1.03 Public Comment: Opportunity for members of the public to address the Board of Supervisors on subjects relating to county business. The Board of Supervisors reserves the right to impose a reasonable limit on time afforded to any topic or to any individual speaker.

Marilyn Gordon; Joe F. Martinez, President Yolo County Farm Bureau; Charla Parker, Chair of Yolo- Zamora Citizens Advisory Committee; Esparto Citizens Advisory Committee; Mary Kimball and Lynnel Pollock, Members, Yolo Ag Futures Alliance; Lewis Phillips, Chairman of the Madison Community Service District; Madison Advisory Committee Petition; Russell E. van Loben Sels; various members of the community objecting to an agricultural district; Don Tompkins; Frank Sieferman, Sr. and Vicki Murphy.

Clarksburg

David Morrison addressed the Board and gave an overview re: item

Heidi addressed board - on recommendations

#1 - clarksburg - Heidi's review

Steve Herringer, Ms. Dutra, Tim Waits, Mark Wilson addressed board re: clarksburg

1) Board Discussion & motion regarding Clarksburg:

Motion to Minute Order No. 07-261: Approved recommended action for Clarksburg. Moved by McGowan, seconded by Rexroad.

Vote to Minute Order No. 07-261: Approved recommended action for Clarksburg. (Approved)

#2 - RE: DUNNIGAN - hEIDI GAVE OVERVIEW

PUBLIC COMMENT RE: DUNNIGAN
Paul Robins, Maria Wong (addressed item U- and had revision re: JPA

continued public comment re: DUNNIGAN:

Mr. Pickford - wants to include extra area for study- asked to supprt. dunnigan map in the study.

Mr. Grussom - why are we not extending yellow line to I-505 to have area studied - feeling we are putting head in the ground - make developers.

DUNNIGAN pUBLIC COMMENT: James Burger (asked that bos take recommendation of the 19 members of dunnigan advisory committee); Mel Smith (dunnigan advisory committee and resident of dunnigan, asked that recommend action be approved) Joanne Burger, Jordan Diaz, Mary Jo Hoes, Erich Linse, Deanna Kirkland(wants yellow line extended - wants dunnigan advisory committee recommended map be approved) , Charla Parker, chair of zamora citizens’ advisory committee - border needs to stay north because of floodplain- are concerned about EIR impact)

Mike- how does zamora advisory comm - for dunnigan project? Q. to Charla Parker -

DUNNIGAN - Heidi comments re: dunnigan

2) DUNNIGAN - BOARD Comments-
Helen re: overpass- seen as a need because of the impact it generates on I-5,that will be looked at on whether it is needed or not? heidi- correct. Within study, will you consider ideas from the comm. advisory comm? Morrison, better addressed in specific plan, right now only defining the envelope. Helen, there was damming discussion also swainson’s hawk and bird creek - if you find it is significant then you look at park. Morrison, yes, you look and work on this. helen- as community became active - is to improve services for the community, making sure the present plan is included in future goal - that is the goal of this plan.

Dunnigan

re: Dunnigan - chamberlain, what would the buffer be? Morrison, no standard. Different jurisdictions have different plans. (morrison - we assumed 100 ft, but that’s just for assumption purposes at this time) helen - but there will be coordination w/
Duane- the other thing bothers me, re: mr. Grissm spoke, we have a problem w/ 102 connection to 5 - we should make developers address this before we start - get these roads taken care of first, we have two overpasses, we need to take care of them. Heidi - noted these are policy decisions made by different jurisdictions, specific plan - you will be presented w/information if we go in that direction - all those options will be going before you in the specific plan. Yamada - we are a few steps away from that.

DUNNIGAN - #2 VOTE
R/CH -
Mike wants everything included -

Motion to Minute Order No. 07-262: Approved recommended action for Dunnigan. Moved by Rexroad, seconded by Chamberlain.

Vote to Minute Order No. 07-262: Approved recommended action for Dunnigan. (Approved)

3) MADISON

The Board of Supervisors recessed at 10:40 A.M. and reconvened at 10:51 A.M. All members were present. Chair Yamada presided.

3 - MADISON: HEIDI ADDRESSED BOARD-GAVE OVERVIEW -

MADISON PUBLIC COMMENT: CHARLA Phillips, Leo Reflsand, Sherry Barnett, Brad McDowell, Susan Pelican (wants to know who is going to pay for infrstructure of madison, and what is required ocunty buildout for 2020), Steven Gomez (supports proposed plan for growth for madison), Brad Barton, Jay de Los Reyes,

3) MADISON BOARD COMMENT:
Rexroad - thinks this is a poor plan, put homes in esparto, to increase madison 10 times does not make sense to him - thinks this is wild wings jr., thinks there is not county benefit, creating an island, don’t think we could provide a school here, not going to vote for this.

