Video index
Roll Call: 7 members present, 2 members absent, 0 members excused.
9:00 A.M. CALL TO ORDER (ITEMS 1.01-1.05)
1.01 Pledge of Allegiance
1.02 Consider approval of agenda
Motion to Approve 1.02 Consider approval of agenda Moved by Rexroad, seconded by Chamberlain.
Vote to Approve 1.02 Consider approval of agenda (Approved)
1.03 Public Comment
1.04 Approve and present Resolution honoring the birthday of "Agricultural Labor Leader Cesar Estrada Chavez - March 31, 2007." (Supervisor Yamada)
Staff Report 1.04
Motion to Approve 1.04 Approve and present Resolution honoring the birthday of "Agricultural Labor Leader Cesar Estrada Chavez - March 31, 2007." (Supervisor Yamada) Moved by Rexroad, seconded by Thomson.
Vote to Approve 1.04 Approve and present Resolution honoring the birthday of "Agricultural Labor Leader Cesar Estrada Chavez - March 31, 2007." (Supervisor Yamada) (Approved)
1.05 Introductions, comments and/or honorary presentations.
CONSENT AGENDA (ITEMS 2.01-2.03)
Motion to CONSENT AGENDA (ITEMS 2.01-2.03) Moved by Rexroad, seconded by McGowan.
Vote to CONSENT AGENDA (ITEMS 2.01-2.03) (Approved)
Health & Human Services
Alcohol, Drug & Mental Health Services
2.01 Approve amendment to agreement with Yolo Community Care Continuum for $130,000 ($65,000 per year) for Safe Harbor Crisis Residential to provide crisis residential mental health and substance abuse services to non-Medi-Cal eligible consumers from July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2008. (No general fund impact; budgeted grant funds) (Pinizzotto)
Planning, Resources and Public Works
201
Planning, Resources and Public Works
2.02 Approve second amendment to agreement with Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. for additional services for household hazardous waste collection events for up to an additional $30,000 per year. (No general fund impact) (Bencomo/Sinderson)
2.02a
202b
2.03 Second reading and adoption of proposed ordinance amending Title 8 chapter 11 of the Yolo County Code entitled Yolo County Gravel Mining Fee Ordinance. (No general fund impact) (Bencomo/McIver)
203a
203b
REGULAR AGENDA (ITEMS 3.01-3.03)
General Government
3.01 Action items and reports from members of the Board of Supervisors.
A. Receive reports from members of the Board of Supervisors.
1. Creation of a Board subcommittee for the purpose of interaction with county legislative advocates. (Supervisor McGowan)
2. Consider appointment of Board ad hoc subcommittee on Court relocation project. (Supervisor Yamada)
301a2
Motion to Sup. Yamada addressed 3.01A-2 re: yamada asked that she step down and invite Sup. Thomson and Rexroad as the ad hoc subcommittee on Court relocation project. Moved by McGowan, seconded by Chamberlain.
Vote to Sup. Yamada addressed 3.01A-2 re: yamada asked that she step down and invite Sup. Thomson and Rexroad as the ad hoc subcommittee on Court relocation project. (Approved)
Motion to Sup. McGowan - re: 3.01A-1 - asked for Board to form a subcommittee for the purpose of interaction with county legislative advocates. recommended that Yamada and Rexroad participate in an Ad Hoc committee Moved by McGowan, seconded by Thomson.
Motion to Sup. McGowan - re: 3.01A-1 - asked for Board to form a subcommittee for the purpose of interaction with county legislative advocates. recommended that Yamada and Rexroad participate in Moved by Chamberlain, no second required.
Vote to Sup. McGowan - re: 3.01A-1 - asked for Board to form a subcommittee for the purpose of interaction with county legislative advocates. recommended that Yamada and Rexroad participate in (Approved)
County Administrator
3.02 Action items and reports from the County Administrator.
board reports: helen reported on heritage report.
Clerk of the Board
3.03 Correspondence and Board of Supervisors responses - see attachment.
303
TIME SET AGENDA (ITEMS 4.01-4.02)
4.01 9:30 am County Administrator
Public hearing to amend fiscal year 2006/07 master fee resolution to update the master fee schedule to include fee changes with the Clerk-Recorder - notice of determinations (Fish and Game) and vital records; Health - medical marijuana identification card. (No general fund impact; fee revenue reduction $20) (Salinas)
Motion to Jesse Salinas addressed board - opened p/h No public - closed p/h Moved by Rexroad, seconded by Thomson.
Vote to Jesse Salinas addressed board - opened p/h No public - closed p/h (Approved)
401a
401b
401c
Jesse Salinas addressed board - opened p/h No public - closed p/h
Yamada announced they are facing a lack of committee members on A4AA - re: letter No. 3 on correspondence -
Thomson - letter No. 4 - send to Resources Dept.
Recessed to celebration of Cesar Chavez
Recessed at
4.02 10:00 am Planning, Resources & Public Works
Adoption of the general plan preferred land use alternative for the purpose of proceeding with drafting of plan and environmental analysis. (No general fund impact) (Bencomo/Morrison/Tschudin)
David Morrison Addressed the Board
Heidi Addressed the Board re: attachment A & recommendations
asked for clarifications on attachment "A" - gray text = new staff suggested text - white area indicates suggested bos recommendations from 2/6/07
Esparto - no change
Knights Landing
Madison -
Monument Hills - no change residential units/ commercial industrial add 3 acres
Yolo - no change
Zamora - no change
McGowan - has questions - re: Clarksburg -
Heidi - concept of agricultural districts is still evolving - falls on the econ. development side, rather than the residential -
Mike - thinking back about different things - it’s a policy thing - has received concerns from citizens -
in Clarksburg dist. - thinks it’s on the table - how does the Clarksburg dist. become the next Napa Valley, etc. - Not saying he wants to develop and add residential - is not prepared to say it could include these things, but not these other issues.
David Morrison - clarified process - on page 15 is a summary table of preferred land use alternative
McGowan - place is designated now w/urban limit line - allows for analysis for rural evaluation
Heidi - w/out further direction from Board, not how they are addressing - referred to attachment "A" -
Mike will advocate and ask to make that change today - thinks for his dist. it’s critically important - to save ag in clarksburg, then it’s really bad.
Morrrison - ag dists. may treat rural residential development different.
Thomson - will ask for advise on that -
Jaime - the market would indicate about 6500 units.
Judy Scott - from Dunnigan Hills - they have small scale, middle land scale for grazing - thinks it’s premature - wants peo. to have a town hall meeting to have all peo. address Dunnigan Hills issues - asked BOS to look at issue carefully
Keith Fitner, Rep. to Dunnigan developers addressed BOS and handed out backup material and explained - their goal is to implement Board’s
Yamada - that presentation was to clarify question - raising density question
Sup. Thomson - asked if staff could respond to that w/any suggestions & would also like to know what
Bob Schneider with Tuleyome- addressed Board - Dunnigan hills, thinks it’s premature to have a district - indicated Chad Robert’s letter from Audubon addressed issue.
as we get into EIR scoping process -
Dan - grows almonds on class 2&3 soils - very productive land - hopes the Board does not sell Dunnigan; SACOG blue print has very good recommendations - is not degrating county staff, wonders if planning has staff to handle number of calls coming in.
Dan Boatwright - re: Knights Landing - concerned w/staff recommendation re: wants downtown area to become viable
MADISON: Leo Refsland w/Madison-representing fire dist., community, HWY 16 South - want to see a balance on proposal - encouraged board to consider balance w residential zones and comercial -
CAPAY VALLEY - No speakers
Clarksburg - Mr. Wilson appreciates McGowan’s comments - rural housing policy - would like to accomplish continued local farming operations, ability to have capitol formation, high land values, high value housing for press management, multiple owner of land, new small & medium wineries - would like to increase tax base, create a new and better Napa - want to prevent farming operations, would like to stop outer invasions - want no restrictions on housing sizes, want a committee on housing and safety issues - do by agricultural district
Thomson - had question - asked him to put in writing.
