COUNTY OF INYO PLANNING COMMISSION

Transcription

1 COUNTY OF INYO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 25,, 2012 MEETING COMMISSIONERS: WILLIAM STOLL FIRST DISTRICT (CHAIR) Inyo County Planning Commission CYNTHIA LITTLE SECOND DISTRICT (VICE-CHAIR) Post Office Drawer L SAM WASSON THIRD DISTRICT Independence, CA RICHARD WHITE FOURTH DISTRICT (760) /(760) PAUL PAYNE FIFTH DISTRICT (760) FAX STAFF: JOSHUA HART DOUG WILSON KEVIN CARUNCHIO TANDA GRETZ ADENA FANSLER CATHREEN RICHARDS DAN STEWART DANA CROM PLANNING DIRECTOR INTERIM PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR SENIOR PLANNER ASSOCIATE PLANNER ASSOCIATE PLANNER PLANNING COORDINATOR COUNTY COUNSEL The Inyo County Planning Commission met in regular session on Wednesday,, in the Administration Building, in Independence, California. Commissioner Wasson opened the meeting at 10:00 a.m. These minutes are to be considered for approval by the Planning Commission at their next scheduled meeting. ITEM 1: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Wasson at 10:01. ITEM 2: ROLL CALL - Commissioners: Sam Wasson, Cynthia Little, Richard White, and Paul Payne were present. Commissioner Bill Stoll was absent. Staff present: Josh Hart, Planning Director; Courtney Smith, Transportation Planner; Dana Crom, County Counsel and Cathreen Richards, Associate Planner. Staff absent: Kevin Carunchio, County Administrator Doug Wilson, Interim Public Works Director Adena Fansler, Associate Planner Dan Stewart, Planning Coordinator Tanda Gretz, Senior Planner ITEM 3: PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD This item provides the opportunity for the public to address the Planning Commission on any planning subject that was not scheduled on the Agenda. There was no one from the public that wished to comment on any planning subject that was not scheduled on the Agenda. County of Inyo Page 1 Planning Commission Minutes

2 ITEM 4: APPROVAL OF MINUTES (Action Item) Approval of Minutes from the March 28, 2012 meeting of the Planning Commission. MOTION: Moved by Commissioner White and seconded by Commissioner Payne to approve the Minutes from March 28, The Motion passed 3-0-1, with Commissioner Stoll absent and Commissioner Little abstaining. ITEM 5: INYO COUNTY COMBINED-USE IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES (Public Hearing and Action Item) - A proposal by Inyo County to adopt procedures for the future designation of combined-use highway segments pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 628. AB 628 made revisions to the California Vehicle Code establishing a pilot project allowing Inyo County to designate certain County highways as combined-use routes. The combined-use routes allow the use of County streets and roads by Off-Highway Vehicles and could apply to any road that is included in the Inyo County Maintained Mileage System. The future designation of combined-use routes will require project-specific environmental review and approval. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared to evaluate potentially significant impacts. Mr. Courtney Smith, Transportation Planner, presented the staff report. Chair Wasson opened the public hearing at 10:10. Sydney Quinn of Big Pine commented that she found the procedures versus the details confusing and asked if data will be collected only for a week each year. Mr. Smith answered that traffic count data (collected throughout the year) is required and therefore, recorded, and submitted to the State. Ms. Quinn also commented that 7-days is not long enough in advanced notice for a public hearing. Josh Hart, Planning Director, explained that the County is using the proper noticing standard for this type of item. Chair Wasson commented that the public can still appeal to the Board of Supervisors. Ms. Quinn said she understands that the County is noticing properly, but she thinks that it would be easier for the public to come to meetings if they had more notice. She then thanked the Commission for the opportunity to speak. Marty Hornick representing the Inyo National Forest (INF) stated that the INF is not in any way against the project and they want to do their part to be supportive, but INF has some questions with regard to timing. Mr. Hornick had a question for Mr. Smith about notification procedures with regard to the agencies. Mr. Hornick also stated that INF made quite a few comments in conjunction with BLM that has similar concerns. INF understands that their records of jurisdiction with regard to the roads are not completely accurate and they are trying to go through and update their records to be more complete. INF is not concerned about the county s ability to take care of the roads, they just want to get the jurisdictional issues worked out first, but this will probably not happen within the 60-day period. INF wants to be brought in at the earliest possible time as projects come up. Mr. Hornick repeated that the INF, and as far as he knows BLM, are not opposed, and want to support and coordinate with the County. Chair Wasson, said this was good to hear and good to know there will be collaboration and coordination back and forth. County of Inyo Page 2 Planning Commission Minutes