THOMSON - supports
Chamberlain - supports recommended action - has 1 question about sewer ponds - could they be moved within red and yellow line? Heidi- yes -
MIke - would they have to be in there?? Heidi, for the purpose of the analysis -
Mike - just like dunnigan, we are not saying we are going to put the 7500 units, what we are doing is willing to analyze the impacts up to that point (it may not work, it may be more than what we can accept) so we are looking at what’s possible under those parameters, if we go too low, then we may not know the truth of that- is willing to study up to 1300 units.

Rexroad - don’t think we could accomplish what we need to w/out roof tops

Thomson - re relocation of sewar ponds - when you do YOUR STUDY, WILL YOU LOOK FOR ALTERNATIVES AS WELL? I DON’T KNOW THE CONTEXT IF INCLUDE WITHIN THE LINES- HOPES W/EIR YOU do the other locations. HEIDI - GEN. plan is looking at this w/uses within it - you will not see it in your general plan, but you will see it with specific plan. Helen - o.k.

Morrison - assume for discussion today, to reserve ABOUT 40 acres for the ponds. HELEN - WHEN YOU LOOK AT GEN. PLAN POLICIES, you
Morrison - will be looking at a lot of options for that
MIKE - wants to put it into context - BOS is choosing to be more proactive for communities to be more sustainable, little farming communities we have let them sustain themselves, but that approach is no longer acceptable. we have chosen to deal with that, now we have to figure out how to do it, whether it’s the best idea or not, level of services for the existing communities - goal trying to achieve.

#3) MADISON - vote

moved recommended action by ch/Mc NOes: Rexroad 4/1

Madison

Motion to Minute Order No. 07-263: Approved recommended action for Madison. Moved by Chamberlain, seconded by McGowan.

Vote to Minute Order No. 07-263: Approved recommended action for Madison. (Approved)

Interstate 505/County Road 14 and 12A Alternative

I-505 & 12A - HEIDI ADDRESSED BOARD & GAVE OVERVIEW.

Public comment re: I-505 & 12 A Alternative:

Alex Long - wants to see it change, undertood it would be ag commercial, but now looks like just commercial - hates to see service stations, indicated that is zamora not dunnigan- thinks they need more time, they have another piece on rd. 13 passed for commercial, wants to study it more, knows peo. in zamora feel that way.

Charla Parker - the official vote at citizen’s committee was to be strictly AG, not highway commercial- thinks 12A should stay Ag not Highway Commercial, road 14 is a fairly heavy traveled road because it takes you to zamora, the feeling of most of the citizens is that that area should stay at, the consensu of the community is to stay AG.

Mary Jo Hoes - agreed w/ Charla - does not think 12A makes sense.

Les McKeevers - agrees that 14A is a good area.

Tina Thomas - on behalf of river west, owners of 12A - reminded everyone they are studying options - they are considering ag uses, and will be working w/zamora residents on that.

Mary Jo

#4 - I-505 & 12A and 14 - board comments. Chamberlain voting against 12A.

McGowan - agrees w/staff, don’t know what should happen there.

Yamada - is going to change her vote from last time, has driven back to area - didn’t have a sense to how close it was to dunnigan (she will not be on this board when action takes place)

Thomson - your info. on this map says 15 acres of highway commercial and ag, presume you are looking at dunnigan

03:08:57 vote is here: Mike moved recommended action and Helen seconded, w/understanding that we are going to have some specific economic information here as well.

(Yamada & chamberlain voting no on this one) helen - that kind of analysis would be helpful - econ development, highway commercial vs. ag commercial and what purpose. - need ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS) YAMADA - WOULd feel better if it would be ag centered

Motion to Minute Order No. 07-264: Approved recommended action for Interstate 505/County Road 14 and 12A Alternative, with understanding that economic analysis will be provided to assist with the final decision between the two sites.
Moved by McGowan, seconded by Thomson.

Vote to Minute Order No. 07-264: Approved recommended action for Interstate 505/County Road 14 and 12A Alternative, with understanding that economic analysis will be provided to assist with the final decision between the two sites.
(Approved)

#5- Dunnigan Hills Ag Dist. - Heidi addressed board.

