Full Text
Time Description 9:05 a.m. Meeting Called to Order at the Mariposa County Government Center Pledge of Allegiance Introductions Public Presentation: For Non-Timed Agenda Items including Attention, Information, and Consent Agenda, and for Items Not on the Agenda - Jim Allen, Sheriff, thanked the public for showing support of the law enforcement, and he advised that the committee (Supervisors Turpin and Fritz, County Administrative Officer, the District Attorney, and himself) held its first meeting on Friday and his command staff was included. He feels that the meeting was productive and he mentioned that he needed an olive branch to stop the employees from leaving the department. He requested that the same benefits that the Management and Confidential group receives be extended to the deputies, and that the County drop the 3 ½ percent retirement issue with regard to the grievance, and he noted that assurances were made that a generous offer would be made. He also noted that the County Administrative Officer brought up procedural issues that will come back to the Board that he feels will help. He noted that the County Administrative Officer met with the Deputy Sheriff’s Association (DSA) and the Sheriff’s Management Association (SMA) on Friday. SMA received an offer that appears reasonable, and when they asked for the offer in contract form, it was much different than what was verbally presented. He feels the olive branch turned into a poison oak branch. He noted that they will be down from 29 to 18 deputies at the end of the month. He commented on the requests to approve advertising contracts and the costs for the Visitor’s Bureau items on this agenda. He requested immediate intervention in this matter and asked that something be reflective in the pay checks at the end of the month. He commended the law enforcement, road and fire personnel for working together during the storm on Monday, and he noted that all of his crew was offering assistance to the public. Chairman Stetson referred to the discussions held the previous week and the meeting with the committee and labor negotiations, and he advised that the Board plans to address labor negotiations in closed session later this date and to extend the closed session to Wednesday, if necessary. He advised that the Board is making every attempt to address the problems that are being raised with the staffing at the Sheriff’s department. Since there was a large audience present, he asked that the speakers try to not reiterate previous comments. He noted that the General Plan workshop is scheduled for 10:00 a.m. Bob Brown, District Attorney, stated he feels that the committee meeting that was held on Friday was productive, and he feels that the Board is sincere in addressing this issue. He also advised that he submitted another letter relative to his observations of the meeting. He stated he feels that this is something that needs to be treated as an emergency. Elaine Seymour, as a store owner in town, questioned the advertising expense request for Sunset if we do not have a Sheriff’s Department that can protect us. She stated she feels that the deputies need a decent raise and we need the department. Barbara Milazzo stated that as an educator in the County, she tries to create special empowerment for the students and use measurable outcome. She advised that her husband is a sworn peace officer as a Game Warden for the Department of Fish and Game and provides back-up support to the Sheriff’s Department. She commented on the dangers of her husband’s work, and stated she feels that her husband is being put at risk if the Sheriff’s Department staffing is reduced as he relies on the MARIPOSA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONFORMED AGENDA March 21, 2006 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 3-21-06 back-up of the deputies. She stated she feels that the Board should show respect to the Sheriff’s Department, the citizens and her family. When it comes to her husband’s life and the Board’s job, she advised that she will sign a recall petition. Ann Means, retired as Deputy Sheriff, stated she will not reiterate the training and costs to bring in new deputies. She referred to the staffing of the Sheriff’s Department in 1976 and the operations and the changes that have occurred, including changes in the types of problems they deal with, including an increase in gangs and drugs. She would like to see an upgrade for the deputies; and she stated she would like to see an update to the Sheriff’s report in the Gazette. She referred to past disasters that have occurred in the County and the assistance offered by the deputies and the fire and road crews, and noted that they risk their lives. She questioned recent expenditures to donate to UC Merced, 6th Street Cinema, and the new telephone system that was installed in the Government Center. She stated she agrees that we do not need to advertise in AAA and Sunset, she feels that Yosemite will draw tourists on its own. She stated this County has been fortunate that no one has been seriously hurt or killed while on duty. She feels we are losing valuable employees and she would match the skills of this department with any other in the country. She asked that the Board show that it cares. Scott Seymour, lead counselor at the High School, noted that parents look at the school before moving here, and there is a direct link between the safety of the school and the Sheriff’s Department. He referred to the problems with gangs and drugs in Merced that we do not have here; and when these problems get here, our children will be at risk. Richard Hutchinson stated he is looking “outside of the box” and suggested that consideration be given to using a portion of the 3.5 million dollar reserve for contingency fund to give a $500 a month increase in salary to the deputies. Stu Tanner stated he is retired and came here to get away from the big city and the crime that he and his family has been victims of. He stated he feels that unless we back up our Sheriff’s Department and give them financial support, we will be getting the city crime here. He referred to the Neighborhood Watch Program that is sponsored by the