD ACTION: Tom Guarino, County Counsel, advised that given the Board’s action out of closed session relative to reaching agreement with DSA, the Board can drop this matter from the agenda. CLOSED SESSION: Public Employee Employment; Title or Position to be Filled: Fire Chief/Emergency Services Officer [Government Code Section 54957(b)(1)] (Interim County Administrative Officer); CLOSED SESSION: Public Employee 1) Public Employee Appointment; Title or Position to be Filled: County Administrative Officer; 2) Public Employee Employment Title or Position to be Filled: County Administrative Officer (Government Code Section 54957(b)(1) (County Counsel/Interim Personnel- Risk Manager); and CLOSED SESSION: Public Employee; Performance Evaluation of the Interim County Administrative Officer (Interim County Administrative Officer) BOARD ACTION: (M)Pickard, (S)Turpin, the closed sessions are to be held at 1:30 p.m., along with the continued closed session from earlier this date/Ayes: Unanimous. 1:02 p.m. Lunch 1:35 p.m. The Board convened in closed session. 2:19 p.m. The Board reconvened in open session. Chairman Stetson opened the public hearing for the formation of Assessment District No. 05-01/Lake Don Pedro Sewer Zone and the public hearing for the Redington Ranch appeal and continued the hearings until after the following matter. Mike Coffield provided information relative to the request for support for the Street Fair. Dell Knell, Odella’s Antiques, requested financial assistance for advertising, waiver of fees for the encroachment permit, and funding for entertainment. The plan is for the Farmer’s Market to move to this new location downtown. Mike Coffield advised that the Tourism Coordinator estimates about $1,500 for advertising for the next couple of weeks and $200 for entertainment, for a total of $1,700 from the promotional line item in the Tourism budget. Supervisor Fritz advised that the events committee reviewed the request. Supervisor Pickard clarified that this would be a County-sponsored event for liability insurance purposes. Dell Knell advised that this is a community event. (M)Fritz, (S)Pickard, Res. 06-244 was adopted approving the budget request for $1,700 for the Street Fair event; and approving the Street Fair as a County-sponsored event to be held on a weekly basis as long as the weather allows. Dana Hertfelder, Public Works Director, provided input relative to the encroachment permit, and he advised that there is some concern received from the merchants as to which streets will be closed to traffic for this event. He requested direction on which streets will be looked at for closure for the event. Dell Knell advised that if the merchants are opposed to the use of 6th Street, the event will be held on 7th Street. Supervisor Pickard asked about using the Arts Park, and Dell advised that they are planning to use it for live entertainment. She also advised that they are working with the Rural Media/6th Street Cinema to change their movie night to Wednesdays to coincide with this event; and they are working with Parks and Recreation relative to use of the pool in the future. Dana Hertfelder advised that he is okay with the use of 7th Street. The motion was amended, agreeable with the maker and second, to include approval of the use of 7th Street and the parking lot. Approval of any future expansion would need to come back to the Board. Supervisor Bibby asked about coordinating the event with MPUD and maintaining fire access. Ayes: Unanimous. ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 6-13-06 Chairman Stetson announced that direction was given to staff as a result of the closed session, and that the remaining closed session items were continued to later this date. Dana Hertfelder, Public Works Director; PUBLIC HEARING Regarding the Formation of Assessment District No. 05-01 for the Wastewater Facilities Project for Lake Don Pedro County Service Area 1-M Sewer Zone No. 1, the Levy of Assessments and Collection of any Remaining Assessment Ballots BOARD ACTION: Chairman Stetson advised of the hearing process for this matter; and he advised that the assessment ballots or replacement ballots would be accepted at any time before the close of this public hearing. The ballots will be tabulated on June 15, 2006, at 10:00 a.m. in the Board Chambers. Dana Hertfelder provided the staff report, and he advised of the receipt of a one and one-half million dollar grant from the State Water Quality Resource Control Board for this project. He advised that if the assessment does not go through, we will lose the grant and he does not feel that Don Pedro would qualify for this grant in the future. He reviewed the history of the project; and he advised that the following were present to answer questions: Fred Solomon/project manager; Carl Casey/Public Works Administrator; Ed Wilson/assessment engineer; and Scott Ferguson/bond counsel. Staff responded to questions from the Board relative to the letter from the Department of Conservation and whether that impacts today’s action. Dana Hertfelder advised that the June 21, 2004, action was based on a letter received from the Department of Conservation and findings made by the Board. He advised that the parcels were selected because of their location to the wastewater collection system. There is no other land available and the State agreed with the County using these parcels. He noted that although a sewage treatment plant was not on the list of compatible uses for land under Williamson Act contract, the Board adopted a resolution finding that it is a compatible use. This project will only impact about eight percent of the property, and the remaining land will be available for grazing; and the State looks at anything under twenty-five percent as not being an impact to the land. Fred Solomon advised of a meeting that County staff held with the Department of Conservation before any actions were taken; and of subsequent correspondence answering concerns; and he advised that as a result of that, the findings were enumerated that the Board adopted and they were sent to the Department of Conservation prior to the Board taking action. All of the information for the project was provided to the Department. Then they received a letter from the Department advising that the findings could be made. The County then proceeded with the project and has expended about one million dollars on this process. He noted that if the project does not move forward, the grant from the State Water Quality Resource Control Board will be lost. Input from the public was provided by the following: Cathie Pierce, Mariposa Farm Bureau President, advised of a letter they received from the State Department of Conservation, dated June 6, 2006 from Dennis O’Bryant, that addressed Williamson Act clarifications; and advising that the Department does not generally consider a wastewater treatment plant to be a compatible use on land under Williamson Act contract. She stated there is a difference between non-renewal and cancellation and findings for a Williamson Act contract. She read the letter they received from the State Department of Conservation, dated June 8, 2006 from Stephen Oliva, into the record. She stated they feel the County is breaching the Williamson Act contract and is breaking the law; and she feels the contract should have been cancelled versus non- renewal. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Supervisor Bibby asked for verification that proceeding with this project will not trigger action by the State against the County relative to the Williamson Act contract; and she asked about options for dealing with the Williamson Act contract and compliance. Dana Hertfelder advised that they just received the June letters from the State that Cathie Pierce referred to. Fred Solomon advised of the timeframes and costs for dealing with Williamson Act contract cancellations and non-renewals. He stated he feels that there is compliance with the Williamson Act as findings were made for the improvements. Discussion was held relative to the Williamson Act issues. Supervisor Turpin noted that the Board’s previous action was based on a previous letter from the State, which he felt gave the County permission to proceed with this project. Supervisor Pickard stated he agreed. Supervisor Bibby asked County Counsel whether there is anything referenced in the June 8th letter from the State that triggers any concern. Tom Guarino, ---PAGE BREAK--- 9 6-13-06 County Counsel, advised that the Board made findings under Section 51292, which deals with the location of a public improvement within an agricultural preserve; and those findings are separate from the compatible use issue. He also noted that two years have passed since the findings were made. He advised that the issue before the Board today is to deal with the assessment ballots. He sees no threat in the letter that the State is going to take any action against the County; however, he just received the letter and is unable to advise whether he sees any basis for a challenge on the entire action. Chairman Stetson made a final call for assessment ballots or replacement ballots to be cast, and none were received. The public hearing was closed. Kris Schenk, Planning Director; PUBLIC HEARING to Consider Appeal No. 2006-69 , an Appeal of the Planning Director’s Determination that Certificate of Compliance Application Nos. 2006-4, 2006-05, 2006-06, 2006-07, 2006-08, 2006-09, 2006-10, 2006-11 and 2006-12 are Incomplete and Additional Information is Required for Processing. Appellants: Redington Ranch LLC (by Morrison & Foerster LLP, Anne E. Mudge). BOARD ACTION: Kris Schenk, Planning Director, delivered an overview on the appeal of an application for nine Certificates of Compliance, advising that the application was incomplete for the purposes of processing. He also stated that there is a prior appeal of the Director’s determination for an incomplete application for three Certificates of Compliance at the Planning Commission level that hasn’t been acted upon. Schenk stressed that the Mariposa Planning Department has never seen a proposal of this size or scope. This property is 15,000 acres and located at the western edge of Mariposa County and involves a total of at least 90 Certificates of Compliance. Following this application there was a submission for an additional 62 Certificates of Compliance, bringing the total to 74 Certificates of Compliance, all of which are under Williamson Act Contract. Schenk stated that the Board will see maps later in the hearing indicating that there are considerably more certificates that can be applied for on this ranch. Recently the entire property recorded a Notice of Non-Renewal under the Williamson Act, meaning that over the next 19 years those parcels will be withdrawing from their reduced tax assessment status. Planning’s concern is that this is a parcelization of Redington Ranch. If this isn’t done correctly in compliance with Williamson Act, county requirements and state law requirements, this will put at risk Mariposa County’s agricultural heritage and our rural character. Usually an application for a Certificate of Compliance it is looked at as an administrative decision with no element of discretion involved. However there are substantial concerns when Planning receives applications for this large amount of Certificates of Compliance, grouped together, at a location like this, all on contracted lands and involving questions regarding the resulting parcels meeting Williamson Act requirements. Schenk stated staff is concerned regarding possible California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) impacts, the loss of agricultural land and consequences, simply because Planning hasn’t received information that enables staff to evaluate the threats to agricultural land that are the direct result of processing these particular Certificates of Compliance. He advised that a staff report has been prepared with the specifics of the project that staff feels are not in compliance with the requirements of Planning. Schenk stated that the other side of this issue is that Planning believes that the resolution of these Planning deficiencies is relatively straight forward. Staff would like the applicant to take the steps necessary to ensure that the parcels that result will remain in compliance with the Williamson Act contract provisions and with the Agriculture Exclusive (AE) zoning that all of these parcels are currently subject to. Sarah Williams, Deputy Planning Director, advised that this appeal is of the Planning Director’s determination that the application for nine Certificates of Compliance is not complete for processing. She referred to a map during her Power Point presentation showing the location of the property in the White Rock Road area southwest of Catheys Valley, near the Mariposa/Merced Counties line. There ---PAGE BREAK--- 10 6-13-06 are nine Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) contained in Redington Ranch ownership. The applications for Certificates of Compliance are for nine historic patent parcels comprising of a 1,160 acre portion of APN -18-040-002 which is a 2,862 parcel. The other five applications comprise of an 1,800 acre portion of 018-020-011 which is an 8,462 acre parcel. All of these parcels are in the AE zoning designation and Williamson Act Contract No. 71. The Planning Director determined that this application is a project pursuant to CEQA; and that the application together with other applications for the Certificates of Compliance may be considered a phased project. Based upon pre application meetings, Redington Ranch planned to submit applications for as many as 100 historic patent parcels within the ranch. Williams advised that the Notice of Appeal focused primarily on the review requirements of CEQA, then made mention of the related appeal that is in front of the Planning Commission for three Certificates of Compliance that were submitted prior to the nine being considered today. Williams advised that the scheduled date of the continued hearing for the Notice of Appeal to the Planning Commission is June 23rd, and she described the issues raised by the applicant. Williams informed the Board that the primary requirement established by Director’s determination was that the submittal of all applications for Certificates of Compliance for the Redington Ranch properties was necessary to address CEQA implications. She said the Planning Director’s determination also considered a number of factors: the existence of 100 historic parcels in the Ranch; most property owners in the County submit Certificates of Compliance for the maximum number of historic parcels within their property; and Mariposa County does not typically process applications