Bob Curtlan - provided statistics re ag food, etc. suggested take money to keep agriculture viable asked Mr. Morrison and Bencomo - asking if peo. said you must live in 1,000 acre apartment - asked to respect ag. area as such - have Williamson Act, witnessed 2 board members sworn in - leave it w/elected position and leave it.....
Esparto - none
Monument Hills:
Paul Katrousky -
Jack Freeman, concurred w/person re: heritage of ag. is very important - have peo. take advantage of ag. community
Yolo - none
Zamora - none
other econ dev. to city edge:
Davis - later
Ag Preservation- Lynnel Pollock on behalf of Ag Futures Alliance - they support many of the recommended actions by staff - pointed out - do not support home size, but rather residential footprint - like concept of certain criteria are met - other minor or major conditional use permit - would be very happy to work w/staff - they oppose residential site on small home sites - like the right to farm ordinance -
CITY EDGE: (PAGE 13)
Dan Ramos - representing Dan re: vineyards of El Macero - aksed to add project of 126 acres to edge project - asked to get input from peo. in El Macero - would like to coordinate w/city of davis - asked that this option be part of the study area -
McGowan - asked David and Heidi - this is an odd piece - have we excluded this project in our general plan?
Morrison - I-80, north west quadrant - if we need to be corrected - right now it is not in the city edge discussion - but could be added
Mike - thne
Chamberlain - peo. from El Macero - told him there is opposition in el macero re: this project.
Yamada - we have all received info. from both sides - not any projects - but the south east quadrant was not part of any of the work shops - it was also not considred at planning commission.
David - the concept has been out there - this project has not been considred by the Board -
Dan Ramos - this project will not go forward if el macero residents don’t agree.
Mike - we don’t have any proposals for any projects at this point , right?
Heidi - there needs to be a distinction -
Mike - don’t think we would be having this discussion - trying to figure out why something is in the study zone -
Morrison - heard on 2/6 mtg. - was a no interest in the 21 hundred units, there was a need on - if it’s the Board’s direction is to focus on development of Davis - will leave that to sups. in Davis
Yamada - this area is in her dist. - is struggling w/policy perspective - engaging w/city of davis on service transportation - not sure- don’t want to get hung up on the sides of all this discussion - is hearing from some residents, is that some are aging out, there are not many alternatives in community of davis - has not made a decision - need to study, hopes to engage in a warm discussion - is not project specific.
Matt Rexroad - need to make decisions on where we are going to be - today we are getting to this is what we are doing, and not doing.
Thomson - comment about this - one consideration, is what is the benefit to El Macero - septic/water, there may be other issues raised w/city of davis - it is very hard to deal w/these issues w/out being project specific.
Mike - when done - wants to pass zoning specifics - would like to include west section as a joint study to city edge specifics - he told Danny "No" - but does not see any harm in
Rexroad - thinks we need to do it in terms of county econ development - not in support of,
Thomson- binning
Rexroad - thinks Binning meets a different threshhold.
Masud Manfred & Mr. Beaver - presented some concepts - young kids and seniors -promoting ag tourism and support utilities
Mr. Beavers: there are physical, infrastructure benefits, etc. -
Randy Yakson - re: history of projects - short term planning - municipal golf course, existing conditions - desired a greenbelt ag mitigation buffer, this is not part of the plan - thinks this is a very important issue; they are proposing a 2:1 ag mitigation ratio; now is the time w/25 year general plan to deal w/enviromental, economic, hopes board supports staff recommendations.
Yamada - question re: mitigation 2:1 -
Randy -
McGowan - so we anticipate another run to city council!
Scarlett - was extremely pleased w/ board’s suggestion - is horrified by Mr. Ramos addressing development -
they are proud of
Robert Millsap - addressed issue raised by D. Morrison - lives in Dunnigan Ag. Dist - thinks concept needs clarification - is concerned by form and process -wants to be included in staff discussions - concerned about Heidi’s expression w/McGowan’s question re: clarksburg - thinks there is a need for clarification - need to address issues, identified and addressed, one proposal would increase - would ask that bos include finding or requirement that these districts not be found w/greater development.
Susan Millsap - don’t really know what they are- clear that clarksburg is separate from dunnigan hills - wants to be included in discussions - also asked that bos exclude leapfrog development.
no more cards - concludes public comment - recess to lunch return at 1:30 for bos deliberation
402Attachment.final
CLOSED SESSION (ITEM 5.01)
5.01 Conference with Labor Negotiator; Sharon Jensen, CAO; Mindi Nunes, Director of Human Resources
Bargaining Units:
H Department Heads/Assistant CAO
H2 Department second in command
M Management
U Supervisors
C Confidential
X Miscellaneous
P Sheriff Management
S Deputy Sheriff/Safety
O Correctional Officer/Animal Control Officer
A Attorneys
I Investigators
G General
10:00 am Planning, Resources & Public Works
rexroad/thomson moved staff recommendation re: city edge area be approved.
commercial industrial- ag. commercial use Thomson/rexroad - staff add area of winters be approved
Winters - Mc/R w/ the parks and road (consistent throughout) 5/0
Thomson - page 14 - should have issues of bioteck and include issues of ag very strongly.
Yamada would like to add that the new facility in Dixon - missing link is in Davis and West Sac. also spoke to area in Bypass- brought together many unhappy partners, raise the issue of autism for male gender is one in 96
Morrison - under commercial industrial - rather than look at each - look as its entirety (corridor) Thomson - you captured correctly
Heidi - if we need to elaborate on doc Mike - we are getting wrapped around axles - causes - suggested we broaden this, adding that sout east quadrant for inclusion in discussion in our 2x2's - would lead to public involvement.
Rexroad - need to nail down - Yamada - re: Davis City Edge discussion - Thomson ready to make motion - Mike, will defer to sup. Yamada's Thomson moved staff recommendation on pg. 18 & 19 w/addition of language to cover I-80 corridor w/life sciences and economic development Th/Y Rexroad will vote for this, but will not support development in the future - Thomson, this is not development - Rexroad - Morrison - requested clarification, special area in I-80 corridor Thomson, would keep it different 5/0
Thomson go back on page 15 re: davis Edge - new units preferred "0" but in other columns there are numbers - so help me there - Heidi - its very important question - first of all generically - you will note there is an entry of 1,610 units, which is an assumption we made consistent w/other assumptions - made on the yield - Mike - touched on that - if you take dunnigan, espart, madison, you described a set of numbers Heidi about 2600 in those units, Mike - you could take them out, and put them back in? Heidi - the 1610 are the numbers that could potentially be built - Mike- your rough guess is that there is 1600 units that could be built Morrison-this is only 23 year plan- assumed Mike will get to that on ag.districts - wanted to make sure understood question.