Sheriff’s Department and stated that with the spread of the County, it is difficult to watch. He stated he feels that we need to be able to call on the department and get a decent response. He feels an urgent response is needed to take care of the situation. Cathie Pierce, cattle rancher in Catheys Valley, stated she has watched some of the deputies grow up here and they live in our community. She noted that they used to take care of things themselves. She stated she feels that the Board needs to do its job or there will be a recall. Brian Muller, Undersheriff, stated that as a member of SMA, the Association has submitted a proposal to the Board through the County Administrative Officer that they feel is fair. He asked each member of the Board to review the proposal, and if there are any questions, that they contact any member of their Association to discuss it. He stated this is a matter of money and it is not a work place issue, and he feels “it is time to put the money where your mouth is.” He referred to recent expenditures to construct the compost facility and the amphitheater, hire consultants and advertise in national magazines, and he feels that tells them that those items are more important than public safety. He stated he hopes that the Board will review its priorities as actions speak louder than words on whether public safety is a priority. Chairman Stetson thanked everyone for their input, and he reiterated that the Board is working to resolve this matter. 9:34 a.m. Recess 9:58 a.m. Board Information Supervisor Bibby provided input relative to her concerns regarding safety issues, safety for the community and for staff. She presented statistical information that was received from the Visitors’ Bureau relative to Park visitation through the Arch Rock entrance. She referred to a Channel 30 news report that Merced Police Department is experiencing difficulty in retaining employees and she asked that the information be verified. She also suggested that the safety element of the General Plan be reviewed with respect to law enforcement. She noted that the last employee status list showed that another deputy was leaving. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 3-21-06 Supervisor Turpin advised that their second Pedestrian and Equestrian Trails Advisory Board meeting is scheduled for Thursday in Don Pedro. Supervisor Stetson advised that a meeting is scheduled for today at 7:00 p.m. at the Midpines Community Hall to discuss the General Plan. Supervisor Bibby advised that she would like to discuss the information item on the agenda relative to sponsoring the Coyote Howl. Approval of Consent Agenda (See End of Minutes) BOARD ACTION: Supervisor Fritz pulled items 2 and 3. Supervisor Bibby pulled items 2, 3, and 5. (M)Pickard, (S)Turpin, the balance of the items was approved/Ayes: Unanimous. Consent Agenda items 2 and 3 – advertising contract with Sunset Magazine and with AAA. Supervisor Fritz asked that the items be taken off the agenda for further review of where we are spending our money. Discussion was held. Supervisor Pickard commented on the importance of visitation to the County and the need to advertise. Supervisor Bibby asked for clarification of the dates of the contracts and whether services have been received. Rich Inman, County Administrative Officer, noted that these contracts reflect an on-going relationship with Sunset and AAA. Supervisor Bibby noted that her package did not include the Exhibit for the contracts. Susan Crain, Tourism Coordinator, advised that the advertising with Sunset was for a piece that went out with the California Travel and Tourism Guide magazine that is produced by the State of California. She noted that there was a $30,000 savings with this year’s advertising with the joint marketing and more exposure was received. She also advised that these contracts are coming to the Board because of the new purchasing ordinance. Supervisor Bibby asked that an item be brought back in June to determine whether to continue this program into the next fiscal year. (M)Pickard, (S)Fritz, item 2 was approved/Ayes: Unanimous. Further discussion was held relative to item 3 with Susan Crain. Supervisor Bibby asked that an item be brought back in June to determine whether to continue with program into the next fiscal year. (M)Fritz, (S)Pickard, item 3 was approved/Ayes: Unanimous. Consent Agenda item 5 – agreement with Don Henley Construction for general construction work in Northern Mariposa County. Supervisor Bibby initiated discussion relative to this item and she asked for clarification of the anticipated services to be provided. Dana Hertfelder, Public Works Director, responded to the questions relative to the professional services agreement and the services to be provided. Supervisor Turpin noted the importance of being able to provide these services in the North County. (M)Turpin, (S)Fritz, item 5 was approved/Ayes: Unanimous. INFORMATION: Notification that the Coulterville Coyote Howl Committee is Hosting the 21st Annual Coulterville Howl Festival on May 21, 2006, and that this Event is Considered a County Sponsored Event and is Listed as an Additional Covered Party for Liability Insurance (Supervisor Turpin) BOARD ACTION: Supervisor Bibby asked whether there will be alcohol served and whether that is covered in the liability insurance. Rich Inman, County Administrative Officer, advised that the coverage does not include alcohol. Tom Guarino, County Counsel, advised that the liability coverage is not blanket liability coverage for the event. Dr. Mosher, Health Officer; Discussion and Direction to Staff Regarding the Purchase of Hybrid 4-Wheel Drive Vehicles to Replace Traditional Gasoline Engine Vehicles BOARD ACTION: Discussion was held with Dr. Mosher relative to the request. (M)Pickard, (S)Turpin, Res. 06-102 was adopted approving the purchase of the vehicles as requested/Ayes: Unanimous. Approval of Minutes of March 7, 2006, Regular Meeting (Clerk of the Board) BOARD ACTION: (M)Bibby, (S)Fritz, the minutes were approved/Ayes: Unanimous. 