Full Text
Time Description 2:17 p.m. The continued meeting from December 5, 2006, was called to order at the Mariposa County Government Center Kris Schenk, Planning Director; PUBLIC HEARING – Adoption of General Plan and Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Board of Supervisors will Review and Consider the 2006 General Plan and Final EIR and the Recommendations of the Planning Commission, Staff Recommendations, Accept Public Testimony and Take Final Action to Adopt the General Plan and Certify the Final EIR. Meeting will Begin at 2:00 p.m. and an Evening Session will be held at 6:00 p.m. at which time Public Testimony will also be Accepted. Meeting May be Continued if Necessary to December 7th. BOARD ACTION: Kris Schenk, Sarah Williams/Deputy Planning Director, and Andy Hauge/Hauge Brueck Associates, were present. Kris Schenk presented the staff report, and he advised that the annotated notes which reflect the deliberations of the Board from December 5th are available to the public. Those notes added to the “November 2006” version of the General Plan Update are the final draft General Plan and the draft of the EIR (Environmental Impact Report), along with all of the documents, including the mitigation and monitoring program that are part of the EIR. This hearing follows about a six-year long process. The General Plan consists of Volume I wherein you find the policies and the mitigation measures; Volume II wherein you find the overall Land Use Diagram and the planning areas and the planning study areas, and he noted that there were some recent changes to parcels shown on the diagrams; Volume III wherein you find the background technical appendices, and no changes have been made to this volume in the last year and a half or so; and Volume IV – the EIR. He advised that it is appropriate for the public to provide comments on all of these documents during this hearing. He reviewed the hearing process, and he advised that after the close of the public portion of the hearing, the Board will enter the deliberative phase, and there are some actions that staff will discuss as to the appropriate sequence of events from there. Chair Stetson thanked staff for their efforts in pulling everything together from the workshop that was held on December 5th for this hearing. He also thanked the public and the Planning Commissioners for their tremendous contribution to this Plan. Supervisor Pickard asked that staff outline the list of what was covered and the edits from November through December 5th. Andy Hauge advised that the Planning Commission submitted recommendations to the Board; and based on those recommendations, the Board spent part of the workshop on December 5th reviewing them and making recommendations for the final draft document. He provided a brief recap as requested. Supervisor Fritz referred to Implementation Measure 10-2a(2) and asked for clarification of whether “very” was to be deleted from the Consequences. Andy Hauge agreed that the “very” is supposed to be deleted. Andy Hauge further advised that the changes were evaluated and the EIR is adequate as written and there are no changes required in the EIR and the conclusions continue to remain. Thomas P. Guarino, County Counsel, confirmed that the last sentence was removed from the Consequences in Implementation Measure 10-6a(2); and Andy Hauge agreed that it was supposed to be removed. County Counsel advised that global review of the document will be done to make sure that this sentence is removed from all Consequence sections as the revisions have made the sentence unnecessary. MARIPOSA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONFORMED AGENDA December 6, 2006 (Meeting Continued from December 5, 2006) ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 12-6-06 The public portion of the hearing was opened and input was provided by the following: Laurie Oberholtzer, representing MERG (Mariposans for the Environment and Responsible Government), advised that they would like to provide some congratulatory words at the end of the public portion about the process. She advised that there are two items that they discussed with the Board that they would like to submit wording/ideas on and further discuss today: 1) the issue of slope density standards or perhaps eliminating some portion of the credit for steep slopes in the clustering policy – Autumn Bernstein will provide more information on wording that some communities have used; and 2) a “what if” scenario on a rural shopping center, square footage and acreages; and she presented information on her calculations. Andy Hauge provided input on this issue. Rita Kidd referred to the issue of the size of Rural Economic areas, and she provided information from the Sierra Business Council (SBC) and some examples. She noted that a site of ten-acres is approximately one-third the size of the Merced Mall; and an area of twenty-acres would be about two- thirds of the size of the Merced Mall. In looking at the SBC’s recent report, that includes a discussion of rural community centers which goes beyond rural economic uses, it says that the rural community center ranges in size from three to ten acres and caters to a variety of needs, including today’s efforts to adjust to new retail demands from ranchette residents. It goes on and talks about appropriate uses and it doesn’t just limit it to retail, etc. She provided information on using street locations in Merced as an example of how large a sixteen-acre area is. David Butler referred to the information Rita Kidd provided and the comparisons with Merced and he noted that Mariposa County does not have the flat ground. We do not have the traffic and customer base to support a large development like occurs in Merced. He feels Mariposa is unique compared to the other areas that have been mentioned with this issue. Autumn Bernstein, representing the Sierra Nevada Alliance, provided some specific examples of the slope density formula