3 Mr. Smith addressed Mr. Hornick s question by saying the change is described in the response to comments from INF letter 15 that can be accessed on internet. Mr. Smith went on to explain that this change is addressed in a sentence that can be found in comment 3, under items 4 and 5 of the procedures. The sentence states that when the application is deemed complete the County shall share copies of the application with the pertinent land management agencies or owners as defined as those which own, manage, or have jurisdiction for one of the road segments identified. Mr. Smith stated that this was the language that was recommended by INF in their comment letter that was very specific to each of the procedures. Mr. Smith added that there are additional changes that respond to INF comments numbers 4 and 5 and he recommended that INF reads all the responses to comments. Mr. Smith offered to address any specific concerns INF may have to these responses to comments. Mr. Hornick asked if there were responses to comments with regard to the BLM letter as well. Mr. Smith responded that, yes, the changes, as recommended by the BLM, were incorporated into the procedures. Mr. Hornick asked if Mr. Smith could summarize what those changes were. Bernadette Lovato from the BLM offered to come up to explain. Ms. Lovato said they relied on the INF letter and that BLM s letter simply stated that they concurred with INF. Ms. Lovato stated that BLM had some concerns about this project and the BLM Land Management Use Plan though, and she could not find the County s responses to these concerns when she looked through the website. She apologized if she missed it and thanked Mr. Smith for incorporating BLM s specific comments about conformance with the Land Management Use Plan. She reiterated Mr. Hornick s comment about coordination and the 60-day window of time. Ms. Lovato stated that BLM wants the County to be cognizant of the difficulty the 60-day timeframe poses and is glad that the County wants to work together with the other agencies. She also said that BLM s stance is, as long as the proposed routes are on roads that are open for those specific uses, BLM is totally supportive of the project. Chair Wasson said he was glad to hear that. He asked if anyone had questions for Ms. Lovato. Commissioner Payne asked what the status of rangers patrolling the roads and closing them off before any hearings is. Ms. Lovato responded that she would be glad to talk specifics with him, but she was not aware of any roads being closed in that manner. Commissioner Payne said this had happened quite frequently a couple of years ago in South County and the Ridgecrest district. Ms. Lovato said she could not answer for events that occur in the Ridgecrest district, as her office does not have jurisdiction there. She also stated that BLM has worked closely with the Alabama Hills Stewardship group and this included closing some roads in the Alabama Hills. Commissioner Payne said the roads he is referring to are in the White Mountains and asked if that is part of the Ridgecrest district. Ms. Lovato responded that the eastside of the White Mountains is part of Ridgecrest and she would be glad to pass on his concerns to them. Commissioner Payne said he had contacts there and he would find out more about it. Commissioner Payne also asked if Ms. Lovato s office condones that type of activity. Ms. Lovato responded no, they try to have an open process and work collaboratively. She explained that BLM has closed roads in the Bishop District, but the roads they closed were illegal, and they did so as collaboratively as possible. Ms. Lovato went on to explain that when BLM closes off roads they use volunteers to do the work, as they do not have crews, and these volunteers are usually from the community, so BLM really has to work collaboratively with the community. She asked if there were any more questions. County of Inyo Page 3 Planning Commission Minutes

4 Chair Wasson asked if anyone had any more questions for Ms. Lovato, and then thanked her. Mr. Hornick said he would like to wrap up what he started earlier and address what Mr. Smith said about the procedures. Mr. Hornick stated that the County s responses to comments do not show there have been changes to the procedures for agency responses. Mr. Hornick continued by saying that the sentence in the procedures says INF needs to recognize that the only question the County is asking is if a particular section of road connects to an existing combined use route. INF does not believe this responds to their concerns about working with INF as soon as possible to address any jurisdictional issues there may be. Mr. Hornick stated that he is sure the County s Counsel would have the same feelings as INF s in terms of legalities related to jurisdiction and it is not something that INF can really control. Mr. Hornick stated that in one of the County s comments, it was pointed out that in the Travel Management Process, the maps showed County routes. Mr. Hornick explained that the County routes were included on the maps because INF was trying to make it clear that the County routes were not being considered as unauthorized, and that they did not need to be analyzed during the Travel Management process. Mr. Hornick also stated that including the County routes had nothing to do with jurisdiction. Mr. Hornick said that INF thinks that these are details that can be worked out through a good coordinated effort right up front. Mr. Hornick then thanked the Commission for their time. Chair Wasson asked if there were any more questions. He then thanked Mr. Hornick. Brian Mackenzie from the Bishop office of the California Highway Patrol introduced himself and stated he was acting as a liaison for the Highway Patrol and any jurisdiction trying to do combined use. He asked if anyone had questions of the Highway Patrol and their stance on combined use or clarification. There were none. Bill Mitchel of Bishop then introduced himself and said he supports this process, but has concerns about costs that the County might incur. Mr. Mitchel stated that in paragraph 11 of the procedures it says that if the funding for the signage does not come from the State then the applicant will be responsible for it. To him, that implies that the County could go out and buy all of the signage and then if the funding does not come through, the County will be stuck with the bill. Mr. Mitchel stated that he wants to make sure this does not happen and would like some changes to the wording that makes it clear that a purchase cannot be made before the funding is secured. Mr. Mitchel stated that this was his only comment and thanked the Commission. Ms. Crom stated that under AB 628 subparagraph 2 there is a provision that the State will provide funding for signage. She also said that she can report to the Commission that last Tuesday the Board of Supervisors approved a grant application to the State for funding for any signage that would be necessary under this bill. Chair Wasson asked if there was anyone else that would like to speak for or against. There was no one. At 10:29 Chair Wasson then closed the public hearing and opened discussion. Commissioner White stated that this proposal began before the State Assembly Bill was approved. He commended Mr. Smith for his response to comments and attention to details. He stated that it looks good. County of Inyo Page 4 Planning Commission Minutes