10:44 a.m. Recess ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 3-21-06 10:57 a.m. Kris Schenk, Planning Director; Public Workshop to Consider Comments Received and Possible Revisions to the September, 2005 Draft General Plan Update BOARD ACTION: Kris Schenk advised that Andy Hauge with Parsons Consulting and Sarah Williams, Deputy Planning Director, were present for the workshop and to assist with answering questions. Kris Schenk advised that the September 2005 version of the Draft General Plan is the document that is being reviewed, and he referred to the review process, public comments that have been received, and he explained why a General Plan is needed. Andy Hauge provided information on the development of the Plan. Discussion was held relative to the amendment process and the number of amendments that can be made each year to the Plan. Discussion was held relative to the “down zoning issue” and the “overlay map.” Kris Schenk explained that Title 17 would be reviewed for consistency with the adopted General Plan; and it is not the intent to create a problem with any overlay zoning. He further advised that they would like to begin calling the “overlay map” the “General Plan Diagram.” The purpose of the “Diagram” is to give direction to the policies. Discussion was held relative to the issue of “split zoning” of parcels. Kris Schenk noted that the General Plan will not be a zoning map any more, and it is not intended to change the zoning maps. He asked that the Board review the issue in concept. Supervisor Turpin stated he felt that direction should be given to staff to fix the issues with the maps and bring the matter back for further review. Supervisor Bibby asked that information be brought back that includes scenarios with this issue. Kris Schenk advised that he could bring back samples of how this would apply and draft better specific language in the Plan to guide how this process would work. Supervisor Bibby asked that there be a better explanation in the document of “base” zoning in comparison with land use. She commented on input that she has received from people who are concerned that there will be conditional use permit requirements for uses in Agriculture Exclusive zoning; and she asked that this be clarified. Supervisor Turpin asked for clarification of the environmental review of the document and disclosure of the effects. Discussion was held relative to the issue of the proposed planning area boundaries and whether the Environmental Review Impact (EIR) report studied all of the variations. Staff advised that the planning areas shown on the map should be defined as “study areas.” It would take a committee recommendation to the Board in the future, with the Board having final authority to set the boundaries. Andy Hauge noted that the boundary study areas do not change the land use at this time. Kris Schenk noted that the numbers for future build-out calculations were based on five-acre minimum parcel size, and to change to 2 ½ acre minimum parcel size would require further review of the EIR. Discussion was held. Supervisor Turpin clarified that the EIR was based on existing land uses. Andy Hauge advised that he will go back and look at changing from five to 2 ½ acre minimum parcel size in existing town planning areas that would be affected by this issue and advise of anysignificant environmental impacts. Kris Schenk initiated discussion relative to an alternative that is felt to be environmentally superior to some of the alternatives that have been described to enhance and protect the rural character of the County. Discussion was held relative to the further review of the use of “shall” versus “should” and “may” in the document. Kris Schenk also raised the issue of recognition of Native American history and cultural traditions and suggested that staff draft some language for the Board’s review. Supervisor Bibby noted that comments have been received that are geared toward specific properties and there are concerns with spot zoning; and she suggested that General Planning be looked at as an overall guiding policy for the entire County versus individual interests. Supervisor Pickard asked about the list of concerns beyond what has been discussed this morning. Kris Schenk advised that he has a list; however, the analysis is not complete. But he could provide the list for further discussion. The workshop was continued to 1:30 p.m. 12:10 p.m. CLOSED SESSION: Conference with County Labor Negotiator; Name of Employee Organization: Mariposa County Managerial/Confidential Organization (MCMCO); Name of County ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 3-21-06 Designated Representative: Rich Inman, County Administrative Officer (County Administrative Officer) BOARD ACTION: (M)Bibby, (S)Pickard, the closed session was held/Ayes: Unanimous. Supervisor Bibby excused herself from the following matters due to a potential conflict of interest as her spouse is employed by the Sheriff’s Department. CLOSED SESSION: Conference with County Labor Negotiator; Name of Employee Organization: Sheriffs’ Management Association (SMA); Name of County Designated Representative: Rich Inman, County Administrative Officer (County Administrative Officer); and CLOSED SESSION: Conference with County Labor Negotiator; Name of Employee Organization: Deputy Sheriffs’ Association (DSA); Name of Designated Representative: Rich Inman, County Administrative Officer (County Administrative Officer) BOARD ACTION: (M)Pickard, (S)Turpin, the closed sessions were held/Ayes: Stetson, Turpin, Fritz, Pickard; Excused: Bibby. 1:38 p.m. Chairman Stetson announced that the Board is still meeting in closed session and he continued the General Plan workshop to 2:00 p.m. The Board continued with closed session matters. 