for Certificates of Compliance for portions of an APN leaving a remainder. This would result in the potential for administrative challenges relative to review of future building permits, parcel legality and development standard compliance. Also, Redington Ranch submitted a Notice of Non-Renewal. The determination considered that applications for 100 Certificates of Compliance on Williamson Act contracted land should trigger CEQA review. Redington Ranch consists of 15,000 acres and represents 7percent of Williamson Act contracted lands in Mariposa County. Other points stated by Williams are that 100 Certificates of Compliance are unusual in size and scope for the County, and that the determination considered that once Certificates of Compliance are recorded, these individual parcels can be sold with no further review. One hundred parcels and their potential sale could impact the viability of the Williamson Act contracted land. There is concern regarding parcels that are not large enough to sustain a viable agriculture use and not eligible for a Williamson Act contract on their own pursuant to Mariposa County policies. She also informed the Board that typically applications for certificates are the first step in converting land from viable agriculture production to ranchette-size parcels owned by multiple property owners which may not be in compliance with the Williamson Act nor be eligible for contract pursuant to existing county policy Resolution 77-157. She advised that the over arching purpose of the Williamson Act is to curb the rapid and virtually irreversible loss of agriculture lands to residential and other developed uses and to protect farm land from conversion and scattered, low density, single family subdivisions. Williams presented map diagrams of the project site and pointed out the different sizes of the parcels, showing that of the 74 Certificates of Compliance requested, one third of the parcels would not be eligible for Williamson Act contract if the use is for dry land grazing. She also noted that there are areas of the Ranch where applications have not been submitted and they are still requesting the additional applications. She explained the requirements of Resolution 77-157. She emphasized that Planning has never taken the position that individual historic patent parcels don’t exist or that they are not eligible for Certificates of Compliance. The Subdivision Map Act is clear relative to this issue. Planning’s concerns are solely related to having all the information needed to review the project and the impacts in particular to the Williamson Act contract that encumbers this property. Planning’s recommendation is to deny the appeal, uphold the Planning Director’s ---PAGE BREAK--- 11 6-13-06 determination requiring that all the applications be submitted for the property, and to require that the project comply with the minimum requirements of current County policy for the Williamson Act. She advised of correspondence received from Walter Hewlett, California Farm Bureau Federation Office, and an email from Rick Lobaugh. She described alternative options to the Board and said Planning will bring back a resolution based on the Board’s action today. In conclusion, staff acknowledges that there may be reasons to sell or transfer portions of a large ranch such as for inheritance purposes. Furthermore, staff acknowledges that Certificates of Compliance represent a quick an easy way to harvest/create parcels from a large ranch without addressing subdivision ordinances, zoning ordinances, General Plans, or other processes that do admittedly take a lot of time and money. Planning’s final recommendations on this appeal will ensure that the result of the process will be amended contract parcels that are large enough to sustain viable agricultural uses on site so that each resulting parcel would be eligible for contract and eligible to stand on its own. Supervisor Stetson brought the discussion back to the Board and for questions of staff. Supervisor Pickard requested clarification regarding how Mariposa County Planning does not process applications for Certificates of Compliance for portions of an APN, and how was this determination made and why. Sarah Williams stated that there is not a written policy or ordinance that she is aware of, it is just practice and staff will take direction based on the Board’s action today. She then explained the processing of Certificates of Compliance and the result being the recordation of a Certificate of Compliance document in the County Recorder’s office, along with a legal description. As a result of the recorded document, the Assessor will assign a new APN to each of those Certificate of Compliance parcels. She said that a Certificate of Compliance is the County’s recognition that those parcels are legally created and eligible for development permits. Supervisor Pickard then asked if the size of acreage created will initiate different types of impacts or create a greater impact on how Planning processes the application. Williams responded that each application undergoes the same process. More applications mean more of that process. Supervisor Pickard asked for clarification regarding parcels created prior to the Subdivision Map Act. Williams responded that these parcels were created in the mid 1800’s, prior to any Subdivision Map Act regulation in California. Williams stated that because some of these are portions of patent parcels staff has to review the original patents as well as the legal exceptions. Supervisor Turpin asked about the process if an application has 20 historic parcels and applied for Certificates of Compliance for 10 of them. Kris Schenk responded that it is Planning’s intent to obtain information on the entire property so that staff will be able to establish if the resulting parcels will be in compliance with the Williamson Act. Otherwise, this could result in a situation where a non complying parcel is sold and the person buying the parcel will be in a breach of contract. This situation has already occurred on historic patent parcels, and has been discussed recently with the Agricultural Advisory Committee. Supervisor Bibby asked questions regarding the patent dates and APN numbers. Schenk responded that maybe the appellant could answer this at the appropriate time. Supervisor Stetson asked if this is the first situation where an application reached the threshold of “project”. Schenk responded that he is not aware of another situation like this. Supervisor Pickard asked if Planning feels that 100 Certificates would potentially trigger CEQA. Schenk responded that he wants to understand the consequences of all the proposed parcels for recognition in the context of all of them being encumbered by Williamson Act restrictions. He then advised that how this set of Certificates is processed is critical to future applications for Certificates of Compliance on other ranches. Supervisor Pickard asked if Planning requires applicants requesting Certificates of Compliance for historic parcels to provide all of their applications at the same time. ---PAGE BREAK--- 12 6-13-06 Williams explained that Planning hasn’t received an application for a certificate leaving a remainder or portion of a parcel. Supervisor Bibby asked what the smallest parcel is for this Ranch. Williams replied sixteen acres, a portion of a larger patent