policy from Santa Clara County that they use in determining clustering in their hillside areas. She advised that the steeper the slope, the larger the parcel size would need to be. She advised that they calculate the average slope of the property and that is how they figure out how many two-acre home sites could be included in the cluster. She also provided information from Monte Sereno which is a more urban community with smaller lot sizes. She suggested that this issue go on the list for further consideration for further review with Title 17. Andy Hauge advised that in talking with Sarah Williams, she advised that the Mariposa Town Plan Specific Plan contains similar regulations for the town planning area. He further advised that the Rural Economic uses a term “developed area” and based on the definitions in the General Plan, it does include any disturbed areas. Of a ten-acre parcel, only 35-percent could be disturbed. Staff responded to a question from the Board and clarified the 35-percent of the lot coverage that could be disturbed. Andy Hauge advised that the definition of “developed area” is found on page A-9, definition number 44. Autumn Bernstein advised that she gave staff other documents showing examples of clustering policies. Don Starchman, Starchman & Bryant Law Offices, noted that not one of the counties used in the examples has areas set aside as Mariposa does in the green color on the map; and they do not have the minimum density of five-acres for the rest of the county. He noted that we have cut back on the amount of development that can be done; and now he feels that the little bit that is left is being attacked. He noted that this was not brought forth as a development tool so much as a development incentive to not develop the steeper areas and to develop the areas that are more usable. This issue is already on the list for future consideration. He stated he feels that if there is going to be consideration given to changing the slope density that there should be further discussion. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 12-6-06 Chair Stetson advised Autumn Bernstein that the materials she said she gave to staff need to be given to the Clerk if she wants it to be a part of the record; otherwise it just belongs to staff. David Butler referred to the hillside and ridge line design issues and stated he does not feel the third bullet that says the Commission may require buildings to be set back from ridge lines should be under the section for new subdivisions. He doesn’t believe that it belongs in the General Plan; he believes it belongs in Title 17 or design review or somewhere else as it has to do with a building and not a subdivision or a lot. Staff responded to questions from the Board relative to the status of applying the policy that when slopes are in excess of an average of 15-percent that building sites may be required to be determined. Andy Hauge advised that it is directing that the Planning Commission review those things and they may require buildings to be set back from the ridge line. Supervisor Turpin and Stetson advised that their notes reflected “building sites.” Laurie Oberholtzer thanked the Board for involving them in this process over the past six years. She advised that MERG feels they have been treated very professionally and they feel like they have been a part of the process and they feel good about the process and the spirit of working together. She reviewed the little things that they feel were nice - staff never treated them like they were driving them crazy when they would call with a million questions and suggestions; Andy Hauge is very professional and really represents the planning profession well; they appreciate that free copies of the latest version of the Plan have been available and they feel that is user friendly and it helped the process; and the Board has always been willing to give a substantive discussion. They feel that Alternative 5 is a good alternative, and she read and presented a letter relative to this process. Robert Kroon stated he is still concerned with Implementation Measure 5-11a(1), as he feels it has the potential to close businesses that are legally existing. He referred to page 5-25 where it says that Yosemite West is primarily resort homes, and under the footnote on page 5-12, it recognizes Fish Camp and Wawona as tourism being an industry. He noted that Fish Camp currently has 13 TOT (transient occupancy) home rentals and Wawona has 142 and Yosemite West has 111. He feels that if Fish Camp and Wawona are included, then he feels that Yosemite West should be recognizes as tourism being an industry of the area. He commented on the amount of revenue the home rentals bring to the County, and they don’t want any issues with community plans in the future that could shut down their home rental operations. He responded to questions from the Board and clarified his suggested wording change to reflect that Yosemite West, Fish Camp, and Wawona are areas in which the industry is tourism. He referred to Implementation Measure 5-4a(3) that says that all community plans should include areas to accommodate the rural home industries; and if the community plan doesn’t give you an area to move to if you outgrow your home-based location, then he feels the special plans can remove you from the area and shut down your legally existing businesses. To summarize, he wants the Board to recognize Yosemite West as a tourism-based area. 3:02 p.m. There being no further public input at this time, the Board recessed and the public hearing was continued to 6:00 p.m. 6:20 p.m. The Board reconvened and continued with the public hearing. Supervisor Pickard asked if there was anyone in the audience this evening that was not present from the 2:00 p.m. portion of the hearing; and if there was that a review be given of the afternoon session. There was no one present this evening that was not present for the afternoon portion. Input