2:17 p.m. The Board reconvened in open session. Chairman Stetson advised that direction was given to staff as a result of the closed session matters; and at the end of the General Plan workshop today, the Board would determine what time to reconvene in the continued closed sessions on Wednesday, March 22, 2006. Continue with the Public Workshop to Consider Comments Received and Possible Revision to the September, 2005 Draft General Plan Update BOARD ACTION: Chairman Stetson noted that Planning staff presented a list of the pending issues to be reviewed with request that direction be given to staff. Discussion was held relative to the process for the workshop, and it was agreed that input would be taken from the public at this time. Input from the public was provided by the following: John Trujillo, Pastor of the First Baptist Church, referred to a letter that was submitted to the Board and signed by leaders in the religious community expressing concern with the existing conditional use permit process. They would like to see a provision to address non-profit organizations. Supervisor Pickard asked about the existing status. Sarah Williams advised that churches are conditional uses in all zones in the rural parts of the County, and may be a permitted use in the town of Mariposa. Attorney Don Starchman noted that churches are not permitted in Agriculture Exclusive, and he feels that there should be something that encourages churches, camps, and non-profit youth camps. He agrees with having conditions for allowing churches as permitted uses. Sam Hensley, Chair of the Board of The Barrier, a non profit organization, stated they build camps for children and they are hoping to build a camp here. He referred to their process for trying to locate a camp in Mariposa County, and expressed concern that there is nothing in the Ag Working Landscape land use to allow for this project. Attorney Anita Starchman Bryant, Starchman & Bryant Law Offices, representing The Barrier, advised that the second property purchased by The Barrier for the camp is in the Mountain General zoning designation and in the new overlay map of Agriculture Working Landscape. The camp will require a land use change and they could not meet the four criteria to take the land out of the Agriculture Working Landscape. She noted that the Agricultural Advisory Committee considered the four criteria and recommended that the last two criteria be sent back to them for further review. Andy Hauge suggested that direction be given for further review of the Agriculture Working Landscape and non-agriculture related tourism activities. Attorney Don Starchman stated he still wants more information on the “diagram” and he feels that this subject property is not agricultural property and it ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 3-21-06 should be in the Natural Resources land use designation, including the surrounding area. Supervisor Turpin commented on the overlay map and the Bull Creek and Hazel Green area and the issues that were raised. Further discussion was held relative to dealing with church uses. Andy Hauge suggested that they be dealt with in the zoning ordinance and not the General Plan. Mark Taylor, Bull Creek area, commented on the Bull Creek issue, and he stated he feels that there has been a lack of information provided to residents in the North County on the General Plan. He asked that future notices be published in the Foothill Express and the Yosemite/Highway Herald. He stated he does not agree with the Agriculture Working Landscape for the area. It is not agricultural land, and the couple of ranches that existed in the area had to move the cattle during the year due to the poor grazing conditions. He referred to his letter to the Board relative to their living conditions in the area and the limited infrastructure – there is no power and no cell phone service. He stated he is trying to obtain signatures from the other property owners that he will present at a later time. He would agree with the Natural Resource designation for the area. He also advised that he contacted the Farm Bureau and they do not agree with the Agriculture Working Landscape designation for the area. Lew Geyser stated he owns Hazel Green. The Agriculture Working Landscape overlay is on National Forest land for the most part. He noted that the land could not be taken out of this designation based on the four criteria, and he has concerns with this. Steve Saunders presented a petition that he said was signed by 173 citizens and property owners of the County asking for protection of the ag lands, open spaces and individual property rights; and asking that the town planning areas be kept and that properties not be down zoned. The petition further asks that the existing General Plan be kept until the proposed plan is determined to be open, honest, and says what it means, with clear rules and regulations. He asked for clarification of the Agriculture Working Landscape and what it means, and he stated he agrees with the existing zoning map. He feels that the diagram allows for build-out of the Catheys Valley area, and he feels that the proposed large town planning area will encourage development. He asked whether the EIR covers the existing town planning areas, and he was advised that it does. He stated he feels that people have made property purchases based on what is on the map, and this procedure is leaving everyone wondering what will happen. Supervisor Bibby commented on the Catheys Valley town planning area maps and designated community area, and she advised that the only change is from 2 ½-acres to 5-acre parcel size. Mr. Saunders stated he wants to be continued as Agriculture Exclusive, and he advised that he is concerned with what developers may be able to do when they build out and create infrastructure for more development. He does not feel that agriculture is being protected. Supervisor Bibby asked staff to clarify these issues and to advise whether there is any change in the building permit process. Sarah Williams clarified the issues that were raised. Mr. Saunders asked why we have a community planning committee. Supervisor Bibby commented on the differences between the existing and proposed changes. Supervisor Stetson noted that a community plan cannot be less restrictive that the General Plan. Bob Benson, BJ Ranch in Catheys Valley, stated he feels that agriculture is being beat up by the regulations. He feels the reclassification from Agriculture Exclusive to other classifications is restrictive, and the four criteria that have been referred to are very restrictive. He stated he does not agree with Mr. Saunders; however, sooner or later if the area is going to build out, it will. Kris Casto, resident of Hunters