Ag District’s concept & ISSUE OF RURAL RESIDENTIAL HOUSING- Heidi continued to address board

Agriculutural District Program - explained by Heidi.

Rural Residential Development - Heidi continued to address board.

Clustering units - heidi clarified page 9 - asking for approval of the boundaries and approval of B,C,D

Sup yamada indicated she has 42 cards for public comment- for this item -

Dunnigan Hills Agricultural District

Supervisor McGowan made a motion (regarding the agricultural district concept and the issue of rural residential housing) to approve and support staff’s recommendation that "no new housing units beyond those allowed under the 1983 general plan will be analyzed anywhere in Yolo County unless that area is identified for new growth, as summarized in Attachment A." (Motion died for lack of a second)

Public Comment: re: dunnigan
Frank Sieferman Sr. opposing ag districts; Nancy Lea, is on county board of directors indicated board needs to take a public process for adoption of AG Districts, believes its wrong how big her home is on her rural property, should not be exacting preservation easements; Mr. Joe Heidrick, Jr. - opposing ag district; Mr. Bill DeBo - against this - thinks its in the books because the Taylors want to develop - don’t think they should have to worry about 5,000 development near them - thnks the board is catering to taylors; Jack Rexroad - lives in Zamora, member of zamora advisory- is here re dunnigan hills ag district - talked about Tina Thomas - indicated recommendations for ag district can be done right now w/out AG Dist’s - wants to preserve ag lands & ag use - if we don’t protect land we are -urged to say no to dunnigan hills ag dist.; Tom Vargas- spent time w/ livermore city council -lessons learned in livermore is the use of incentives - hopes they take a look at multiple tools; Tom Scott - lives on co. rd. 19 - thinks the concept of Ag Dist. has been clouded - thinks Taylors are influencing development issues - re Ag districts 4 issues need to be addressed in a way to eliminate construction, need to define ag. dist. issue of development, also agrees w/ removal of 200 home sites, cluster housing, and transfer of development rights - thinks more needs to be done - wants board to set a forum. Mr. Tim McIsic - comments - re ag easement issue - if someone wanted to put houses on their property, they need to give a conservation easement - thinks peo. should do what they want w/their property rights - goes beyond property rights; Gork McIsic- property rights issue to provide easement or limit where they could put houses - needs to be looked at very closeley - opposes ag dist. Mr. Waits - not here; Mr. Robert Millsap resided on co. rd. 19 - re gen plan update - received objections from Dunnigan Hills ag districts- opposes adoption, except for clarksburg - received critisism from bos - includes educated peo. cowels mast and frank sieferman - thinks trial should be taken into consideration; Paula Corral - objects to ag Dists and transfer developmental rights; Don Tompkins - chairman of capay area gen plan advisory comm - ag districts no clear - have thoughts on special districts, think they should be spelled out before they agree, wants purpose, definition, functions spelled out and results, urged that bos consider holding meetings and refer this to advisory board; Jack Mast - against this; Tim Heidrick - opposed Ag Dist., Susan McAfree- supports ag dists - thinks 20 acre is iffy; Pat Murray - on her own behalf - re: letter to the editor - indicated that in wdld we have springlake we have many homes-springlake started over 10 years ago - wants more public input - transfer of developmental rights - feels very threatened, wants to see people’s rights respected - planning commission voted on 80 acres w/homes - wants board to restrict homes.

Public comment re dunnigan, ag dists, etc. continued:

Edna shanson - not here
Joel Diaz - lives on road 19 - opposed to ag districts.

Pamela Story - concerned w/ag dist. in dunnigan hills.

Ann Taylor - urged that planning staff look into various aspects.

Fritz Durst - opposed to dunnigan hills ag dist. - need to go back to the process - need to include agriculture - is very nervouse about line around his property.

Jim Nielson - lives on road 19- opposes ag dist.
Sara Burke - lives in zamora - in land she cannot farm - opposed to dunnigan ag dist.
Kathy keehan - not here.
Vikki Murphy - wants a writen response - what defines an ag dist., had other questions also - what defines open space areas, will the ag dist. be mandatory inclusion, or will it be open like the williamson act - how many public hearing will their be?
Lux Taylor - indicated staff did a good job in indicating its voluntary - ag dists can be used to differentiate areas for different soils - thinks forming a working group to define goals of ag dists.
Susan Millsap - opposes dunnigan ag districts - agrees w/some sections of staff report - accepts recommendation for clarksburg area but not for dunnigan hills.
Tina Thomas on behalf of Taylor properties - is not giving advice to county since 1996, receives written waivers from co. counsel - everything has been complied- addressed TDR and Ag Dists. need to address 80 acre homesites - needs to address transfer of development rights (TDR) - study process and come up with a plan.