HCP/NCCP - integration page 13 - Thomson- had staff explain difference on conservation element Heidi - state law requires open space elements - many communities Morrison - have 3 elements Heidi - in other areas not so relevant - so Mr. Schneider's question, yes we do have an element, and we do plan to update - Heidi - there was a note, from earlier discussion, re Oak Woodland - Thomson moved/Rexroad w/ addition of grasslands and Oaks Woodlands
Ag Preservation Items: McGowan - wants to go back to Agricultural District - would like to see- though we would be moving forward w/3 differe.........request a process to figure out, and determine the visitors components - clarksburg area as the wine-making - do a study and come back w/recommendation on how to make that happen - thinks there will be concern from clarksburg residents - is inevitable to address residential to support this effort - assumes we would draw from that 1610 number, if wrong please tell me- may be a need for some clustered homes for workers, don't know what that looks like. Heidi - to extent you are envisioning units - land use designation Mike - not sure of units, may reconfigure residential units. Heidi- if you are envisioning new units, then we should attempt to assign a number - Mike, then I think you should try to assign additional units, but Mike - don't want to talk about dunnican, and other areas but Clarksburg -
returned from break - Heidi- concept not to preclude ag dist. Duane - why not include Rexroad - why include them at all? Yamada - the concept and need to study Agricultural Districts - leave open the community Ag Districts - Heidi- assuming Rexroad does not want any on the map - how you could do an environmental impact on something - Rexroad without things attached w/what they are seconded the motion Chamberlain/McGowan - not going to work to move forward in protecting the farming and agriculture - to specifically designate clarksburg and capay valley as agricultural districts.
Mike - continued discussion about Ag Districts - Rexroad -suggested an ordinance be motion restated: ch/to establish ag district removing dunnigan hills, and capay valley - page 12 - Thomson - wants clarification of dunnigan hills - Morrison - that would be precluded - discussed in Motion: Ch/Mc Noes: Rexroad 4/1
Size of the Homes, Location of the Homes, Mike - has question - Mike/Rexroad - establish growth boundaries for each unincorporated community 5/0
rexroad spoke re: rural oath - Thomson moved/Yamada seconded - (need to listen to motion) Heidi - concept of rural oath is a disclosure - a concept of a rural area, you may not have the services of a level you are used to. Yamada - there has never been an agricultural advisory body McGowan - the Farm Bureau rexroad moved motion - to include everything, include ag process, don't know about - Mike not sure we could come w/comprehensive response -- discussion - rexroad - need to have McGowan Thomson - include our County Counsel on this discussion - thomson, take the reject off, but leave it on the list - Mike - not supportive of that - would reject it - Mike - just kick it back to us, we will figure out Thomson seconded (ad hoc committee chamberlain & clarksburg) to consider all issues - top of page 13 - and eliminate bottom two paragraphs reject, and collaborate 5/0 (Mike's motion was not seconded) Mike - if we can't come in w/proper recommendation - then you can reconsider if needed - thinks farmers Rexroad/McGowan made motion to reject 80 acre parcel size.
Noes: Thomson & Yamada Heidi
Heidi - motion to add 200 units to the clarksburg area for consideration in addition to the 1610 (rural residential) Mc/R Thomson - this is a catch 20 - have data, but not details - throw darts at board. Thomson - maybe they will be clustered Mike, don't want anyone to be confused, may move around, want to get this thing moving "not saying we are adding 200 more homes" not afraid to do analysis Motion re stated: to add 200 units to the rural residential district raising to 1810 - does not represent etc. based on past trense ....over 23 years 5/0
Other Econ. Development Items: Rexroad - should include Morrison - referring to both 12A and 14? rexroad - yes Thomson - Elkhorn, is there any way we could require particular language we could add to this now, on what we are willing to accept there? Heidi - you can give us direction, and we could more discussion.... Thomson - votes No - Rexroad - designed standards arenot part of this Thomson - I'd like to add to this particular one - Yamada - supports sup. thomson's eye - and something that would be consistent - would be o.k. w/language that says - consistent w/rural landscape. McGowan - has no problem - happy to support Rexroad - we talk about the I-80 corridor, would prefer to have this discussion some other day. Yamada - asked a question, Morrison - planning commission..... does that give sup. thomson the confort level? Heidi
Heidi - provided addtl info. the issue sup. thomson is raising is of a particular use - issue of design review may be added, but have language countywide Thomson: - could we include verbiage: this is the segway to Yolo County. Chamberlain - I probably have to abstain because of the airport. Motion: Mc/R Abstain: Chamberlain 4/1
Others - econ development: add 20 acres of highway commerciat at co.road 27 interchange: Chamberlain - is against it all. McGowan - is sympathetic to Chamberlain's request - need to know what we are going to do, let's do analysis, and dtermine - would support- need to study it. Thomson - also thinks we need to balance econ. growth - while 505 does not need to be developed w/gas stations, etc. - does not think that identifying every section between winters and dunnigan is useful, except for the one heading right into city of winters - all that in between - agrees w/Duane - Yamada - took airport off, we have the balance - take interchange piece first for a vote, don spreckles, done I-80 voting on I-505, I-5 w addition - wait on I-5 Motion: Rexroad moved remaining items, and include 12 - Thomson, separate the motion to McGowan - maker of motion Rexroad/McGowan 2/3 Noes: Thomson, Yamada, Chamberlain
New motion on same item Mc/Yamada - Noes: chamberlain, Thomson. 3/2 Mike/ Rexroad/chamberlain - motion on zamora 5/0 rexroad/chamberlain - 5/0 motion on YOlo Rexroad - move to adopt esparto, r/mc - 5/0 break
re: Madison/Knights landing: Chamberlain - Madison needs more rexroad - staff recommendation - hopes the board could provide more guidance McGowan - what's the cost, and how do we pay for those costs? on the paying for that comes down to what the community is going to provide for that - Yamada - in terms of making decisions - isn't it better to go w/number from lower, to go up? Heidi - it's better to look at the higher numbers, board was not interested in picking a number, etc. Mike - madison, placing a big restriction - they may live there and work in Davis, we can't control that, Thomson - agrees with that, but does not know how to change that, unless doing analysis - it's going to be hard - Helen - will support this, for same reason as dunnigan - by doing a study and cost financing, what other amenities besides sewer and water we could have there - there is now a new group of advisors in the planning, investigating, supports what's before us. Rexroad - would rather require developers pack the homes in dunnigan & have Madison move to dunnigan! - Yamada - goes back to dealing w/public policy, part of the balancing act is to take into consideration the community's intent, some feel they want to remain there. Yamada - does not have problem supporting staff's recommendation. Rexroad - if you look at graph presented earlier, even 1,000 homes does not guarantee that level of service, even if you include esparto, there will be no fresh products in the gorcery store. Mike - likes conversation. Thinks we are embarking on a plan here, we haven't gone here before - why are we considering that now? why aren't we saying this is - if peo. want services, then why don't they move to incorporated area.