Valley, stated it is tough to preserve the County as the jewel of the Sierras. She referred to the new diagram proposal and the ranges of acreage and the need to make sure that the criteria are understandable. She feels that people get confused with land use and zoning and all of the changes, and people are nervous about development. She feels preservation is important as well as buffer zones. She stated she does not care whether the Agriculture Exclusive or Natural Resource land use designation is used, but she feels we need better definitions where there are over laps. She stated she feels there is a need to provide clarification to the constituents in the County relative to issues such as topography and water, etc., as they may not be able to develop a piece of property. She asked that the Planning staff be tasked to develop preservation; and she suggested that light industry or research and development be added for new job creation to the Land Use and Economic Development sections. Ken Baker stated he is speaking for people that could not stay, and who own about thirty percent of the developable land in the Catheys Valley town planning area. He asked for clarification of ---PAGE BREAK--- 7 3-21-06 the 800 acres in the Catheys Valley town planning area. He commented on the community planning advisory committee meetings and their process, and he noted that he was not allowed to speak at their meetings. He stated he is not a property owner in the County, and he could not live with his property being governed by rules made by this particular committee. He noted that the majority of the property owners with developable property do not have a voice on the Catheys Valley Town Planning Advisory Committee. He stated he has been approached by the property owners to help protect their property rights. He does not understand the overlay and asked why it is necessary. He feels the existing zoning map should be used. Mr. Baker responded to questions from Supervisor Bibby relative to the map for Catheys Valley and the process; and he stated he has a problem with the system and questioned why the need for layers of bureaucracy. He stated he feels that there is confusion with all of the changes that have occurred during this process. 3:56 p.m. Recess 4:17 p.m. Ken Trujillo stated he speaking as an individual, and he is a Pastor and owns land in the Catheys Valley town planning area and outside of the area. He stated he does not have any interest in having a committee tell him what he can do with his property. He noted that he has twelve years of planning experience. He stated he is not interested in the town planning area being large. Chairman Stetson clarified that this workshop is not to discuss the Catheys Valley Plan, but the General Plan. Ken Trujillo asked why the map is being redone that was done with the previous General Plan that he worked on. He stated he feels there should be something in the General Plan for churches and something that can be consistent with zoning. He stated he thought the boundary for the Catheys Valley town planning area was going to be reduced and now he finds that it is being expanded, and that Supervisor Bibby has shown a third map. Len McKenzie, representing MERG, presented a package that they feel lays out alternative plan principles that they feel should govern the General Plan. The changes they requested are: reduce community plan areas to current sizes to prevent sprawl; eliminate the density bonus (area zoning) outside community plans; retain large parcel open space between communities; protect the 35,000 acres of agricultural and mountain preserve land by maintaining its current 160 acre minimum parcel size; adjust residential parcel sizes based on road access, fire risk, slope, water availability, and delivery of services; maintain CalTrans traffic level of service as the minimum acceptable; add mitigation measures for impacts on air, water, wildlife, and traffic; set the growth rate to match that of the state at large; adopt development impact fees ordinance immediately; include as mandatory “shalls” all mitigation measures currently listed as “should” in the draft General Plan Update; no conversion of agricultural land to residential; continued support for the right to farm, and support for the Williamson Act; and support the Planning Department’s decision on certificates of compliance. They feel these principles will maintain the rural character, agricultural heritage, open space, and air and water quality which we have at present and future citizens and tourists will desire. He also provided a MERG map of lands they feel are at risk under the current proposed update, and a MERG and Sierra Nevada Alliance map which they feel would show the designations of land use needed to protect the open space between our communities, prevent sprawl, traffic congestion, and pollution. He asked that the Board give serious consideration to their recommendations as they feel it will result in a phased growth/low impact, and environmentally superior alternative. He also advised of the response to their recent mailer asking residents about their wishes to maintain the rural character of the County and to preserve the environment. Don Starchman referred to his letter relative to tourism and recreation and resort uses and restrictions, and he highlighted the issues that he raised. He stated he feels that we are encouraging these uses; however, the criteria precludes development from going forward. He stated he feels the North East corner of the County and the Eastern quadrant should not have been included with the agricultural uses; they should be in the Natural Resources. Supervisor Stetson asked staff to respond to these issues. Andy Hauge stated that given the discussion today, he feels it is to go back and look at this designation again. Supervisor Turpin stated he agrees with the Agricultural Advisory Committee’s recommendation that the issue relative to the four criteria be sent back to them for further ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 3-21-06 review. Supervisor Pickard suggested that there be a review of what fits in the agriculture land use designation. Cathie Pierce, Farm