Mike McGowan - acknowledges work w/ tina thomas and her firm - was unfair to attack her personally in her profession.
Jim Barrett - lives on co. rd. 20- opposes plan - page 10 to be considered at a later time - thinks should be addressed now.
Janet Berry- has 10 acres- opposes ag dist. raises live stock
Rae Pedroia - wants to see land saved - listen to farmers
Susan Horgan - lives on co. rd 17 - opposed.
Heidi Aoki - represents about 2200 hundred acres - about 3% of dunnigan hills ag dist. - is opposed - wants county to define ag dists first - thinks need to take a step back- is opposed to
Christine Turner - 5th generation of y.c. - opposes ag dists.
Jordan Diaz - lives on rd. 19 - opposed to ag dists. - it’s a test what you want to do. - not making sense.
Aurora McKnight - lives in dunnigan hills on co. rd. 19 - owns 147 acres w/2 acres of vineyards - supports continued ag dist. study and continue process
Giovanni - need to look at specific issues in y.c., not livermore, or other areas- need to develop a definition for y.c. - need to provide meaningful input, not just 3 minutes - can’t pass anything until its defined; Charla Parker - citizens advisory committee opposes because its to broad - don’t see listed benefits as benefits on page 8 - don’t see the benefits as positive they see them as negatives- wants a separate study, separate discussion;
Maria Wong - agrees w/many of the speakers - under the natural heritage welcomes opportunity to work w/staff.

The Board of Supervisors recessed at 1:15 P.M. and reconvened at 1:32 P.M. All members were present. Chair Yamada presided.

Supervisor Chamberlain made a motion to remove the Dunnigan Hills Agricultural District from the study area. (Motion died for lack of a second)

Thomson - asked staff about the process, for example TDR’s are mandatory - is there a separate but equal process that would help people to understand it? right now we are asking peo. to

Heidi - what areas are going to be included, do we want to isolate districts, it’s her sense that there is not enough belief in that area right now for dunnigan; believes they agree w/ clarksburg - wants direction to continue to explore those ideas and thinks that w/that general process peo. will be able to see;

Mike - not sure where we are going with this item. is drawn to supporting some work in dunnigan hills - he dismisses the notion that this is for a specific developer. Is very interested in high level of negative response to the idea - thinks a lot of work needs to be done - would serve his purpose- is already getting feedback from clarksburg- has already shifted the paradyme - we haven’t defined ag dist. down there, yes there are many concerns about protecting to save property rights. can’t quite drop that the idea is a good idea for everyone - does not think it’s a good idea to drop the dunnigan hills - what could we do to protect our way of life and guarantee our fundamental ways here in dunnigan - need to push further.

Rexorad - deal of TDR - reminds him of eminent domain, if there is not a transfer of development rights, we are going to end up w/homes - TDR is voluntary by property owner - is not willing to give up this concept of it either - thinks there is value of this ag dist.concept to dunnigan hills.

Thomson- the American Farmland Trust has a website - the right to farm ordinance, ag mitigation & conservation easements and it had TDR’s - wanted to perhaps - the general plan recommendations from the AG (Futures?) Farmers Alliance (noted it was a good report) -

Yamada - thinks for public this item has moved on and off - is not willing to drop off the study - want to put things in a circle w/in circle: preservation of ag and open space, from there you go out and look at economic, farmers, issues like transportation goods to area and to market, values of locally grown and consumed products, looking at trying to localize- thanked everyone for being respectful.

Morrison still have 4 items for vote:
1- boundaries for dunnigan hills ag study
2- approval of ag districts as defined in board letter; will continue to develop further
3 - staff be directed to bring back rural residential - this would come back to bos after public review - to planning comm. for vote
4- remove 200 homes from clarksburg.

Supervisor McGowan made a motion to approve recommended actions B, C and D, with the following modifications, and to add recommended action "E" as follows: (Motion died for lack of a second)

B – Approve definition of Ag Districts including those items as outlined in the Board letter and establish a process for expanded public input and refinement for use by staff in developing the draft general plan.

C – Approve recommended action, but emphasize that it is a countywide approach.

D – Approve recommended action. (With no changes)

E – Direct staff to immediately commence a process for refinement of the Ag District definition and its implementation for Clarksburg and Capay.