continued discussion by Mike - wants to make sure our policy is clear on that - Thomson - read page 11 re: residential last sentence - probably not going to end up w/much in Madison McGowan - if winters has population of 7,000 new peo., we just added 1,000 homes in madison, we are creating communities the size of lathrop. Rexroad - appreciates comments by McGowan- w/in 23 years we will be here discussing - the answere is always going to be Thomson - is confused, telling folks to go forward today - need to evaluate Heidi
Yamada - seeked clarification by staff: Heidi - they are proposing the county complete the general plan process, yes specific plans follow the general plan effort. David-staff: the developers and property owners - I'd go so far to say - thinks the numbers today would improve the water system, and septic system that's already there - if services right now don't work for you David Morrison - the board has expressed a number of issues in re: infrastructure - staff has considred, the areas are divided - additional housing could address some concerns - Yamada - didn't the madison and esparto combine? Morrison - they are addressing drainage McGowan - we have to analyze something - don't think it's appropriate, does not like notion of town this size of galt, but has not seen proposals yet, will put on hold until we get through next step - thinks there is a lot more debate the board will need to have - we can't do what you want us to do -
Chamberlain, how did you come up w/range of 80 to 1,000 Morrison - that was a range used - have heard to build the minimum and nothing more. issues are flooding, need assistance - this 1000 is to address minimum problems only - open to other suggestions. Yamada - does not think than any of what - thinks it would be fooling ourselves if we come up w/a majic number. don't think all of Y.C. is to look the same, each city, town is different. If Madison needs certain level of service, we owe it to ourselves to at least study that - hard to balance all that -
wrap up - need motion Thomson - moved recommendation on Madison th/mc 4/1 Noes: Rexroad
Knights Landing - Thomson - not sure Heidi - discussion on the 6th was to not add new residential units in KL - the planning commission's recommendation - was not to allow as many homes as we normally would - discussion today, is if we want to go in that direction - it is a different conversation David - staff: zoning is not the same as the zoning in the gen. plan Heidi - not suggesting build out already in existing gen. plan Morrison - the planning commission reduced the development Thomson - that would be w/same density
Knights Landing continued: McGowan - KL w/1000 peo, they have enough sewer &water, they don't need anymore services? Morrison - right, hearing recent discussions, grocery store, levy (flood protection) are important issues. Mike - you are telling me we could get it done w/what's on this page David - staff: the new development would be new wells and .... Yamada - what was the intent of planning commission in removing this? Morrison - Thomson would say go forward. Chamberlain - made comments, that's sac river - when it goes, it's not like ... not in favor of this - Thomson - this is the opportunity for sac. river - to design that development creatively - want to see the river as a major advantage, as well as the green space - levee is an issue that needs to be dealt with when developed. Mike - need to look at what addtl. work needs to be done - yes it's prime ag land, yes very important to preserve, but also need to provide amenities for those communities, need to analyse what it takes to provide those communities w/fundamental amenities. chamberlain, not in favor of - this is prime farmland, road access is also tough, peo. who live there seem happy,
Knights Landing - continued Yamada - what is the levee - .... this is new, at end of specific plan process the river and the levee are there, and don't know what condition they will be in. McGowan - understands and respects - but there is no project before you to approve - it's an analysis - motion for Knights landing
Motion for Knights Landing: Th/Mc moved staff recommendation, including orange hatch line (on map) - opposed: Chamberlain & Yamada 3/2
DUNNIGAN: Rexroad - thinks staff should study a number between 7500 or higher, (650 & 1500 is too low) density of 8 units may change - if we are going to study this, would like to see this study broader (higher) this is the one I think we are going to create something very cool here - specific concerns - would like to push spectrum of homes, and re: 8 units per acre, don't know how to make it more flexible later on - in terms of Jobs issue - don't know how that works - McGowan - thinks he is satisfied in moving staff recommendation, but don't know - notion of building as big - don't get it. There is not enough money to sustain a big city. Not good gov't, not good policy....thinks every home we build, other than what's required - does not support this.
Dunnigan continued: Chamberlain - agrees w/Rexroad - took a survey, majority of peo. want development, where is the line - developers are saying we need to build 7500, want to know what our staff is saying - basic criteria for development in dunnigan makes more sense - supports staff's recommendation - wants more info. from staff, does not trust developers - how many homes do we need to build out there? Morrison - it depends, Wild Wings we have 340 homes, what makes dunnigan difficult, is the cost is much higher for sewer connection. - will require additional analysis - don't have all answers today - also don't want to force peo. to hook up, so how far out do you go.
DUNNIGAN CONTINUTED Thomson- would like info. from the community and from staff - w/out knowing how many houses it takes to do what, and when does info. become available so one can make decisions on that - comment to chamberlain - binning issues went to. first wants info. Heidi - don't know when we could get info., many questions remain, when, where, how much, want instruction from Board - need more info. on purity - Thomson- was I incorrect when Mr. Heidi - they were not discussing the sewer, the water, etc. - by using this plan process, it will all come together. Thomson - once the gen. plan is adopted, then the specific planning process would begin? Heidi - have no way of knowing if board would go that way or not. Thomson - so we would have to amend the gen. plan to amend the cap? Heidi - if you set a range, yes. Morrison - if board is concerned about those issues, may be beneficial to address those issues. Thomson - question to Co. Counsel - can we have an agreement..... - Mike, why would you want to prohibit them from developing? think that a lot of my concern is that you reach a certain mass, at where we are no longer good at supporting them, I would support the incorporation - Thomson - is there anything legally that you could put into an agreement, Heidi - the only circumstance I'm aware of that,is in a residential community. Robyn - there is a presidence in San Joaquin - where they set certain components w/county participation. Mike - if we are going to set something up down the road, would like us to ...don't feel we are the ones to determine that. If we are going to do this, I would support...Not interested in prohibiting. Sharon Jensen - part of response to sup. thomson, rules are different now, than what they were. Thomson - for the record is concerned about, will be voting attachment "a" dunnigan, concerned about predetermined outcome, does not know how to get around that.
Dunnigan - continued Yamada is prepared to support for residential 7,500 units. Thinks that by going to sup. rexroad's numbers, would be saying to go w/bigger development, but does not support that, certain - not supporting going to a higher number. Rexroad - question, based on EPS - can't understand logic of 2500 units, when we know that's not what we are going to do - at least narrow the lower end and higher number and say what we are going to do. Mike - we have a community w/173 - I would like to see what the community is at the lower number, 2,500 units is about 600 peo. - do want to see what lower number is - don't want to push lower number up at all. Rexorad - the data we have indicates the number has to be higher - Mike - would like to see an independent development -
Dunnigan - Continued: Yamada - is o.k. w/staff recommendation, is concerned w/balancing - community sustainability, to me 10,000 is pushing....- lincoln is no longer the small town it was - is o.k. w/range. Rexroad - lets build them a good community Thomson - Suisun is very pretty, Yamada - have difference of opinion Rexroad moves range of homes 5,000 - 7,500 and the 8 units per acre density level be dropped, and go w/2000 acres to be able to accomodate that (650 to 1500) we are going to add 500 Motion: R/CH Mike makes a substitute motion, moved staff recommendation (no second) Yamada - is struggling w/acreage - thomson - her too. Mike this is the recommendation that they are giving us, is prepared to have faith in the process, recommends we support staff. Yamada - there is no second - motion died for lack of second Rexroad - need to add to motion...... Yamada - that should not be a one fits all- thinks 16 jobs per acre are not a good measure. Mike - if you don't include a jobs per acre, you are building a veterans community - Rexroad - invite more discussion on acreage thinks - if we allow homes to be more spread out, attempt to allow more space - Yamada - rexroad - talking about a stand alone community, basically starting new community in dunnigan vote: 4/1 Noes:McGowan. motion carries.
Thomson - these are numbers pulled out and off, info. given to us, if staff after looking at this, don't think this works out, we need to know. this concluded deliberation on gen. plan Heidi - one motion recived and filed schedule M/R 5/0
ADJOURNMENT
1. On the bulletin board at the east entrance of the Erwin W. Meier Administration Building, 625 Court Street, Woodland, California; and
2. On the bulletin board outside the Board of Supervisors Chambers, Room 206, in the Erwin W. Meier Administration Building, 625 Court Street, Woodland, California. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing agenda will be posted no later than March 23, 2007 by 5:00 p.m. as follows:
3. On the Yolo County website: www.yolocounty.org. Ana Morales, Clerk of the Board By: Deputy NOTICE If requested, this agenda can be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Federal Rules and Regulations adopted in implementation thereof. Persons seeking an alternative format should contact the Clerk of the Board for further information. In addition, a person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, in order to participate in a public meeting should telephone or otherwise contact the Clerk of the Board as soon as possible and at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. The Clerk of the Board may be reached at (530) 666-8195 or at the following address:
Adjourned in memory of Jess Reiser.
Clerk of the Board
Mar 27, 2007 Board of Supervisors Meeting
Full agenda
Share this video
Video Index
Full agenda
Share
Roll Call: 7 members present, 2 members absent, 0 members excused.