from the public was provided by the following: Pierce Loberg, Wawona resident, referred to an issue he raised at the November 17th Planning Commission hearing as he feels the Commissioners misunderstood his remarks concerning legally existing non-conformities. He feels the heading makes it clear that these uses can continue, yet there is ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 12-6-06 an exception for signs and billboards; and the language as provided in community and special planning and they excluded Wawona as a specific plan. He referred to Goal 5-11 and the Commission’s recommendation, and he requested that a period be placed after “billboards” and he feels that would clarify the issue. He noted that the goal is to make it clear that it facilitates the transition from the 1981 General Plan by assuring people those legally existing non-conformities will be able to continue. Don Starchman referred to the Agriculture/Working Landscape Land Use Classification, and he stated he feels the first two sentences in the second paragraph of section B. Extent of Uses, are scrambled together where churches and organizational camps are discussed. He noted that there was a discussion and the Board concurred with including churches and organizational camps; and later the issue was reviewed with the Agriculture Exclusive zoning to allow resort or visitor uses that were secondary to an agricultural use. He noted that a church camp is not going to be secondary to agricultural use – so he feels that this needs to be broken down into two separate sentences as follows: “The County permits for a discretionary review (conditional use permit) churches and organizational camps.” and “The County permits for a discretionary review (conditional use permit) the creation of resort or visitor uses which are secondary to the primary uses of agriculture, timber,” and so forth…” Peter Regla, Yosemite West, referred to the input provided by Pierce Loberg and he stated he read the Consequences and the policy and he feels they seem so convoluted as to the actual consequences of the policy, and he agrees with adding a period after “billboards” and with striking the newly added language. He feels that the way it is written it seems to put the capabilities of certain plans at more importance than other plans in the scheme of the General Plan. Chair Stetson called for further public input and there was none. The public portion of the hearing was closed. 6:27 p.m. Recess 6:29 p.m. Chair Stetson asked for Board’s consideration of re-opening the public portion of the hearing based on a request that he received. (M)Pickard, (S)Turpin, the public portion of the hearing was reopened/Ayes: Unanimous. Input from the public was provided by the following: David Butler referred to earlier discussions on the hillside and ridge top design standards and the third bullet that says the Commission may require building sites to be set back from ridge line; and he provided an example of planner discretion and how he feels that gets misused. He advised of a tentative map that he has on a 33-acre parcel where he is trying to straighten out the title. They hired a professional planner to make the application and it was submitted and returned with the planner’s comments. He appeared before the Planning Commission and challenged some of the planner’s requests. He advised that the planner’s comments and notes from the site visit relative to a 747-foot long, 18-foot wide road to be built, on a site that is relatively flat, require that the road be engineered. The Planning Commission threw out the requirement for the engineered road. Another requirement was that they pay to Fish and Game a $1200 fee to do a study because of a creek that runs along the property. He advised that Fish and Game’s original official response was no comment. But the planner took it upon himself to add this as a requirement to get the tentative map. He feels that these are things that are at the discretion of junior planners that may not understand the impact to the residents/public. With the setback issue, he is concerned with property rights being infringed on. A lot of the lower ground has already been developed and what is left is the ridge tops. He agrees that the thought behind this issue is good, but he feels the issues can be dealt with by a change in the color of paint and with some vegetation or trees; and that the people should not be restricted with the building sites. He feels that this is putting a lot of power in a junior planner hands; and he reiterated his previous request that the third bullet be deleted. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 12-6-06 Laurie Oberholtzer stated she doesn’t feel that this policy changed during the recent review process. She feels that this wording means that only the Planning Commission “may” require the building sites to be setback from ridge lines and not a junior planner or anyone else can require this. If this is going to be discussed, she would like to see it become a requirement and become tougher. But they are okay with the language as it is as a compromise. She asked that the Board hold firm on the wording for 5-11a as she feels that it is a good idea to give the committees in the various communities the ability to handle things on a case-by-case basis relative to legal non-conforming uses. Rita Kidd referred to the language change in the Agriculture/Working Landscape Land Use Classification, section B. Extent of Uses; and she stated they are not in disagreement with the change to make it clearer. Ken Melton referred to the discussion non ridge top design standards and advised that he supports David Butler’s comments on this issue. He feels this is a private property rights issue, and he opposes anything that constitutes a “taking” of property. He feels the whole thing should be deleted, or that it could be further considered with Title 17. Autumn Bernstein stated she feels the ridge tops are