5 Chair Wasson asked if there were any other comments and said he also thinks it looks good and is happy to see these kinds of opportunities for recreation being developed in the Owen s Valley. Commissioner Little said she saw ties to the issue of childhood obesity and children not being active enough, with having something like this for families to do as a real benefit. Chair Wasson stated that if there were no other comments he would like to entertain a motion. Commissioner White made the motion and Commissioner Payne made the second. The motion passed 4-0, with Commissioner Stoll absent. ITEM 6: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #398/Kemp This project proposes the subdivision of 120 acres into three parcels of 40 acres each. The project site (APN ) is located approximately one and one-half miles south of the community of Alabama Hills, adjacent to Lubken Canyon Road (on the south), with each of the proposed three lots fronting the road. Individual septic and water wells are proposed. Mr. Hart stated that the applicant requested that this item be continued. He recommended that this item be opened for public hearing and then continued to the next meeting of May 23, Chair Wasson opened the public hearing at 10:34. No one was there to speak. Chair Wasson then closed the public hearing and stated that it will be continued on May 23, COMMISSIONERS REPORT/COMMENTS Commissioner White commented that the properties (The Arbors, north of Bishop) that Commissioner Stoll has commented on in the past, looked like the fence pieces around it have been picked up and there is not a lot of junk around anymore. Mr. Hart stated that staff has been working with the property owners to address the issues. The owners are considering taking the boards down and leaving the posts and possibly building a redwood fence in the future. Ms. Crom added that there has been an update from the last LAFCO meeting that the committee authorized Mr. Hart to send a letter to the State, which is a prerequisite for water to be served to that property. Ms. Crom reported that she also had a conversation with the attorneys working with the owner and it appears that the blocks to the owner getting water for that property may be lifting; the water issue is why the development stalled in the first place. Ms. Crom said she hopes that this will get the project going again. The owners are also planning on having someone live in the spec. house, once there is water, to maintain the property. Commissioner White commented that Commissioner Stoll s other issue with that general area regarding junked cars also seems to be better than it was. Commissioner White reported that he only saw one pick-up parked there and nothing else. Commissioner White reported that he is on a mission to be replaced; Supervisor Fortney is working on it; he will not be on the Commission next term; and, he will miss the June and July meetings. County of Inyo Page 5 Planning Commission Minutes

6 Chair Wasson said he will also miss the July meeting. Commissioner Little commented that the new hospital in Bishop is coming along really nice. DIRECTOR S REPORT- Ms. Crom provided an update on the Bright Source project and said Mr. Hart, Dr. Bob Harrington from the Water Department, and she would be going to a 2-day workshop in Sacramento for it later that day. The meeting would include discussing the boiler optimization plan that recently has been updated; socio-economic impacts to the County; and, some land use zoning issues. Ms. Crom reported that the County has not received a general plan application from Bright Source yet, and is working on a contract with Bright Source that will include covering costs that will be incurred by the County from the Bright Source development. The issues for the County include the costs associated with the Bright Source development and whether the Energy Commission will order Bright Source to pay the County for these costs. Ms. Crom advised the Commissioners that if they are interested in any of the workshop items they can watch via WebEx. The preliminary staff report for this project should be coming out around the 25th of May. Once it is out it will be made available to the Commissioners for review and comment. Mr. Hart updated the Commission on the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP). Mr. Hart passed around 6 maps showing different proposed development scenarios and explained that the scenarios range from minimal development of renewable energy in the identified development areas to more intensive. Mr. Hart explained that staff commented on the earlier drafts of the development areas and the scenarios that show the more intensive development are most reflective of the County s recommendations. Mr. Hart explained that the DRECP staff has also been working on biological goals and objectives and prepared a transmission plan that includes enhanced transmission through the Owen s Valley. Staff will be presenting an update on the DRECP to the Board next week. Mr. Hart gave the Commission an overview of the Zoning code and General Plan update. Mr. Hart said that he wanted the Commission to start thinking about dates to have a joint work session with the Board. He indicated that he was considering June or July as a good time to start. Chair Wasson suggested August, Ms. Crom concurred, Mr. Hart made note of the preference for August. Chair Wasson asked about a workshop on the Brown Act. Ms. Crom stated that it would be held next Tuesday, May 1. Mr. Hart then asked if any time in August would work for the General Plan update work session. Chair Wasson indicated it would need to be after August 11 for him. No one else stated a preference. ADJOURNMENT - With no further business, Chair Wasson adjourned the meeting to reconvene in Regular Session on Wednesday, May 23 at 10:00 a.m. in the Board of Supervisors Room, Administrative Center, Independence, California. County of Inyo Page 6 Planning Commission Minutes

7 Prepared by: Cathreen Richards Inyo County Planning Department County of Inyo Page 7 Planning Commission Minutes