parcel. Supervisor Pickard referenced CEQA requirements in regards to the approximate 100 patent parcels ranging in size asking if there are any court cases similar or guidelines to ensure that we are compliant with state law. Schenk advised that this is a unique situation and that if this is not addressed properly the County will see the loss of ranching land and an increase of ranchettes. He added there is discussion about the purposes of CEQA which are to look at some of these things in a cumulative basis so that they aren’t occurring piece by piece. He then advised that there isn’t clear guidance in state law that they have found for this particular situation. He did not want under any circumstances for this to occur as the kind of decision that would be made at the Planning Department level without the opportunity for the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to understand the issues and consequences involved. Supervisor Stetson requested clarification as to whether the 100 parcels would remain in the Williamson Act contract if they were sold, and in regards to those under 100 acres if they were sold. Schenk responded that it’s what happens after parcels are sold or come into multiple ownerships where many issues result. If every time there was a parcel created on Redington Ranch and other ranches and it could be seen that they could meet the Williamson Act requirements, we wouldn’t have these kinds of questions about the future of these parcels. The public portion of the hearing was opened and input was provided by the following. Don Starchman, Starchman Bryant Law Offices, legal counsel for Redington Ranch, asked if staff remembered the Woolstenhulme Ranch; and he stated they never wanted this to come to this point. Starchman stated Kris Schenk says that this is a good forum today; however he doesn’t feel they should be in the eye of the storm on something like this. He said Kris talks in terms of re-doing the General Plan; however, the General Plan isn’t going to affect Certificates of Compliance which are controlled by state law. He has been processing applications for Certificates of Compliance for years and the state laws have been followed. He feels that Walter Hewlett of Redington Ranch is being accused of parceling the county, and is being used as a whipping boy. He advised that there aren’t any court cases for Planning’s side, but there is for the other side. He then stated the Hewletts and the Packards have a long history in ranching and have owned this ranch since 1968. They haven’t sold off parcels, parcelized or subdivided, and they have always met the Williamson Act contract requirements and plan to continue to do so. Starchman stated the Williamson Act contract has nothing to do with Certificates of Compliance; and Certificates of Compliance are all we are talking about today. He added that it was never Walter Hewlett’s intention that this be a confrontational type situation, he is 62 years old, and he wants to continue to operate the ranch for the rest of his life. Upon the end of the contract the property will still be zoned AE. There is activity going on at the ranch currently with olive and almond orchards. Wain Johnson has been hired as a consultant to work with the ranch. Throughout Wain’s time here he has continually tried to broaden the agricultural base. Starchman reminded the Board of another incident where Frank Long addressed the Board and explained how hard it is in this county to make a living as a rancher. He advised that we should be encouraging the diversification of agriculture. This is not going to be a benefit to Hewlett; it’s going to benefit the County. Starchman said they hear the question of, “why Certificates of Compliance?” He stated the parcels already exist, all the ranch is doing is making them part of the record. These parcels were created during the Homestead Act for the purpose of creating ranches. Parcels in this county were created through the Homestead Act and the fact that these are all together doesn’t make these any different then the single ones, you can not treat ---PAGE BREAK--- 13 6-13-06 this any differently. He then said there isn’t anything in the state law or in court cases that say this isn’t a ministerial act. This is a ministerial act and there are no exceptions. Starchman stated he has been processing Certificates of Compliance for over 19 years. He spoke of several other ranches that he has processed with multiple parcels and that he was aware of other Certificates of Compliance being processed – for approximately 20 to 30 huge ranches in this county, and each of these applications stand on their own. Starchman informed the Board that Planning has processed Certificates of Compliance on this ranch in the last five years because that was their duty. An APN of itself does not create a legal parcel. Starchman asked why in the past Planning didn’t ask for any other applications. He feels that this is just a game. He advised that Eddie Ellis of the Assessor’s office will issue an APN, that doesn’t mean it creates a legal parcel. Starchman informed the Board that the letter of denial (letter of determination) only addressed CEQA issues, not Williamson Act and it talked in terms of being complete. Complete is when an application is turned in completely filled out and these applications were accepted at the counter for processing. Staff knew they were submitting applications incrementally and did not object to this. It was only later that they were blind sided by this letter with no legal justification whatsoever. Outside counsel has been brought in on this, and their research shows that this is purely a ministerial action and the Williamson Act is not part of the process. He mentioned a building permit application that was denied on 76 acres out of an APN that is much larger and they already have a permit for a septic system. He commented on an earlier discussion today relative to placing a sewer plant on two 40-acre parcels (Don Pedro Wastewater Facility) and that 80 acres is viable for an agricultural operation. He is confused with that discussion and application to this matter. He advised the Board that he feels that we are dealing with a lot of non issues here today. Starchman said regarding the solution for this, we have to agree either to a new contract or to mergers. There is nothing in the state law that says they have to agree to anything and they do not intend to. He added that putting conditions on Certificates of Compliance is an illegal action and can not be requested. There are conditions on Certificates of Compliance only if the parcels were created illegally and that is by state law. The certificates must be issued by law; it doesn’t matter if there is one application or more. He suggested that the Board look at the book of patents. He said the comment that the Board was not aware of the patents or historic parcels when the 15,000 acres were brought into the Williamson Act is fiction. He concluded stating the appellant just wants to be treated equally and given the full protection of the laws of the State of California. Supervisor Bibby brought up her previous questions regarding the patent numbers and APNs; and Starchman clarified the numbers for her. He also introduced Maureen Cole, Chief Financial Officer for Walter Hewlett, for any questions the Board may have. He advised that Mr. Hewlett was unable