Historical
considering a position on the Board.”
Director Krog sought a compromise to the meeting time so that it is early enough for staff to go home at a reasonable hour at night. Board members agreed that the timing should be discussed when a full Board is present at the next meeting.
Changing meeting times would also necessitate a change in location since the community center is not available earlier in the day. Alternative locations were suggested, including Fort Bragg, which was categorically rejected, and the Catholic Church in Mendocino, which is available.
The recommendation to eliminate project site visits drew strong opposition, particularly from current and former Board members. The general feeling was that site visits are an invaluable opportunity for Board members to visualize potential issues. It is unrealistic for applicants and their architects to be present whenever individual Board members visit the project location. Former Board Chair Lamb stated, “As a former MHRB Board member for six years, the final year as Chair, I attended many site visits. I always looked forward to having the architects, builders, and property owners present to answer questions regarding their applications. This cannot be done by driving by, first, as questions on site cannot be asked; secondly, some applications address changes in the backyard, which may be seen from some walking or driving viewpoints. However, they need to be accessed in person.” Krog asked for “guardrails” as to the projects that still require site visits. The Board agreed that signs do not need organized tours, but new construction or remodels still benefit from project site visits.
Former Board Chair John Simonich succinctly addressed the problem of requiring volunteer Board members to answer policy questions that staff currently provides. “MHRB members are not trained to understand county policies. That is the job of professional county employees. Staff has the resources to ask and receive answers from other county staff members.”
Board members Kapler and Lopez asked if each of the proposed changes has quantifiable cost reductions. Planning Director Krog did not provide those figures but responded that they were addressing the additional work on behalf of MHRB that is not typically provided to other bodies with whom the Department works.
A recurring observation among speakers and at least one board member was that costs could be more effectively reduced if fewer staff attended the meetings than the 2-3 regularly participating. Longtime resident and business sign craftsman Rick Saks, who has been before the Board countless times, provided an impassioned historical perspective of the MHRB, including a reminder that only one staff member once attended the meetings. Director Krog responded that reducing the number of staff attending meetings is gradually being implemented.
There are some questions that County Counsel is exploring, such as whether these changes would require MHRB approval to change their by- laws or whether the Board of Supervisors could make these changes regardless.
In the end, the proposals were largely rejected. The Board will further discuss at the next meeting an earlier meeting time and the acceptance of action minutes rather than full narratives, with staff providing the Board with meeting material online rather than printed and mailed. The Board further agreed to eliminate site visits for proposed signs, with input from the Chair to determine if such visits are necessary for other less visible projects.
Finally, the Board approved on the Consent Calendar a modification to the heaters on the MacCallum House porch so they would be raised closer to the ceiling and effectively screened from the site.