9:00 A.M. CALL TO ORDER (ITEMS 1.01-1.05)
1.01 Pledge of Allegiance
1.02 Consider approval of agenda
Motion to Approve 1.02 Consider approval of agenda Moved by Rexroad, seconded by Chamberlain.
Vote to Approve 1.02 Consider approval of agenda (Approved)
1.03 Public Comment
1.04 Approve and present Resolution honoring the birthday of "Agricultural Labor Leader Cesar Estrada Chavez - March 31, 2007." (Supervisor Yamada)
Staff Report 1.04
Motion to Approve 1.04 Approve and present Resolution honoring the birthday of "Agricultural Labor Leader Cesar Estrada Chavez - March 31, 2007." (Supervisor Yamada) Moved by Rexroad, seconded by Thomson.
Vote to Approve 1.04 Approve and present Resolution honoring the birthday of "Agricultural Labor Leader Cesar Estrada Chavez - March 31, 2007." (Supervisor Yamada) (Approved)
1.05 Introductions, comments and/or honorary presentations.
CONSENT AGENDA (ITEMS 2.01-2.03)
Motion to CONSENT AGENDA (ITEMS 2.01-2.03) Moved by Rexroad, seconded by McGowan.
Vote to CONSENT AGENDA (ITEMS 2.01-2.03) (Approved)
Health & Human Services
Alcohol, Drug & Mental Health Services
2.01 Approve amendment to agreement with Yolo Community Care Continuum for $130,000 ($65,000 per year) for Safe Harbor Crisis Residential to provide crisis residential mental health and substance abuse services to non-Medi-Cal eligible consumers from July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2008. (No general fund impact; budgeted grant funds) (Pinizzotto)
Planning, Resources and Public Works
201
Planning, Resources and Public Works
2.02 Approve second amendment to agreement with Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. for additional services for household hazardous waste collection events for up to an additional $30,000 per year. (No general fund impact) (Bencomo/Sinderson)
2.02a
202b
2.03 Second reading and adoption of proposed ordinance amending Title 8 chapter 11 of the Yolo County Code entitled Yolo County Gravel Mining Fee Ordinance. (No general fund impact) (Bencomo/McIver)
203a
203b
REGULAR AGENDA (ITEMS 3.01-3.03)
General Government
3.01 Action items and reports from members of the Board of Supervisors.
A. Receive reports from members of the Board of Supervisors.
1. Creation of a Board subcommittee for the purpose of interaction with county legislative advocates. (Supervisor McGowan)
2. Consider appointment of Board ad hoc subcommittee on Court relocation project. (Supervisor Yamada)
301a2
Motion to Sup. Yamada addressed 3.01A-2 re: yamada asked that she step down and invite Sup. Thomson and Rexroad as the ad hoc subcommittee on Court relocation project. Moved by McGowan, seconded by Chamberlain.
Vote to Sup. Yamada addressed 3.01A-2 re: yamada asked that she step down and invite Sup. Thomson and Rexroad as the ad hoc subcommittee on Court relocation project. (Approved)
Motion to Sup. McGowan - re: 3.01A-1 - asked for Board to form a subcommittee for the purpose of interaction with county legislative advocates. recommended that Yamada and Rexroad participate in an Ad Hoc committee Moved by McGowan, seconded by Thomson.
Motion to Sup. McGowan - re: 3.01A-1 - asked for Board to form a subcommittee for the purpose of interaction with county legislative advocates. recommended that Yamada and Rexroad participate in Moved by Chamberlain, no second required.
Vote to Sup. McGowan - re: 3.01A-1 - asked for Board to form a subcommittee for the purpose of interaction with county legislative advocates. recommended that Yamada and Rexroad participate in (Approved)
County Administrator
3.02 Action items and reports from the County Administrator.
board reports: helen reported on heritage report.
Clerk of the Board
3.03 Correspondence and Board of Supervisors responses - see attachment.
303
TIME SET AGENDA (ITEMS 4.01-4.02)
4.01 9:30 am County Administrator
Public hearing to amend fiscal year 2006/07 master fee resolution to update the master fee schedule to include fee changes with the Clerk-Recorder - notice of determinations (Fish and Game) and vital records; Health - medical marijuana identification card. (No general fund impact; fee revenue reduction $20) (Salinas)
Motion to Jesse Salinas addressed board - opened p/h No public - closed p/h Moved by Rexroad, seconded by Thomson.
Vote to Jesse Salinas addressed board - opened p/h No public - closed p/h (Approved)
401a
401b
401c
Jesse Salinas addressed board - opened p/h No public - closed p/h
Yamada announced they are facing a lack of committee members on A4AA - re: letter No. 3 on correspondence -
Thomson - letter No. 4 - send to Resources Dept.
Recessed to celebration of Cesar Chavez
Recessed at
4.02 10:00 am Planning, Resources & Public Works
Adoption of the general plan preferred land use alternative for the purpose of proceeding with drafting of plan and environmental analysis. (No general fund impact) (Bencomo/Morrison/Tschudin)
David Morrison Addressed the Board
Heidi Addressed the Board re: attachment A & recommendations
asked for clarifications on attachment "A" - gray text = new staff suggested text - white area indicates suggested bos recommendations from 2/6/07
Esparto - no change
Knights Landing
Madison -
Monument Hills - no change residential units/ commercial industrial add 3 acres
Yolo - no change
Zamora - no change
McGowan - has questions - re: Clarksburg -
Heidi - concept of agricultural districts is still evolving - falls on the econ. development side, rather than the residential -
Mike - thinking back about different things - it’s a policy thing - has received concerns from citizens -
in Clarksburg dist. - thinks it’s on the table - how does the Clarksburg dist. become the next Napa Valley, etc. - Not saying he wants to develop and add residential - is not prepared to say it could include these things, but not these other issues.
David Morrison - clarified process - on page 15 is a summary table of preferred land use alternative
McGowan - place is designated now w/urban limit line - allows for analysis for rural evaluation
Heidi - w/out further direction from Board, not how they are addressing - referred to attachment "A" -
Mike will advocate and ask to make that change today - thinks for his dist. it’s critically important - to save ag in clarksburg, then it’s really bad.
Morrrison - ag dists. may treat rural residential development different.
Thomson - will ask for advise on that -
Jaime - the market would indicate about 6500 units.
Judy Scott - from Dunnigan Hills - they have small scale, middle land scale for grazing - thinks it’s premature - wants peo. to have a town hall meeting to have all peo. address Dunnigan Hills issues - asked BOS to look at issue carefully
Keith Fitner, Rep. to Dunnigan developers addressed BOS and handed out backup material and explained - their goal is to implement Board’s
Yamada - that presentation was to clarify question - raising density question
Sup. Thomson - asked if staff could respond to that w/any suggestions & would also like to know what
Bob Schneider with Tuleyome- addressed Board - Dunnigan hills, thinks it’s premature to have a district - indicated Chad Robert’s letter from Audubon addressed issue.
as we get into EIR scoping process -
Dan - grows almonds on class 2&3 soils - very productive land - hopes the Board does not sell Dunnigan; SACOG blue print has very good recommendations - is not degrating county staff, wonders if planning has staff to handle number of calls coming in.
Dan Boatwright - re: Knights Landing - concerned w/staff recommendation re: wants downtown area to become viable
MADISON: Leo Refsland w/Madison-representing fire dist., community, HWY 16 South - want to see a balance on proposal - encouraged board to consider balance w residential zones and comercial -
CAPAY VALLEY - No speakers
Clarksburg - Mr. Wilson appreciates McGowan’s comments - rural housing policy - would like to accomplish continued local farming operations, ability to have capitol formation, high land values, high value housing for press management, multiple owner of land, new small & medium wineries - would like to increase tax base, create a new and better Napa - want to prevent farming operations, would like to stop outer invasions - want no restrictions on housing sizes, want a committee on housing and safety issues - do by agricultural district
Thomson - had question - asked him to put in writing.