to be present. Anne Mudge of Morrison and Foerster, attorney for Redington Ranch, stated she is the Planning Commission Chairman for the City of Oakland and a land use and CEQA specialist. She stated Don Starchman did a bang up job on a lot of the technical reasoning behind their position and why staff is wrong. She gave a Power Point presentation where she framed the issue of Certificates of Compliance. It’s not a division or parcelization of land and all the issues that staff has raised fall away including CEQA and Williamson Act. She said that until now the County has never treated Certificates of Compliance as a division of land, the parcels already exist. Mudge repeated Starchman on several issues as she had stated previously she would be doing. This included a review of the history of the application, the patents, the size of the parcels, when they were created, Williamson Act Contract No. 71 entered into in 1978, the response from Planning regarding the Director’s decision of the application and she emphasized the word “project” in this response. She spoke of the current appeal to the Board and the previously submitted appeal to the Planning Commission as mentioned by Schenk earlier in the ---PAGE BREAK--- 14 6-13-06 public hearing which raises similar issues to this. She explained that she is disturbed by how the process is unfolding; staff keeps changing their reasons for why the applications are allegedly incomplete, and keeps adding new reasons. They started with CEQA, then APNs, then Williamson Act, and now an attempt to impose conditions on the issuance of Certificates of Compliance. She stated that the Williamson Act arguments upon which staff heavily relied today are not properly before the Board on this appeal, they are not part of the staff’s written determination. There has been “determination creep” since the original determination for delaying this and finding these applications to be incomplete. She stated she was going to discuss the Williamson Act, it’s been raised by staff and she feels she has to address it, but that does not erase the violation of due process that has occurred here and they are not waiving that argument. Staff raised the issues of Williamson Act and CEQA. She stated she feels very confident in telling the Board that CEQA does not apply to Certificates of Compliance. She then said staff is back peddling on CEQA and saying that it is Redington Ranch representatives that are focusing on CEQA, now the issue is Williamson Act. She stated that four out of nine reasons for staff stating the applications are incomplete still rely on CEQA, so it is still an issue. She then briefly went through the nine reasons that staff says the applications are incomplete. She pointed out that staff is all over the board on why these applications are incomplete and none of the nine reasons were ever presented in staff’s original determination. She said all nine reasons are wrong, but it’s not just their determination of incompleteness that is objectionable and illegal. She added what has happened now with the June 2nd staff report is that she is seeing staff recommend the imposition of conditions on the issuance of the Certificates of Compliance. She went over the basis for these conditions as stated by staff that the recordation of Certificates of Compliance results in the division of land under this Williamson Act contract. She advised that Planning gave them three options and she reviewed the details and her argument for objection to each of them. The proposals are invalid, they keep changing and that is illegal, a violation of due process, and a violation of fundamental fairness to have the goal post continually change. She feels staff is way off base. She stated the completeness of applications under the Subdivision Map Act for Certificates of Compliance must be based solely on information necessary to determine parcel legality. She reviewed what is included in a complete application and noted that there is no requirement to file all potential applications for Certificates of Compliance. No. 1, 4, 5 and 9 of the staff report are invalid because they all require CEQA. Certificates of Compliance are not “projects”, staff continues to refer to this as a project, it is not a project, it is an application for a Certificate of Compliance. A project is term of art that applies to CEQA. There is no information within a Williamson Act Contract that addresses parcel legality. Supervisor Pickard asked about the Williamson Act Contract of 15,000 acres for the parcel with nineteen years left and a Notice of Non-Renewal recorded and how she would approach this in her request for a Certificate of Compliance and how the underlying historic parcels would be addressed. Mudge responded that his approach to 15,000 acres is incorrect; there are multiple parcels under contract, there is no single 15,000 acre parcel. She stated that a person could enter into a Williamson Act Contract for parcels smaller than 100 acres as long as the parcels are continuous or under the common ownership. Mudge advised that there is no affect on the contract; it continues to apply to the underlying historic parcels. The parcels were entered into in their current form under contract. She addressed her argument regarding APN numbering stating it is for tax purposes and not parcel legality. Certificates of Compliance are mandatory and if the parcels are legal, they must be issued unconditionally. Mudge feels staff is confusing four different laws and regulatory schemes, and the resolution of this appeal boils down to two simple propositions, 1) a Certificate of Compliance does not divide land; and 2) this is a ministerial function recognizing the existence of previously created legal parcels. She stated she feels staff’s approach puts the Board in a position of having to make a determination of pure law. This is based on a ---PAGE BREAK--- 15 6-13-06 staff report written by non-lawyers on purely legal issues without the benefit of a written opinion by County Counsel. She briefly went over what she feels the laws say and don’t say with respect to the Subdivision Map Act governing Certificates of Compliance; CEQA; and ministerial projects. She noted that the parcels already legally exist and they may be legally sold now without Certificates of Compliance. Title insurance policies are already available on these parcels. The Certificates do not create development rights. Certificates are ministerial and shall be issued with out conditions, and they are statutorily exempt from CEQA. She also noted that Planning has never imposed CEQA on any Certificates of Compliance. She discussed APNs and their purpose. Her argument is Mariposa County is required by law to issue Certificates of Compliance regardless of the APN numbering system and has done so seven times on this ranch since 1991. There were no requirements imposed to apply for all possible parcels within the APN. No CEQA was required. Supervisor Pickard asked for clarification of Mudge’s position that because the underlying historic parcels are already under Williamson Act contract, that application for the Certificates of Compliance doesn’t affect the contract. Mudge agreed and stated there is no division and no affect on the contract. She further reviewed the Williamson Act requirements and advised that the Williamson Act has nothing to do with Certificates of