Bureau President, noted that some of the problems they are seeing have to do with historic parcels and Williamson Act contracts with historic parcels. She suggested that the Farm Bureau and Agricultural Advisory Committee be involved in these issues. She referred to the history of the Catheys Valley Town Planning Advisory Committee, which started 9-10 years ago, and she noted that the original committee was stacked with realtors and developers. They resigned and were replaced, and when that committee started working on the plan for Catheys Valley, surveys were sent out to all property owners that they had addresses for. The committee worked hard to see what the community as a whole wanted. She noted that with UC Merced and the longer the issues drag on, the worse she feels it will get. She stated she supports property rights, but there are a lot of things to be considered. David Butler stated he appreciated Supervisor Pickard’s comments relative to zoning and versatility. He asked about the open space and zoning; and he stated he feels that the people that own these lands are being left out of the decisions. He asked about the mining and quarrying issue of taking these uses from a permitted use, and he stated he feels that the recommendations of the Ag Advisory Committee should be looked at. He noted that these activities are controlled by SMARA. He also noted that there are currently four active mining operations versus the two listed in the General Plan. He referred to the ridgeline development issues, and he stated that as a general contractor and builder, he feels the topographics of the County will force development on the hillsides and that causes problems with construction and erosion. He stated he feels that the issue of looking at lights is the same whether you look up or down. He stated he feels that there needs to be provisions for flexibility with development. Ken Melton presented an outline of his recommended changes to the General Plan Update. He stated he feels that Goals 5-3a and 5-3a(3) should be removed as they do not allow for waivers and would prohibit many subdivisions. He feels that they create off-site requirements that are beyond the control of the applicant, and he does not feel that adequate road capacity has been defined. He cited a parcel behind Outback Materials as an example relative to the road requirement issue. He also stated that he does not feel that the Board is required to provide police and fire protection, or take care of private roads. He referred to page 5-32, section E, second paragraph, and discussion of the requirement of water supply and wastewater disposal to be in place prior to map recording. He stated he feels that the best time for these decisions to be made is when there is a buyer and seller, and the buyer determines where to develop the parcel. Andy Hauge noted that this language is mandated under CEQA. Ken Melton stated he disagreed, and he also stated he feels there should be allowance for using the neighboring water. Discussion was held. Ken Melton stated he feels that the hilltop and ridgeline development restrictions need to be removed. He feels that this constitutes a “taking” without compensation of ones property for the enjoyment (view) of another. He presented a news story about Paul McCartney’s cabin in London and objections by the Council because it interfered with the “view shed.” Supervisor Fritz commented on growth and people wanting to locate their homes where they can have a view. Ken Melton referred to page 5-33, section E(3) and asked why the septic system is restricted to onsite and that there isn’t allowance for obtaining an easement on a neighboring property. He suggested that the Health Department be consulted on this matter. Ken Melton referred to page 5- 34, section E(5) and he asked that the word “requirements” be changed to “regulations.” He stated “requirements” can mean almost anything the department wants you to do. He commented on incidents he has encountered with CDF where they have tried to require the implementation of “requirements” and he advised that this has occurred with CalTrans as well. He referred to page 5-41, section E-8, and asked that “standards” be changed to “regulations.” Kris Schenk stated he does not see a problem with what term is used, they still need to abide by the “wills.” Ken Melton referred to page 5-38, section B(3), last paragraph, relative to providing for employee housing, and he stated he feels that we should let the natural market take care of this issue. He referred to page 11-2, second paragraph and noted that if one is viewing another’s home then theirs’ must be in view also. He stated he feels the last two paragraphs of page 16-3, section A, relative to ISO ratings should be deleted. He feels the fire stations come with growth. ---PAGE BREAK--- 9 3-21-06 Frank Chimrenti stated he represents several property owners and he thanked everyone for their efforts and time in this process. He asked that staff go back and evaluate the environmental review to make sure that no down zoning takes place and to make sure that the same level of zoning is maintained as exists in the current General Plan. He stated he feels that there needs to be a further evaluation of the necessity for community planning areas and for community committees in all seventeen areas. He feels that we need to ensure that the General Plan is consistent with current zoning designations of land in the County. Don Starchman provided the following input for individuals that he represents. He referred to his letter of March 17th and the Northway/Berloger property at the Airport. He referred to the Board’s previous discussion relative to this area and the possibility of having a water system with annexation to the Saxon Creek project. Now he sees that the property has been designated as Natural Resources and he feels it should have been designated as residential. He noted that environmental review for projects will be more difficult with the Natural Resources designation. He stated he feels the current map needs to go away. He stated he feels the rural character issues and the issue of the use of “shall” versus “should” in the document should