Bob Curtlan - provided statistics re ag food, etc. suggested take money to keep agriculture viable asked Mr. Morrison and Bencomo - asking if peo. said you must live in 1,000 acre apartment - asked to respect ag. area as such - have Williamson Act, witnessed 2 board members sworn in - leave it w/elected position and leave it.....
Esparto - none
Monument Hills:
Paul Katrousky -
Jack Freeman, concurred w/person re: heritage of ag. is very important - have peo. take advantage of ag. community
Yolo - none
Zamora - none
other econ dev. to city edge:
Davis - later
Ag Preservation- Lynnel Pollock on behalf of Ag Futures Alliance - they support many of the recommended actions by staff - pointed out - do not support home size, but rather residential footprint - like concept of certain criteria are met - other minor or major conditional use permit - would be very happy to work w/staff - they oppose residential site on small home sites - like the right to farm ordinance -
CITY EDGE: (PAGE 13)
Dan Ramos - representing Dan re: vineyards of El Macero - aksed to add project of 126 acres to edge project - asked to get input from peo. in El Macero - would like to coordinate w/city of davis - asked that this option be part of the study area -
McGowan - asked David and Heidi - this is an odd piece - have we excluded this project in our general plan?
Morrison - I-80, north west quadrant - if we need to be corrected - right now it is not in the city edge discussion - but could be added
Mike - thne
Chamberlain - peo. from El Macero - told him there is opposition in el macero re: this project.
Yamada - we have all received info. from both sides - not any projects - but the south east quadrant was not part of any of the work shops - it was also not considred at planning commission.
David - the concept has been out there - this project has not been considred by the Board -
Dan Ramos - this project will not go forward if el macero residents don’t agree.
Mike - we don’t have any proposals for any projects at this point , right?
Heidi - there needs to be a distinction -
Mike - don’t think we would be having this discussion - trying to figure out why something is in the study zone -
Morrison - heard on 2/6 mtg. - was a no interest in the 21 hundred units, there was a need on - if it’s the Board’s direction is to focus on development of Davis - will leave that to sups. in Davis
Yamada - this area is in her dist. - is struggling w/policy perspective - engaging w/city of davis on service transportation - not sure- don’t want to get hung up on the sides of all this discussion - is hearing from some residents, is that some are aging out, there are not many alternatives in community of davis - has not made a decision - need to study, hopes to engage in a warm discussion - is not project specific.
Matt Rexroad - need to make decisions on where we are going to be - today we are getting to this is what we are doing, and not doing.
Thomson - comment about this - one consideration, is what is the benefit to El Macero - septic/water, there may be other issues raised w/city of davis - it is very hard to deal w/these issues w/out being project specific.
Mike - when done - wants to pass zoning specifics - would like to include west section as a joint study to city edge specifics - he told Danny "No" - but does not see any harm in
Rexroad - thinks we need to do it in terms of county econ development - not in support of,
Thomson- binning
Rexroad - thinks Binning meets a different threshhold.
Masud Manfred & Mr. Beaver - presented some concepts - young kids and seniors -promoting ag tourism and support utilities
Mr. Beavers: there are physical, infrastructure benefits, etc. -
Randy Yakson - re: history of projects - short term planning - municipal golf course, existing conditions - desired a greenbelt ag mitigation buffer, this is not part of the plan - thinks this is a very important issue; they are proposing a 2:1 ag mitigation ratio; now is the time w/25 year general plan to deal w/enviromental, economic, hopes board supports staff recommendations.
Yamada - question re: mitigation 2:1 -
Randy -
McGowan - so we anticipate another run to city council!
Scarlett - was extremely pleased w/ board’s suggestion - is horrified by Mr. Ramos addressing development -
they are proud of
Robert Millsap - addressed issue raised by D. Morrison - lives in Dunnigan Ag. Dist - thinks concept needs clarification - is concerned by form and process -wants to be included in staff discussions - concerned about Heidi’s expression w/McGowan’s question re: clarksburg - thinks there is a need for clarification - need to address issues, identified and addressed, one proposal would increase - would ask that bos include finding or requirement that these districts not be found w/greater development.
Susan Millsap - don’t really know what they are- clear that clarksburg is separate from dunnigan hills - wants to be included in discussions - also asked that bos exclude leapfrog development.
no more cards - concludes public comment - recess to lunch return at 1:30 for bos deliberation
402Attachment.final
CLOSED SESSION (ITEM 5.01)
5.01 Conference with Labor Negotiator; Sharon Jensen, CAO; Mindi Nunes, Director of Human Resources
Bargaining Units:
H Department Heads/Assistant CAO
H2 Department second in command
M Management
U Supervisors
C Confidential
X Miscellaneous
P Sheriff Management
S Deputy Sheriff/Safety
O Correctional Officer/Animal Control Officer
A Attorneys
I Investigators
G General
10:00 am Planning, Resources & Public Works
rexroad/thomson moved staff recommendation re: city edge area be approved.
commercial industrial- ag. commercial use Thomson/rexroad - staff add area of winters be approved
Winters - Mc/R w/ the parks and road (consistent throughout) 5/0
Thomson - page 14 - should have issues of bioteck and include issues of ag very strongly.
Yamada would like to add that the new facility in Dixon - missing link is in Davis and West Sac. also spoke to area in Bypass- brought together many unhappy partners, raise the issue of autism for male gender is one in 96
Morrison - under commercial industrial - rather than look at each - look as its entirety (corridor) Thomson - you captured correctly
Heidi - if we need to elaborate on doc Mike - we are getting wrapped around axles - causes - suggested we broaden this, adding that sout east quadrant for inclusion in discussion in our 2x2's - would lead to public involvement.
Rexroad - need to nail down - Yamada - re: Davis City Edge discussion - Thomson ready to make motion - Mike, will defer to sup. Yamada's Thomson moved staff recommendation on pg. 18 & 19 w/addition of language to cover I-80 corridor w/life sciences and economic development Th/Y Rexroad will vote for this, but will not support development in the future - Thomson, this is not development - Rexroad - Morrison - requested clarification, special area in I-80 corridor Thomson, would keep it different 5/0
Thomson go back on page 15 re: davis Edge - new units preferred "0" but in other columns there are numbers - so help me there - Heidi - its very important question - first of all generically - you will note there is an entry of 1,610 units, which is an assumption we made consistent w/other assumptions - made on the yield - Mike - touched on that - if you take dunnigan, espart, madison, you described a set of numbers Heidi about 2600 in those units, Mike - you could take them out, and put them back in? Heidi - the 1610 are the numbers that could potentially be built - Mike- your rough guess is that there is 1600 units that could be built Morrison-this is only 23 year plan- assumed Mike will get to that on ag.districts - wanted to make sure understood question.