Compliance. Again, she stated a Certificate of Compliance is not a division of land. She briefly summarized staff’s position and their responses. Mudge said the evaluation of future permits will be made on a case by case basis and is irrelevant to this appeal. She then stated staff’s final position is that Certificates of Compliance are a division of land as quoted in their staff report and she stated staff is wrong. The issuance of a Certificate of Compliance is a property right to which Walter and his sister are entitled by law. She concluded that her perspective is the legal issues discussed today are not a close call. Yes, there is case law but it supports the appellant. She said she thinks staff has managed to make a bit of a mess of the law and gives them credit for being creative but staff is just dead-bang wrong, and no conditions can be imposed. In terms of completeness, all that is needed is information to determine parcel legality. She asked that staff be directed to withdraw their determinations and issue Certificates of Compliance immediately. Neil Stonum of First American Title spoke regarding the arguments presented by Don Starchman and Anne Mudge saying they were more articulate and complete than he could do and accurately represented the history of Certificates of Compliance in the County. He noted that Certificates of Compliance have been issued as a ministerial act. He is concerned that different standards are being applied here. Rick Lobaugh of Intercounty Title stated that in January of this year, he stated before the Planning Commission, Certificates of Compliance are not required for title insurance. He referred to circle page 63 of the staff report, a list of parcel information that’s included with the County’s application for a Certificate of Compliance. He noted that if an applicant checks the box that a parcel was created as a separate parcel prior to March 4th and documentation of compliance is provided, then the application is complete. The County has an obligation to issue a Certificate of Compliance. With that knowledge Intercounty does the same research that the County would do when they do a determination of parcel completeness. And, they would insure title to that property with or with out a Certificate of Compliance being issued. He has reviewed other County procedures. Kings County has a statement on their application that says “Certificates of Compliance is a ministerial project and is exempt from environmental review under Section 1526.” The City of San Jose has a statement that a Certificate of Compliance is typically a ministerial action under the CEQA Act and does not require additional environmental information to be submitted. One of the counties cited Fendleton vs. El Dorado County where a court ruled that a Certificate of Compliance is a ministerial project requiring no exercise of ---PAGE BREAK--- 16 6-13-06 discretion in the course of its approval. So, based on the law, they feel comfortable that when they’ve issued title to a parcel, they’ve already made that determination. Cathi Boze, Agricultural Commissioner, read her letter into the record of support for the Planning Director’s decision. She stated the parcels are under Williamson Act Contract and zoned Agriculture Exclusive. 25 of the applications are for parcels less than 100 acres and would not stand on their own for contract requirements. She believes this is a project and relates to cumulative impact per CEQA. The project needs to be evaluated as a whole. She stated the mission of the Agricultural Commissioner’s office is to preserve and protect agriculture and the environment. She noted that the proposal raises several questions relative to agricultural uses. She feels this is a discretionary project with questions regarding impacts on water, vernal pools and grading permits, etc. The proximity to UC Merced Campus is a concern with potential new development. She concluded by stating that Mariposa County would be remiss to not consider the ramifications and potential impact of this project. She also said that Wain Johnson has concerns about what is going on. Mr. Starchman disagreed with her statement. She supports Planning Staff. Cathie Pierce, President of the Farm Bureau, stated now is the time to protect agriculture lands. She feels the Board dropped the ball a few years ago with Williamson Act contracts. She referred to the letter from their legal counsel with the California Farm Bureau Federation. They and the Mariposa Farm Bureau request that the Board deny the appeal and support the Planning Director’s determination that these applications constitute a project pursuant to CEQA, thus, require further environmental review. The two issues here are historical parcels and Williamson Act Contracted land. She doesn’t believe that they should be allowed to seek Certificates of Compliance in a piecemeal way. She believes that the application is a candidate for conditional Certificates of Compliance. She feels that is a way to warn buyers that the County may not permit development on the property with out subsequent approvals. Their legal counsel believes that the CEQA guidelines state that the determination of what is ministerial can most appropriately be made by the particular public agency involved based upon its analysis of its own laws. She also commented on their legal counsel’s response as to whether parcels that are divided by Certificates of Compliance are considered to be a division. They also asked who is responsible when a contract is breached. She feels the Board needs to be careful when dealing with Williamson Act contract ground, that it is not authorizing breaches of the contract and creating a liability. She referred to the Farm Bureau Board of Director’s meeting and their questions as to why they non renewed their contract. At that time, Maureen Cole said the main reason was because of AB1492. Now, Anne Mudge is talking about financing and getting ready for inheritance. She feels there are as many questions and this is a big issue. The Governor and legislation have both indicated that enforcement of Williamson Act is a priority. She referred to their meeting with legal counsel for the Department of Conservation on Williamson Act issues, and she noted they have directed their staff to add Mariposa County to the pilot review of aerial imagery and photography to uncover breaches of the contract. She agreed that it is true you can have a house on 40 acres; but it’s also true that you can sell parcels less than 16 acres to another person and that does not qualify as viable agriculture entity. Merced County Farm Bureau is concerned by the effect this will have on the eastern part of their County. She advised that MaryAnn Visher was denied a residential permit and came to the Agricultural Advisory Committee and the Board to modify her contract to enable her to get a permit to build a home. Len McKenzie, representing MERG supported Cathi Boze and Cathie Pierce, urging the Board of Supervisors to support the Planning Director’s action. He stated he had heard strong arguments, and suggested the Board take time to consider the possible implications of this decision and consult County Counsel to get further clarification of the legality. He said he believes Planning Department staff is correct in viewing this as a project. They feel there is strong potential for the western face