often the most fire prone area because of the way the winds work, and she referred to CAL FIRE’s requirements with building setbacks. Chair Stetson called for further public input and there was none. The public portion of the hearing was closed. The Board commenced with deliberations. Chair Stetson suggested that the Board review the issues that were raised today to see if there is interest in making changes. Supervisor Pickard initiated discussion relative to the issue raised by Don Starchman concerning the Agriculture/Working Landscape Land Use Classification, and amending the wording in the first two sentences in the second paragraph of section B. Extent of Uses. Sarah Williams noted that the recent amendment to the Agriculture Exclusive zone made a distinction between agri-tourism uses which the County decided should be a permitted use in this zone, and a guest ranch which the County said if it does not fall within the definition of an agri-tourism use, it still needed that conditional use permit. The question is whether or not this language should be made clear relative to that distinction; and that becomes important when you read the sentences that follow. She asked for time to work on clearer language. 6:44 p.m. Recess 6:47 p.m. Sarah Williams presented the following suggested wording for the first two sentences: “In addition to the traditional uses within the classification, the County permits through a discretionary review (conditional use permit) churches, organizational camps, and guest ranches. The creation of resort or visitor uses is permitted if considered an agri-tourism use in conjunction with the primary uses of agriculture, timber, and mining production.” That text is consistent with language in the recent amendment to the Agriculture Exclusive Zone. Discussion was held. Rita Kidd called for a point of order as she feels that the proposed language is different than what currently exists. The Board continued with deliberations on this issue. At Supervisor Bibby’s request, Andy Hauge read “Chapter Title 17.40 Development Standards for the Agriculture Exclusive Zone Permitted Uses: Ranching and commercial vineyards and orchards, nurseries, greenhouses, wineries, processing plants for products grown on site, agri-tourism uses in conjunction with the primary agricultural production use of the property.” ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 12-6-06 Supervisors Stetson and Pickard initiated discussion relative to Implementation Measure 5-11a(1) and the revisions that have been made and consideration of ending the sentence after signs or billboards; and allowance for the special planning area, community planning area, or town planning area, to have the ability to determine what their legal non-conforming conformities are and what should be the outcome of those. Kris Schenk advised that the current wording would apply to two of the types of planning areas: special plans or community plans; and it wouldn’t apply to a specific plan or to a town plan. He suggested that wording could be added to say “as otherwise provided in the adopted planning areas” and that would be more generic and include all of the fifteen planning areas that we will have eventually. The Board concurred with this change. Supervisor Bibby initiated discussion relative to previous consideration of ten versus twenty maximum acres for the rural commercial and the purpose of the allowed uses and the criteria. She commented on her review of the acreage for the local elementary schools and Government facilities, and other businesses; and advised that she supports ten acres. If there is an issue with having space for a well and septic and it is demonstrated that ten acres is not enough, she suggested that there could be allowance for twenty acres in those cases. She advised that she has copies of the information relative to her review of the acreages. Discussion was held. She advised that County Counsel just indicated to her that this information could not be introduced into the record as the public portion is closed; however, she was asked by another Board member for a copy. She requested that this issue be placed on the list of issues for further consideration. The Board concurred with leaving the maximum parcel size at twenty acres and with tracking it to see how it is working. Chair Stetson initiated discussion relative to the ridge top development issue that was raised during the hearing. Supervisor Pickard clarified that “building” would be shown as “building site” and the Board concurred. Supervisor Turpin stated he feels there needs to be a better definition for “hillside” and “ridge top design” so that there would be guidelines for staff for reviewing these issues. Discussion was held. Andy Hauge advised that there are provisions in the Plan for the County to develop criteria for the development review standards; and there is a definition in the Plan that the Planning Commission will review those items within the list for areas with slopes over fifteen percent when reviewing the subdivision. He advised that the Board could consider adding more specific implementation measures in the General Plan to create the guidelines for those subdivisions. Kris Schenk advised that there are specific design standards in the Mariposa Town Planning Area, and that would be a starting point to develop the standards on a countywide basis – this could be done in Title 17 which will follow adoption of the General Plan. Chair Stetson noted that this is addressed in Implementation Measure 11-1a(2) – the County shall develop guidelines. Further discussion was held relative to the timelines for developing standards and enforcement. Chair Stetson initiated discussion relative to the slope density issues that were raised, including the clustering of residential units. Andy Hauge advised that the “carrying capacity” issue is on the list for future consideration. Supervisor Bibby asked staff to review the list of