HCP/NCCP - integration page 13 - Thomson- had staff explain difference on conservation element Heidi - state law requires open space elements - many communities Morrison - have 3 elements Heidi - in other areas not so relevant - so Mr. Schneider's question, yes we do have an element, and we do plan to update - Heidi - there was a note, from earlier discussion, re Oak Woodland - Thomson moved/Rexroad w/ addition of grasslands and Oaks Woodlands
Ag Preservation Items: McGowan - wants to go back to Agricultural District - would like to see- though we would be moving forward w/3 differe.........request a process to figure out, and determine the visitors components - clarksburg area as the wine-making - do a study and come back w/recommendation on how to make that happen - thinks there will be concern from clarksburg residents - is inevitable to address residential to support this effort - assumes we would draw from that 1610 number, if wrong please tell me- may be a need for some clustered homes for workers, don't know what that looks like. Heidi - to extent you are envisioning units - land use designation Mike - not sure of units, may reconfigure residential units. Heidi- if you are envisioning new units, then we should attempt to assign a number - Mike, then I think you should try to assign additional units, but Mike - don't want to talk about dunnican, and other areas but Clarksburg -
returned from break - Heidi- concept not to preclude ag dist. Duane - why not include Rexroad - why include them at all? Yamada - the concept and need to study Agricultural Districts - leave open the community Ag Districts - Heidi- assuming Rexroad does not want any on the map - how you could do an environmental impact on something - Rexroad without things attached w/what they are seconded the motion Chamberlain/McGowan - not going to work to move forward in protecting the farming and agriculture - to specifically designate clarksburg and capay valley as agricultural districts.
Mike - continued discussion about Ag Districts - Rexroad -suggested an ordinance be motion restated: ch/to establish ag district removing dunnigan hills, and capay valley - page 12 - Thomson - wants clarification of dunnigan hills - Morrison - that would be precluded - discussed in Motion: Ch/Mc Noes: Rexroad 4/1
Size of the Homes, Location of the Homes, Mike - has question - Mike/Rexroad - establish growth boundaries for each unincorporated community 5/0
rexroad spoke re: rural oath - Thomson moved/Yamada seconded - (need to listen to motion) Heidi - concept of rural oath is a disclosure - a concept of a rural area, you may not have the services of a level you are used to. Yamada - there has never been an agricultural advisory body McGowan - the Farm Bureau rexroad moved motion - to include everything, include ag process, don't know about - Mike not sure we could come w/comprehensive response -- discussion - rexroad - need to have McGowan Thomson - include our County Counsel on this discussion - thomson, take the reject off, but leave it on the list - Mike - not supportive of that - would reject it - Mike - just kick it back to us, we will figure out Thomson seconded (ad hoc committee chamberlain & clarksburg) to consider all issues - top of page 13 - and eliminate bottom two paragraphs reject, and collaborate 5/0 (Mike's motion was not seconded) Mike - if we can't come in w/proper recommendation - then you can reconsider if needed - thinks farmers Rexroad/McGowan made motion to reject 80 acre parcel size.
Noes: Thomson & Yamada Heidi
Heidi - motion to add 200 units to the clarksburg area for consideration in addition to the 1610 (rural residential) Mc/R Thomson - this is a catch 20 - have data, but not details - throw darts at board. Thomson - maybe they will be clustered Mike, don't want anyone to be confused, may move around, want to get this thing moving "not saying we are adding 200 more homes" not afraid to do analysis Motion re stated: to add 200 units to the rural residential district raising to 1810 - does not represent etc. based on past trense ....over 23 years 5/0
Other Econ. Development Items: Rexroad - should include Morrison - referring to both 12A and 14? rexroad - yes Thomson - Elkhorn, is there any way we could require particular language we could add to this now, on what we are willing to accept there? Heidi - you can give us direction, and we could more discussion.... Thomson - votes No - Rexroad - designed standards arenot part of this Thomson - I'd like to add to this particular one - Yamada - supports sup. thomson's eye - and something that would be consistent - would be o.k. w/language that says - consistent w/rural landscape. McGowan - has no problem - happy to support Rexroad - we talk about the I-80 corridor, would prefer to have this discussion some other day. Yamada - asked a question, Morrison - planning commission..... does that give sup. thomson the confort level? Heidi
Heidi - provided addtl info. the issue sup. thomson is raising is of a particular use - issue of design review may be added, but have language countywide Thomson: - could we include verbiage: this is the segway to Yolo County. Chamberlain - I probably have to abstain because of the airport. Motion: Mc/R Abstain: Chamberlain 4/1
Others - econ development: add 20 acres of highway commerciat at co.road 27 interchange: Chamberlain - is against it all. McGowan - is sympathetic to Chamberlain's request - need to know what we are going to do, let's do analysis, and dtermine - would support- need to study it. Thomson - also thinks we need to balance econ. growth - while 505 does not need to be developed w/gas stations, etc. - does not think that identifying every section between winters and dunnigan is useful, except for the one heading right into city of winters - all that in between - agrees w/Duane - Yamada - took airport off, we have the balance - take interchange piece first for a vote, don spreckles, done I-80 voting on I-505, I-5 w addition - wait on I-5 Motion: Rexroad moved remaining items, and include 12 - Thomson, separate the motion to McGowan - maker of motion Rexroad/McGowan 2/3 Noes: Thomson, Yamada, Chamberlain
New motion on same item Mc/Yamada - Noes: chamberlain, Thomson. 3/2 Mike/ Rexroad/chamberlain - motion on zamora 5/0 rexroad/chamberlain - 5/0 motion on YOlo Rexroad - move to adopt esparto, r/mc - 5/0 break
re: Madison/Knights landing: Chamberlain - Madison needs more rexroad - staff recommendation - hopes the board could provide more guidance McGowan - what's the cost, and how do we pay for those costs? on the paying for that comes down to what the community is going to provide for that - Yamada - in terms of making decisions - isn't it better to go w/number from lower, to go up? Heidi - it's better to look at the higher numbers, board was not interested in picking a number, etc. Mike - madison, placing a big restriction - they may live there and work in Davis, we can't control that, Thomson - agrees with that, but does not know how to change that, unless doing analysis - it's going to be hard - Helen - will support this, for same reason as dunnigan - by doing a study and cost financing, what other amenities besides sewer and water we could have there - there is now a new group of advisors in the planning, investigating, supports what's before us. Rexroad - would rather require developers pack the homes in dunnigan & have Madison move to dunnigan! - Yamada - goes back to dealing w/public policy, part of the balancing act is to take into consideration the community's intent, some feel they want to remain there. Yamada - does not have problem supporting staff's recommendation. Rexroad - if you look at graph presented earlier, even 1,000 homes does not guarantee that level of service, even if you include esparto, there will be no fresh products in the gorcery store. Mike - likes conversation. Thinks we are embarking on a plan here, we haven't gone here before - why are we considering that now? why aren't we saying this is - if peo. want services, then why don't they move to incorporated area.