of the ---PAGE BREAK--- 17 6-13-06 County to change dramatically and irreversibly. Planning has issued Certificates of Compliance, but he agrees that all information needs review, and to grant this request without a full environmental review would be short sighted. We need to protect our agriculture heritage. Philomene Schultz, a rancher in Catheys Valley expressed concerns regarding her property rights and the law, they are vital to her. She stated people are urging the Board of Supervisors to make decisions to break the law. After today’s meeting, it is her intention to withdraw from the Williamson Act and from the Farm Bureau, she doesn’t want people telling her what she can and can not do with her land. Dick Kunstman, a resident of Midpines, commented on Anne Mudge’s statement that there is no project and Mr. Hewlett is only interesting in being a farmer. He stated he is confused, if Hewlett is a farmer, farming being a long term activity, why the urgency to develop legal marketable parcels. He supports denial of the requests for Certificates of Compliance. Tony Toso, a resident of Hornitos, stated he entered into a Williamson Act contract and understands there are rules and laws to be in a Williamson Act Contract in order to benefit from agriculture zoning. The issues at hand and what can happen after the Certificates are complete need to be reviewed. He concluded by supporting the Planning Director’s decision and urged the Board to do the same. Rita Kidd said she appreciates the decision of the Planning staff. She feels we are starting to see the break up of a lot of land; there are more certificates on large parcels of agriculture lands. She informed the Board that not all communities deal with Certificates of Compliance as simply as Lobaugh mentioned. Santa Barbara County charges $1000 per application per Certificate of Compliance and requires a complete chain of title and sketches of every change in the configuration of a parcel. David Butler said these parcels were viable during the 1800’s when they were patents of homesteads. The parcels were purchased separately by Mr. Cunningham. The state law regulates this type of land, but there is much emotion. At some point historic parcels were lived on and acquired over time. His family also has contracted land; some parcels are smaller than 100 acres. He does not feel that State law or Williamson Act applies to Certificates of Compliance. There are landowner rights and a lot of pressure with Williamson Act. He feels this will result in contract non-renewal and drive away open space. He suggested the Planning Department is off base and recommended the Certificates of Compliance be issued. He noted that Sarah Williams pointed out that Planning processes each application separately and individually; they are not applied for in one fell swoop. Maureen Cole, spoke of the ranch in San Jose that has not been developed into ranchettes. Mr. Hewlett just wants to be friends with Mariposa; there is no master plan, no intention of developing into ranchette’s. He has always been a cattle rancher and wanted to expand from cattle and add orchards. There are five Hewlett children and four Packard children and no knowledge of what the children will do in 20 years. Hewlett wants to be a farmer and doesn’t like confrontation. She responded to a question from the audience and advised that he is requesting Certificates of Compliance for estate planning and financing purposes. Anne Mudge rebutted saying there is no breach of the Williamson Act contract. She presented a sample recorded Certificate of Compliance for Mariposa County with a statement that says “This parcel is enforceably restricted by the Williamson Act contract.” They would welcome this statement on each of the Certificates of Compliance. The land will be continued under Williamson Act Contract. The Certificate of Compliance is not a permit to develop; it is just recognition of past divisions. Development for a parcel would require issuance of permit(s) or other grants of approval. A 16 acre parcel could be sold but if it could be developed is a totally separate issue. He has heard that Mariposa County can decide if a permit is ministerial or discretionary, this is not true or accurate. The Fendleton ---PAGE BREAK--- 18 6-13-06 Case says “A Certificate of Compliance is a ministerial project requiring no exercise of discretion.” This is how we’ve handled cases in the past, and would be delighted to have Certificates handled the same as in the past. She concluded by saying she feels this is a property right to which the applicants are entitled and asked Don Starchman if she missed anything. Supervisor Turpin asked whether an issued Certificate of Compliance ensures development rights. Schenk responded that is does not. Supervisors Turpin then asked if a parcel with a Certificate of Compliance can be sold regardless of the size of the parcel. Schenk responded that it does have the right to be sold and agreed that’s the problem. Mr. Starchman stated he is part of the process and asked to be able to respond to this issue of parcels being able to be sold that do not comply with Williamson Act contract requirements. Starchman responded that in his experience relatively few Certificates of Compliance get sold that are too small. He also said that if they sell a 13 acre parcel off and they can’t do viable agriculture then there is a breach of contract and penalties. But there may be more intense agriculture use in the future on smaller parcels that can meet the contract requirements. Starchman concluded stating that Mr. Hewlett wanted out of the contract because of 1492 where by the State continues to unilaterally change the contract terms. However, the parcels will continue to be encumbered by Williamson Act for the full length of the contract. And the parcels will still be controlled by Agriculture Exclusive zoning. Supervisor Stetson asked if Starchman considered 100 Certificates of Compliance as a large number. Starchman agreed that 100 certificates is a large number. He then mentioned the Woolstenhulme and Rauch Ranch applications which were filed incrementally and they are requesting the same for Redington Ranch and staff was aware of that. It was a big surprise when staff demanded that all of the Certificates of Compliance be filed at once. Starchman concluded saying no one knows what will happen in the future, there are seven children between Hewlett and Packard. Supervisor Pickard asked if Planning has a response to the questions that were raised. Kris Schenk advised that a simple way to resolve this issue is for Redington Ranch to present a clearer definition on how these future parcels will comply with the Williamson Act Contract. He does not believe that this must be treated as ministerial or that the Board doesn’t have any options. The Board does have options because of the contract issues in Section eleven which states that “In the event the land under this contract is divided, the term divided is not the same as the term “Subdivision.” He feels the Board has the ability to interpret that term “divided.” Planning would not have brought this to Board if it wasn’t believed the Board had options. This situation is unique in size and scope and has circumstances that he feels is important from a planning and land use perspective. The Planning Director’s opinion is that there is considerable