items on the future consideration list. Andy Hauge advised of the following items and of the following changes that were made: 1) Evaluate the effectiveness of tripling the average daily traffic standard/Section 5.4.02 F. Intensity 2) consider the use of “carrying capacity” and establishing the minimum density criteria for each land use classification 3) conduct ground water study similar to the ground water studies conducted in Eastern Fresno County 4) prepare a study that evaluates the clustering of residential units on a parcel of land based on the projects parcel’s carrying capacity; study findings may be applied in future updates of the General Plan and implementing ordinances 5) define the criteria to be used in evaluating new road capacity definitions ---PAGE BREAK--- 7 12-6-06 6) modify Implementation Measure 2-2a(3) with the following sentence: “Development permits shall not be issued for substandard-sized parcels unless they are enforceably managed with other standard contiguous contracted parcels under common ownership.” 7) modify Implementation Measure 10-6a(2) by adding the following portion of a sentence: “to include historic parcels and require one Williamson Act contract for each parcel or for each group of contiguous parcels that are owned and managed as one unit.” 8) a policy that new development pay its fair share through development impact fees 9) additional changes were made in the document as concurred to during the process 10) Sarah Williams advised that the issue of tracking the change of twenty versus ten acres is also on the list. Supervisor Bibby noted that this will be reviewed during the annual review of the Plan. Chair Stetson asked that time be given for Planning staff to review the changes made during this hearing to make sure there are no outstanding issues. Supervisor Turpin reiterated his previous request that there be a good definition for “hillside” and “ridge top” and questioned whether this should be included on the list for future consideration. Andy Hauge advised that this is covered in the policy requiring the standards to be developed. Chair Stetson advised that any editorial or spelling corrections should be given to Planning. County Counsel noted that the changes would need to be provided during the hearing. Kris Schenk advised of a couple of technical corrections: there was a reference to the Merced River Plan and they would like to delete these kinds of technical references in the Plan. He suggested that general direction be given for staff to make technical editorial changes that are found that need to be made for the purposes of clarifying the meaning of the Plan and that do not change the intent. The Board concurred. 7:34 p.m. Recess 7:59 p.m. Chair Stetson advised that there is one more issue to be discussed for clarification. County Counsel advised that he was approached by Rita Kidd during the recess, and she levied a charge that when Attorney Starchman Bryant was assisting staff with a language change that maybe the Board’s intent with page 5-45 somehow didn’t get clearly stated. She has also stated that they will be filing letters tomorrow if this doesn’t get addressed, from themselves and Farm Bureau and others challenging the process because they feel that something took place outside of the public hearing. He believes that the Board can look at the page prepared by staff with the suggested changes, item 5-45, and he advised that the specific charge is that by dividing the sentences and not having the conditional use permit continued to the second sentence, that the door is opened to the creation of resorts as a permitted use without that restriction. He noted that the restriction was in the original language. He asked that the Board give direction to staff, uninfluenced in this process or by any taint, as to what its desire is for this section. County Counsel advised this should cure and remove any of the taint that is attached to it – it will be purely the Board deliberative process and direction to staff, and staff may have some suggested language if it is the Board’s intent to have something other than what is on the print out of changes that have been directed so far. Discussion was held relative to the language. Supervisor Stetson said he didn’t realize that the language change was taking the resort and visitor uses out of the conditional use permit and discretionary review; and he agreed with revisiting this section. Supervisor Pickard stated he believes the intent all along has been that these would be conditional uses in the Agriculture/Working Landscape Land Use Classification and he feels the intent should be clarified. Andy Hauge advised of the following changes that were requested: the first change that was asked for was the way it read is that the churches and organizational camps had to be secondary to agriculture, so the recommendation is to put a period after “conditional use” and it doesn’t have to be secondary to agriculture; ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 12-6-06 the second change is in the second sentence to make sure that resort and tourism uses have to be related to agriculture and that discretionary permits be required; and the third change is to note that agri-tourism, when in conjunction with agricultural uses, is a permitted use. Andy Hauge read the revised language into the record: “In addition to the traditional uses within the classification, the County permits through a discretionary review (a conditional use permit) churches and organizational camps. In addition the County permits through discretionary reviews (a conditional use permit) the creation of resort or visitor uses which are secondary to the primary uses of agriculture, timber and mining production. Agri-tourism is a permitted use when in conjunction with a primary agricultural production of the property. Such agri- tourism uses support the County’s goal of encouraging agricultural and regional visitor business