continued discussion by Mike - wants to make sure our policy is clear on that - Thomson - read page 11 re: residential last sentence - probably not going to end up w/much in Madison McGowan - if winters has population of 7,000 new peo., we just added 1,000 homes in madison, we are creating communities the size of lathrop. Rexroad - appreciates comments by McGowan- w/in 23 years we will be here discussing - the answere is always going to be Thomson - is confused, telling folks to go forward today - need to evaluate Heidi
Yamada - seeked clarification by staff: Heidi - they are proposing the county complete the general plan process, yes specific plans follow the general plan effort. David-staff: the developers and property owners - I'd go so far to say - thinks the numbers today would improve the water system, and septic system that's already there - if services right now don't work for you David Morrison - the board has expressed a number of issues in re: infrastructure - staff has considred, the areas are divided - additional housing could address some concerns - Yamada - didn't the madison and esparto combine? Morrison - they are addressing drainage McGowan - we have to analyze something - don't think it's appropriate, does not like notion of town this size of galt, but has not seen proposals yet, will put on hold until we get through next step - thinks there is a lot more debate the board will need to have - we can't do what you want us to do -
Chamberlain, how did you come up w/range of 80 to 1,000 Morrison - that was a range used - have heard to build the minimum and nothing more. issues are flooding, need assistance - this 1000 is to address minimum problems only - open to other suggestions. Yamada - does not think than any of what - thinks it would be fooling ourselves if we come up w/a majic number. don't think all of Y.C. is to look the same, each city, town is different. If Madison needs certain level of service, we owe it to ourselves to at least study that - hard to balance all that -
wrap up - need motion Thomson - moved recommendation on Madison th/mc 4/1 Noes: Rexroad
Knights Landing - Thomson - not sure Heidi - discussion on the 6th was to not add new residential units in KL - the planning commission's recommendation - was not to allow as many homes as we normally would - discussion today, is if we want to go in that direction - it is a different conversation David - staff: zoning is not the same as the zoning in the gen. plan Heidi - not suggesting build out already in existing gen. plan Morrison - the planning commission reduced the development Thomson - that would be w/same density
Knights Landing continued: McGowan - KL w/1000 peo, they have enough sewer &water, they don't need anymore services? Morrison - right, hearing recent discussions, grocery store, levy (flood protection) are important issues. Mike - you are telling me we could get it done w/what's on this page David - staff: the new development would be new wells and .... Yamada - what was the intent of planning commission in removing this? Morrison - Thomson would say go forward. Chamberlain - made comments, that's sac river - when it goes, it's not like ... not in favor of this - Thomson - this is the opportunity for sac. river - to design that development creatively - want to see the river as a major advantage, as well as the green space - levee is an issue that needs to be dealt with when developed. Mike - need to look at what addtl. work needs to be done - yes it's prime ag land, yes very important to preserve, but also need to provide amenities for those communities, need to analyse what it takes to provide those communities w/fundamental amenities. chamberlain, not in favor of - this is prime farmland, road access is also tough, peo. who live there seem happy,
Knights Landing - continued Yamada - what is the levee - .... this is new, at end of specific plan process the river and the levee are there, and don't know what condition they will be in. McGowan - understands and respects - but there is no project before you to approve - it's an analysis - motion for Knights landing
Motion for Knights Landing: Th/Mc moved staff recommendation, including orange hatch line (on map) - opposed: Chamberlain & Yamada 3/2
DUNNIGAN: Rexroad - thinks staff should study a number between 7500 or higher, (650 & 1500 is too low) density of 8 units may change - if we are going to study this, would like to see this study broader (higher) this is the one I think we are going to create something very cool here - specific concerns - would like to push spectrum of homes, and re: 8 units per acre, don't know how to make it more flexible later on - in terms of Jobs issue - don't know how that works - McGowan - thinks he is satisfied in moving staff recommendation, but don't know - notion of building as big - don't get it. There is not enough money to sustain a big city. Not good gov't, not good policy....thinks every home we build, other than what's required - does not support this.
Dunnigan continued: Chamberlain - agrees w/Rexroad - took a survey, majority of peo. want development, where is the line - developers are saying we need to build 7500, want to know what our staff is saying - basic criteria for development in dunnigan makes more sense - supports staff's recommendation - wants more info. from staff, does not trust developers - how many homes do we need to build out there? Morrison - it depends, Wild Wings we have 340 homes, what makes dunnigan difficult, is the cost is much higher for sewer connection. - will require additional analysis - don't have all answers today - also don't want to force peo. to hook up, so how far out do you go.
DUNNIGAN CONTINUTED Thomson- would like info. from the community and from staff - w/out knowing how many houses it takes to do what, and when does info. become available so one can make decisions on that - comment to chamberlain - binning issues went to. first wants info. Heidi - don't know when we could get info., many questions remain, when, where, how much, want instruction from Board - need more info. on purity - Thomson- was I incorrect when Mr. Heidi - they were not discussing the sewer, the water, etc. - by using this plan process, it will all come together. Thomson - once the gen. plan is adopted, then the specific planning process would begin? Heidi - have no way of knowing if board would go that way or not. Thomson - so we would have to amend the gen. plan to amend the cap? Heidi - if you set a range, yes. Morrison - if board is concerned about those issues, may be beneficial to address those issues. Thomson - question to Co. Counsel - can we have an agreement..... - Mike, why would you want to prohibit them from developing? think that a lot of my concern is that you reach a certain mass, at where we are no longer good at supporting them, I would support the incorporation - Thomson - is there anything legally that you could put into an agreement, Heidi - the only circumstance I'm aware of that,is in a residential community. Robyn - there is a presidence in San Joaquin - where they set certain components w/county participation. Mike - if we are going to set something up down the road, would like us to ...don't feel we are the ones to determine that. If we are going to do this, I would support...Not interested in prohibiting. Sharon Jensen - part of response to sup. thomson, rules are different now, than what they were. Thomson - for the record is concerned about, will be voting attachment "a" dunnigan, concerned about predetermined outcome, does not know how to get around that.
Dunnigan - continued Yamada is prepared to support for residential 7,500 units. Thinks that by going to sup. rexroad's numbers, would be saying to go w/bigger development, but does not support that, certain - not supporting going to a higher number. Rexroad - question, based on EPS - can't understand logic of 2500 units, when we know that's not what we are going to do - at least narrow the lower end and higher number and say what we are going to do. Mike - we have a community w/173 - I would like to see what the community is at the lower number, 2,500 units is about 600 peo. - do want to see what lower number is - don't want to push lower number up at all. Rexorad - the data we have indicates the number has to be higher - Mike - would like to see an independent development -
Dunnigan - Continued: Yamada - is o.k. w/staff recommendation, is concerned w/balancing - community sustainability, to me 10,000 is pushing....- lincoln is no longer the small town it was - is o.k. w/range. Rexroad - lets build them a good community Thomson - Suisun is very pretty, Yamada - have difference of opinion Rexroad moves range of homes 5,000 - 7,500 and the 8 units per acre density level be dropped, and go w/2000 acres to be able to accomodate that (650 to 1500) we are going to add 500 Motion: R/CH Mike makes a substitute motion, moved staff recommendation (no second) Yamada - is struggling w/acreage - thomson - her too. Mike this is the recommendation that they are giving us, is prepared to have faith in the process, recommends we support staff. Yamada - there is no second - motion died for lack of second Rexroad - need to add to motion...... Yamada - that should not be a one fits all- thinks 16 jobs per acre are not a good measure. Mike - if you don't include a jobs per acre, you are building a veterans community - Rexroad - invite more discussion on acreage thinks - if we allow homes to be more spread out, attempt to allow more space - Yamada - rexroad - talking about a stand alone community, basically starting new community in dunnigan vote: 4/1 Noes:McGowan. motion carries.
Thomson - these are numbers pulled out and off, info. given to us, if staff after looking at this, don't think this works out, we need to know. this concluded deliberation on gen. plan Heidi - one motion recived and filed schedule M/R 5/0
ADJOURNMENT
1. On the bulletin board at the east entrance of the Erwin W. Meier Administration Building, 625 Court Street, Woodland, California; and
2. On the bulletin board outside the Board of Supervisors Chambers, Room 206, in the Erwin W. Meier Administration Building, 625 Court Street, Woodland, California. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing agenda will be posted no later than March 23, 2007 by 5:00 p.m. as follows:
3. On the Yolo County website: www.yolocounty.org. Ana Morales, Clerk of the Board By: Deputy NOTICE If requested, this agenda can be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Federal Rules and Regulations adopted in implementation thereof. Persons seeking an alternative format should contact the Clerk of the Board for further information. In addition, a person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, in order to participate in a public meeting should telephone or otherwise contact the Clerk of the Board as soon as possible and at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. The Clerk of the Board may be reached at (530) 666-8195 or at the following address:
Adjourned in memory of Jess Reiser.
Clerk of the Board
Link
Start video at
Social
Embed
Disable autoplay on embedded content?
<iframe title="Swagit Video Player" width="640" height="360" src="https://yolocountyca.new.swagit.com/videos/324600/embed" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Download
Download
Download Selected Item