latitude of how that term is applied. Supervisor Stetson asked County Counsel to respond to this issue. County Counsel advised that due to the variety of important issues, additional appeals filed by Redington Ranch, and the additional materials for this appeal, he has not had the opportunity to review all information. He requested the Board continue this hearing for a minimum of 60 days to allow time to review all documents and procedural issues. Discussion was held regarding the request to continue the hearing to allow for further clarification and additional information. County Counsel advised that he would visit with the applicant/appellant relative to requesting a continuance of their appeal before the Planning Commission to allow an opportunity for the Board to rule on this appeal first, and he requested Board authorization to go before the Planning Commission to request a continuance of the hearing that they have scheduled for Redington Ranch. Mudge provided input on the time frames of this process and previous continuance requested by staff and asked that this be brought to conclusion. Further discussion was held. County Counsel reminded the Board that this is the deliberative phase of the hearing. The hearing was continued to August 15, 2006 at 2:00p.m. ---PAGE BREAK--- 19 6-13-06 (M)Bibby, (S)Fritz, authorization was given for County Counsel to approach the Planning Commission, on behalf of the Board, to request a continuance of the hearing on the Redington Ranch appeal before the Commission until after the Board has had a chance to rule on this appeal/Ayes: Unanimous. 6:32 p.m. The Board reconvened in continued closed session. 6:46 p.m. Chairman Stetson announced that direction was given to staff as a result of the closed session matters. CONSENT AGENDA: CA-1 Ratify a Certificate of Appreciation for Ernest “Ernie” S. Correa’s Lifetime Contributions to the Community of Midpines and to Mariposa County, Presented on June 10th, 2006 (Supervisor Stetson) CA-2 Approve a Professional Services Agreement for Continuation of Residential Alcohol and Drug Treatment Services with Changing Echoes and Authorize the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to Sign the Agreement (Human Services Director); Res. 06-222 CA-3 Approve a Professional Services Agreement with John P. Trujillo, PhD. to Provide Parenting Classes and Authorize the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to Sign the Agreement (Human Services Director); Matter was continued to be scheduled for discussion with the Human Services Director CA-4 Approve a Professional Services Agreement for Continuation with Deborah Atkinson, RN, for Nursing Services and Authorize the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to Sign the Agreement (Human Services Director); Res. 06-223 CA-5 Approve an Agreement for Office Space in Coulterville with George Halenbeck and Teresa Kelley-Halenbeck and Authorize the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to Sign the Agreement (Human Services Director); Res. 06-224 CA-6 Approve an Agreement for Residential Alcohol and Drug Treatment Services with Acacia Board and Care and Authorize the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to Sign the Agreement (Human Services Director); Res. 06-225 CA-7 Adopt a Resolution Designating the Mariposa County Arts Council as the County’s Authorized Partner in the California Arts Council’s State-Local Partnership Program (Chairman Stetson); Res. 06-226 CA-8 Adopt a Resolution Approving the Proposed Road Name “Redtail Ridge Road” for the Subject Easement (Planning Director); Res. 06-227 CA-9 Approve Budget Action Transferring Funds within the Jail Budget to Cover the Provision of Court Security for Up Coming Hi Profile Trials 4,000) (Sheriff); Res. 06-228 CA-10 Approve Budget Action Transferring Funds within the Boating Safety Budget to Fund Overtime for Boating Safety Patrol ($2,000) (Sheriff); Res. 06-229 ---PAGE BREAK--- 20 6-13-06 CA-11 Approve a Professional Services Agreement for Continuation of Personnel Counsel Services with Best, Best and Krieger, LLP and Authorize the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to Sign the Agreement (County Counsel); Res. 06- 240 CA-12 Adopt a Resolution Designating Resource Conservation District as the Permitting Agency for Grading Permits within Mariposa County and Approve Memorandum of Understanding per Section 1 Chapter 15.28.030 of the Mariposa County Ordinance No. 1025 and Authorize the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to Sign the Memorandum of Understanding (Building Director); Res. 06-230 CA-13 Approve Agreement for Lease of the Building at 5080 Jones Street, Mariposa, to be used for Office Space for the District Attorney Victim/Witness Program and Statutory Rape Vertical Prosecution Program (District Attorney); Res. 06-231 CA-14 Adopt Resolution Correcting the Minutes of April 25, 2006 (Clerk of the Board); Res. 06-232 CA-15 Approve Recognition for the First Mariposa Residents to Complete the 25-Mile and 50- Mile “2006 Mariposa Run for the Gold” Endurance Rides (Supervisor Pickard) CA-16 Accept the Composting Facility, Project No. 95-28, as Complete and Authorize the Public Works Director to File a Notice of Completion (Public Works Director); Res. 06- 233 CA-17 Adopt a Resolution Authorizing Public Works to Solicit Bids for Supplying Aviation Fuel to the Mariposa/Yosemite Airport and Award a Contract Based on a Combination of Fuel Price and Services Offered, and Authorize the Director of Public Works to Sign the Contract (Public Works Director); Res. 06-234 CA-18 Adopt a Resolution Amending Resolution 92-578 Increasing the Mariposa Town Cemetery Ad Hoc Committee from Three to Five Members and Appoint the Following Members to the Mariposa Town Cemetery Ad Hoc Committee: Sam Spaulding, Leroy Radanovich, David Radanovich, Jenny Binning, and Alan Berg (Public Works Director); Res. 06-235 CA-19 Adopt a Resolution Permitting Employees to Donate Vacation Hours to an Employee Recuperating from a Chronic Illness (Public Works Director); Res. 06-236 CA-20 Approve a Professional Services Agreement with Liebert, Cassidy and Whitmore to Provide Consultation, Representational, and Legal Services and Authorize the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to Sign the Agreement (Interim Personnel/Risk Manager); Res. 06-237 CA-21 Approve Hazardous Materials Specialist Job Description, Set the Salary at Range 335 ($2,696-$3,277), and Assign the Position to the SEIU Bargaining Unit (Interim Personnel/Risk Manager); Res. 06-241 CA-22 Approve Budget Action Transferring Funds within the Indigent Defense Budget for Greater than Expected Investigation Costs ($5,000) (Interim County Administrative Officer); Res. 06-238 CA-23 A) Approve Budget Action Appropriating Unanticipated Federal Revenue to Housing Programs ($12,300) and Increasing Expenditures Accordingly (4/5ths Vote Required) ---PAGE BREAK--- 21 6-13-06 B) Approve Budget Action Transferring Funds within the Housing Authority to Cover Program Expenses ($46,000) C) Approve Budget Action Transferring Funds within the Community Action Budget for Program Expenses ($3,500) (Human Services Director); Res. 06-239 6:47 p.m. Adjournment in memory of Yvette Rene Long-Crutchfield, Robert “Bob” D. Ritz, Donald Exford Cook, and Gregory Wayne Mackessy. Respectfully submitted, MARGIE WILLIAMS Clerk of the Board