uses.” Supervisor Stetson asked about guest ranches and dude ranches, and further discussion was held. Andy Hauge advised that guest ranches are described in the Code as a conditional use and that use does not need to be listed in this section. The Board concurred with the language as read. Supervisor Pickard initiated discussion relative to the request to consider changing a footnote on page 5-12 of the November draft of the Plan to include Yosemite West to that category. He noted that other special planning areas and community planning areas were not included; and he asked staff to provide input on this matter. Andy Hauge advised that the footnote is related to Implementation Measure 5- 4a(3) that all community plans should include land area to accommodate local rural home industry that outgrow their home-based location. The footnote was added by the Planning Commission and concurred to by the Board, that in the two town planning areas of Wawona and Fish Camp, that those are tourism communities and therefore, it is not required. At one time this was a “shall” so that footnote was to take care of the “shall.” Now the Board has changed it to a “should” so the footnote is not as important. Discussion was held. Supervisor Pickard referred to page 5-25, which talks about describing the Yosemite West special planning area, and questioned whether this language captures the resort homes/transient rental uses that have taken place in Yosemite West. Kris Schenk stated he feels this language captures those uses; and he noted that this description was written and has not been modified since 2001. He feels that when the Board is finished with the Yosemite West Special Plan and the outcome of that Plan has been determined, it might be appropriate to come back and look at this language and perhaps some other related language and make sure that what is in the General Plan accurately describes the outcome of adopted Yosemite West Special Plan. Further discussion was held and Supervisor Stetson suggested that the footnote could be removed. Supervisor Fritz suggested that this issue be added to the list for future consideration after the Yosemite West Special Plan is adopted. Andy Hauge advised that this may be covered by State law; and he advised that when the Special Plan is adopted, it will need to be reviewed with the General Plan for consistency and appropriate adjustments will need to be done. No changes were made. County Counsel recommended that time be allowed for Planning to print out an updated list of the changes that have been agreed to, and that the Board take action to direct that the recommended changes be made to the Plan. 8:20 p.m. Recess 8:32 p.m. Chair Stetson advised that updated list of changes, consisting of seven specifics, has been provided to the Board for review. County Counsel outlined the following as recommended action: direct staff to include the seven updated actions from today’s hearing as set forth on the list that was provided. Supervisor Pickard asked whether the motion should include the other recommended revisions that have been concurred to during this process. Andy Hauge noted that the Board did not make a motion on the items that were approved during the December 5th workshop; and he feels that it would be appropriate to concur that the base is the November version of the General Plan and that the revisions from the December 5th workshop and the revisions from today’s hearing consist of the General Plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- 9 12-6-06 (M)Pickard, (S)Fritz, the Board ratified the changes that the Board discussed and recommended for adoption into the General Plan from the December 5th memorandum as well as the updated list of revisions for this hearing/Ayes: Unanimous. Andy Hauge advised that staff reviewed the revisions that were made tonight and there are no new impacts, and the EIR does not need to be modified and it adequately discloses the affects of the Mariposa County General Plan. Discussion was held relative to the process at this point. County Counsel advised that the next step in the process if the Board wishes to move forward is to certify the EIR and adopt the necessary findings to do so, adopt the General Plan and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program, and direct staff to bring back a resolution with the necessary findings and a statement of overriding considerations. If this action is taken this evening, he anticipates that this matter could be calendared for the December 12th meeting in case there is something that needs to be reviewed; and on that agenda, we would indicate that the 12th meeting would be continued to December 18th, so that the resolution could be made available to the public and to the Board. The resolution could be adopted on the 18th. Discussion was held relative to scheduling this for Monday, December 18th versus December 19th. County Counsel advised that there will be public comment allowed on the resolution alone and not the matters that have been decided; and staff feels that the 18th may be more appropriate given the agenda for the 19th. (M)Pickard, (S)Turpin, direction was given to staff to bring back a formal resolution certifying the EIR for the Mariposa County General Plan and adopting the Mariposa County General Plan with findings of fact, mitigation and monitoring measures reporting program and statement of overriding considerations; finding that the final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and finding that the final EIR reflects the lead agencies independent judgment and analysis of CEQA guidelines section 15090; and that this be set for next available meeting of December 12th. Board members commended everyone that has worked on this document over the last few years, including previous Board members, Planning Commissioners, staff, consultant, and the public. Ayes: Unanimous. 8:47 p.m. Adjournment Respectfully submitted, MARGIE WILLIAMS Clerk of the Board