be further reviewed based on previous consideration when the issue comes back. Supervisor Bibby asked for clarification from staff of what triggered the Natural Resources land use designation for the Northway parcels/Las Mariposas, and she noted that there are currently multiple land uses in the Airport area. Sarah Williams advised that the parcel currently has four land use designations and two Assessor Parcel Numbers. She noted that this issue will come back in the context of the “parcel split” discussion to determine how to deal with parcels that have more than one land use designation. Supervisor Bibby asked that clarification be provided relative to the change to the Natural Resources land use designation for the Indian Gulch area. Supervisor Turpin referred to page 5-21, section E, relative to adoption of area plans and suggested wording changes and asked about qualifications for membership. He asked what the advantage is of having the overlay maps. Andy Hauge stated there is no overlay, just land use designations on land use maps that guide development. Supervisor Turpin asked that there be further review of the solid green areas of the overlay map. Chairman Stetson asked the Board to review the pending issues and provide direction to staff. The following issues were reviewed: 1) “No down zoning” – the Board concurred with the four direction points recommended by staff to modify text to list the range of densities allowed in each land use classification (as reflected in the existing General Plan); add new text to clarify that the purpose of the range of densities is to maintain or allow the current General Plan densities; modify the name of the countywide map to “Land Use Diagram” and modify the name of the community areas to “Community Planning Study Areas;” and clarify intent by adding text to describe how to “interpret” the General Plan land use boundaries – to give the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors discretion on how to interpret boundaries in the future. 2) “Split parcels” – the Board concurred with the five direction points recommended by staff to add text to clarify that lines of the General Plan land use diagram are not precise; add text to clarify that parcels less than 40 acres in size should have one land use designation; add text to clarify that parcels larger than 40 acres in size may have more than one land use designation; Board of Supervisors will review parcel specific land use diagram modifications at next workshop; underlying zoning will be criterion for land use diagram modifications; and to provide direction to staff to identify the parcels that have split land use designations. 3) “2 ½ acres in town planning areas” – Supervisor Stetson asked for clarification of staff’s recommendation of how to “determine the level of significance” for allowing 2 ½ acre parcel sizes in current town planning areas. Andy Hauge advised that these levels are set in the environmental review report. Discussion was held. Supervisor Turpin stated he feels that we need to make sure that everyone is aware that 2 ½ acres can not be developed on all of the land. Supervisor Bibby clarified that more information would be brought back and that staff would verify the boundaries for all of the town planning areas identified in the 1981 General Plan. Kris Schenk advised that staff will provide the requested information; however, he does not know if they will be able to provide an ---PAGE BREAK--- 10 3-21-06 analysis on the extended boundaries for the 2 ½ acre consideration. The Board concurred with staff’s recommendation to review the criteria used in the draft EIR to determine the level of significance for allowing 2 ½ acre minimum parcel sizes in current town planning areas. 4) “Native American consultation” – the Board concurred with staff’s recommendation to add text in the history section and to modify policies to reflect current review practices. Kris Schenk advised that all of the text changes that are made to this draft document will be in a different color so that they can be easily identified for future review. 5) “Rural character protection alternative” – Supervisor Pickard asked that the ridgelines development issue be added as a rural character alternative. Discussion was held relative to the use of “may” and “should” and “shall.” Kris Schenk advised that these terms would be highlighted in the text for further review. He asked about addressing comments on concepts relative to flood hazards, biological resources and wetlands, historical cultural resources, and visual design criteria. Staff’s recommendations are to revise the DEIR to include the rural character protection alternative; alternative to reflect lower build out projection; alternative to provide separation between communities (greenbelt); and alternative to return some policy and implementation measures from “shoulds” to “shalls.” 6) “Churches and church camps” – The Board concurred with further reviewing the issues raised during the workshop and perhaps review this in the context of Title 17. Discussion was held. Andy Hauge asked the Board to give consideration of whether these uses should be allowed anywhere by right or by conditional use permit. Tom Guarino, County Counsel, commented on the Federal Act, RLUIPA, relative to building churches and he noted that objective criteria needs to be used, and that the activities need to be allowed without identifying them by religious basis. Supervisor Turpin initiated discussion relative to page 5-15 and questioned whether the language is adequate. Andy Hauge advised that he will work with County Counsel relative to the Rural Economic Resort section to address this issue for non-profit camps. Supervisor Bibby noted the need to consider circulation issues with these types of uses, especially with private road maintenance associations. 7) “Dead-end roads” – Kris Schenk referred to a recent situation with a proposed development project on Boyer Road, and he advised that staff is working on developing regulations for circulation when subdivisions are presented versus having a cul-de-sac at the end of the last parcel in the subdivision. Supervisor Pickard noted that this is also an issue in Jerseydale. Supervisor Bibby asked that consideration be given to joining existing road maintenance associations versus creating a new one that people would use and not participate in the maintenance program. Sarah Williams advised that they are waiting for a decision from CDF relative to the dead-end road issue. Tom Guarino clarified that the suggestion is to require an easement to go to the end of the property line versus the current cul-de-sac method. The Board concurred with staff proceeding on this issue as discussed. Andy Hauge advised that he will include this in the subdivision guidelines and bring back language for further consideration. 8) “Saxon Creek reference” – Supervisor Stetson stated he feels that if this is considered as mentioned by Don Starchman, it should be amended later. Andy Hauge stated the language needs to be reviewed to make sure that it is consistent with State law. Supervisor Pickard initiated discussion relative to the water rights issues. Andy Hauge suggested that language could be added in the General Plan relative to this issue to document the background. Bob Rudzik provided input on the Planning Commission’s consideration of this matter, and he advised that it was their goal to anticipate uses down the road to protect the rights for the future. Andy Hauge advised that he will work with County Counsel to address these issues. 9) “Noise standards enforcement” – Andy Hauge noted that there is a need to identify who is responsible for this. Supervisor Stetson suggested that staff could see if there are ---PAGE BREAK--- 11 3-21-06 alternatives. Discussion was held relative to this issue and implementation. Tom Guarino noted that the previous direction was for staff to come back with the minimum State requirements and he does not see this triggering an avalanche of noise issues. The Board concurred with making no changes to this. 10) “Mining and agritourism in Ad/Working Landscape” – Kris Schenk initiated discussion relative to this issue and permitted uses. 11) “State agency amendments” – Kris Schenk advised of the comments received from the Department of Transportation, the Department of Conservation, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Discussion was held. 12) “Other technical or diagram corrections” – Kris Schenk advised that staff will make minor technical changes/corrections throughout the document and to the diagram/maps with the Board’s concurrence. 13) “Four criteria referred to on page 5-46” – Staff will further review. 14) “Changing “standards” to “regulations” issue” – Supervisor Stetson asked about the Board further reviewing this issue. 6:40 p.m. Recess 6:55 p.m. Further discussion was held. Supervisor Pickard asked that direction be given to staff to bring back color changes to the map for the North East quadrant to reflect the Natural Resources land use classification versus Agriculture Working Landscape. Discussion was held. Sarah Williams provided input on Geyser’s concern about converting their plans for development to another use, such as the economic resort classification. Don Starchman noted that the Geyser parcel is a unique piece of property and they presented a project concept many years ago for a destination hotel and they are working with UC Merced and want to be able to bring a project back for the Board’s consideration. Discussion was held relative to the timeframes for staff to bring back the additional information from today’s workshop to the Board and the process for the Update. Kris Schenk advised that he feels it will take staff about sixty days to prepare the new language for the Board. Then a public hearing will need to be scheduled for the Planning Commission, and then the Update can be scheduled for a public hearing for adoption by the Board of Supervisors. Supervisor Stetson asked whether there is anything in today’s discussion/direction that alarms staff relative to the EIR; and Andy Hauge responded that there wasn’t anything that he was aware of. 7:10 p.m. The Board reconvened in the continued closed session from earlier this date with Supervisor Bibby excused. 7:21 p.m. Chairman Stetson announced that direction was given to staff as a result of the closed session matters, and that the closed session was continued to Wednesday, March 22, 2006, at 1:30 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA: CA-1 Resolution Amending the Professional Services Agreement with Allen, Polgar, Proietti & Fagalde and Authorizing Chairman to Sign the Amended Professional Services Agreement (County Counsel); Res. 06-96 CA-2 Approve Contract between Sunset Magazine / California Travel and Tourism Publication and Mariposa County for $28,010, and Authorize the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to Sign the Contract (County Administrative Officer); Res. 06-99, with direction to staff ---PAGE BREAK--- 12 3-21-06 CA-3 Approve Contract between AAA / American Automobile Association, Inc. and Mariposa County in an amount of $19,270.35, and Authorize the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to Sign the Contract (County Administrative Officer); Res. 06-100, with direction to staff CA-4 Approve the Public Health Emergency Response Coordinator Job Description, set the Salary at Range 465 ($3,730-$4,534/month), and Assign the Position to the SEIU Bargaining Unit (County Administrative Officer); Res. 06-97 CA-5 Approve Resolution Authorizing Public Works to Enter into a Professional Service Agreement with Don Henley Construction for General Construction on work in Northern Mariposa County in an Amount not to Exceed $15,000 (Public Works Director); Res. 06-101 CA-6 Accept the Resignation of Tom Hogan and Carol Williams from the Mental Health Board (Human Services Director) CA-7 Approve Budget Action transferring Funds within the Planning Department Budget, Fixed Assets and Professional Services to the Planning Technician and the Equipment $300 - $1,000 Account for the New Planning Technician and Computer ($9,500) (Planning Director); Res. 06-98 7:22 p.m. The meeting was continued to Wednesday, March 22, 2006, at 1:30 p.m. for the continued closed session. Respectfully submitted, MARGIE WILLIAMS Clerk of the Board