COUNTY OF INYO PLANNING COMMISSION

Transcription

1 COUNTY OF INYO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 23, 2014 MEETING COMMISSIONERS: WILLIAM STOLL FIRST DISTRICT Inyo County Planning Commission CYNTHIA WAHRENBROCK SECOND DISTRICT (VICE-CHAIR) Post Office Drawer L SAM WASSON THIRD DISTRICT Independence, CA ROSS CORNER FOURTH DISTRICT (CHAIR) (760) JOHN JIM GENTRY FIFTH DISTRICT (760) FAX inyoplanning@inyocounty.us STAFF: JOSHUA HART CLINT QUILTER KEVIN CARUNCHIO CATHREEN RICHARDS ADENA FANSLER ELAINE KABALA DANA CROM PLANNING DIRECTOR PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR SENIOR PLANNER ASSOCIATE PLANNER ASSOCIATE PLANNER COUNTY COUNSEL The Inyo County Planning Commission met in regular session on Wednesday, April 23, 2014, in the Administration Building, in Independence, California. Chair Corner 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: Wasson. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner ITEM 2: ROLL CALL - Commissioners: John Jim Gentry, William Stoll, Cynthia Wahrenbrock, Sam Wasson, and Ross Corner were present. Commissioners Absent: None. Staff present: Josh Hart, Planning Director; Dana Crom, County Counsel; Cathreen Richards, Senior Planner; Elaine Kabala, Associate Planner; Steve Porter, County Counsel. Staff absent: Clint Quilter, Public Works Director; Kevin Carunchio, County Administrator; Adena Fansler, Associate 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. ITEM 4: Approval of Minutes from the February 26, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting Commissioner Wasson thanked staff for the accuracy of the minutes regarding the Renewable Energy General Plan Amendment and commended the Commission for their oversight of the February 26, 2013 meeting. MOTION: Moved by Commissioner Wasson to approve the minutes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wahrenbrock. County of Inyo Page 1 DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes

2 The Motion passed 4-0; Commissioner Gentry abstained. ITEM 5: INYO COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER UPGRADE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Inyo County is proposing to construct and operate an animal shelter adjacent to the existing animal shelter to the northwest of Big Pine on County Road. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing, reviewing the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study (MND/IS) prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the County s CEQA Procedures for the project, and made recommendations pursuant to the County s CEQA Procedures in regards to the MND/IS to the Board of Supervisors. Courtney Smith, Transportation Planner, presented the Staff Report to the Commission. Jim Tatum, Deputy Public Works Director provided an overview and status update of the project and fundraising efforts. Commissioner Wahrenbrock asked if the new animal shelter would be for only cats and dogs, or if it would also have facilities to shelter livestock. Mr. Tatum confirmed that the new shelter would have corrals for horses and livestock. Commissioner Stoll asked if the new shelter would be available for wildlife. Mr. Tatum explained that the shelter would not be available for wildlife rescue and that the animal shelter would be for domestic animal care only. Commissioner Gentry inquired as to whether Independence had been considered as site for the new animal shelter so that inmate labor could be used. Mr. Tatum said that the Big Pine location was the only location which he was aware was considered for the animal shelter. Commissioner Stoll inquired if a work-release program could be established at the animal shelter. Mr. Tatum said that was a possibility. Ms. Crom explained that the County has a work release program wherein eight hours of labor is equivalent to one day served in jail. MOTION: Moved by Commissioner Wasson to recommend the Board of Supervisors find that on the basis of the whole record before it, including the Initial Study and the comments received, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the County s independent judgment and analysis, and that the Inyo County Public Works Department is the custodian and location of the documents and other material which constitute the record of proceeding upon which the decision is based and recommended the Board of Supervisors adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and certify that the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act have been satisfied. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Stoll. The motion passed 5-0. ITEM 6: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO /OLANCHA (BRANSON) Mr. Branson of Lone Pine TV is applying for a Conditional Use Permit to build a 60-foot tri-pole tower at the Olancha Fire Station to house a wireless internet service antenna. The goal of the project is to provide high-speed internet service to the residents of Olancha who currently have limited speeds and service at this time. A Negative Declaration is being considered for adoption pursuant to CEQA and the County s CEQA Procedures. Cathreen Richards, Senior Planner presented the Staff Report to the Commission. Chair Corner opened the Public Hearing at 10:21. Dan Dickman, Keeler, spoke in support of the Condition Use Permit, stating that the construction of the tower in Olancha is needed in order to provide wireless internet to Keeler. County of Inyo Page 2 DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes

3 Bruce Branson, project applicant explained the tower would serve both Olancha and Keeler. Permission from both the Olancha and Keeler fire departments has been obtained to put the towers on the fire department property. The towers will be located on County-owned property and will not conflict with County services. The applicant has received all positive comments towards the proposed towers. Chair Corner asked for clarification on the height of the tower, and the applicant explained that it will twice as tall as the already existing tower in the Alabama Hills. Commissioner Wahrenbrock asked when construction would begin. The applicant explained that he would like to begin as soon as possible. Commissioner Wasson stated that the towers would be beneficial to the communities. Chair Corner closed the public hearing at 10:25. Mr. Hart recommended enhancing the findings to better address CEQA requirements. MOTION: Moved by Commissioner Gentry to find that on the basis of the whole record before it, including the Initial Study and the comments received, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the Negative Declaration reflects the County s independent judgment and analysis, and that the Inyo County Planning Department is the custodian and location of the documents and other material which constitute the record of proceeding upon which the decision is based and adopt the Negative Declaration and certify that the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act have been satisfied, and approve Conditional Use permit No /Olancha (Branson). The motion was seconded by Commissioner Stoll. The motion passed 5-0. ITEM 7: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO /KEELER (BRANSON) Mr. Branson of Lone Pine TV is applying for a Conditional Use Permit to build a 60-foot tri-pole tower at the Keeler Fire Station to house a wireless internet service antenna. The goal of the project is to provide highspeed internet service to the residents of Keeler who currently have limited speeds and service at this time. A Negative Declaration is being considered for adoption pursuant to CEQA and the County s CEQA Procedures. Cathreen Richards, Senior Planner presented the Staff Report to the Commission. Chair Corner opened the Public Hearing at 10:30 am. Brian Desmond, Keeler, spoke in support of the project and stated that he was looking forward to upgrading his internet and phone service. He said the project will also be beneficial to the CSD and fire district. Allison Brown, Keeler, spoke in support of the project. She stated that she lives adjacent to the proposed site and has no objections to the appearance of the tower. Chair Corner closed the Public Hearing at 10:31 am. Commissioner Wasson stated his appreciation to have support for new telecommunication towers. Mr. Hart recommended enhancing the findings to better address CEQA requirements. County of Inyo Page 3 DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes

4 MOTION: Moved by Commissioner Gentry to find that on the basis of the whole record before it, including the Initial Study and the comments received, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the Negative Declaration reflects the County s independent judgment and analysis, and that the Inyo County Public Works Department is the custodian and location of the documents and other material which constitute the record of proceeding upon which the decision is based and adopt the Negative Declaration and certify that the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act have been satisfied, and approve Conditional Use permit No /Keeler (Branson). The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wasson. The motion passed 5-0. ITEM 8: VARIANCE NO (WALTERS) Mr. Walters on behalf of Portal Preserve LLC is applying for a sign variance to exceed the sign size and height requirements for two real estate signs from 9-square feet in area and no more than 6-feet in height to 32-square-feet in area and up to 7-feet in height. One sign will advertise the Portal Preserve subdivision in the Alabama Hills and the other will show the availability of lots in the subdivision based on whether they are currently for sale or have already sold. The project is exempt from CEQA. Cathreen Richards, Senior Planner presented the staff report. Commissioner Gentry asked for clarification on the definition of a Rider Sign. Ms. Richards explained that a rider sign is a real estate agent sign. Commissioner Gentry asked if it is possible to put a time limit on the variance as a condition of approval. Ms. Richards explained that a time limit could be applied; however the Planning Commission needs to make the Variance findings in order to approve the proposed signage. Commissioner Gentry clarified the proposed dimensions. Commissioner Wasson asked for clarification on the number of lots in the Whitney Portal subdivision that are adjacent to Whitney Portal Road. Ms. Richards explained that there are 9 lots adjacent to Whitney Portal Road, which would allow for 18 signs total. Commissioner Wasson asked if it would then be possible to place two signs on adjacent parcels to provide the appropriate quantity of signage. Ms. Richards confirmed that was an available alternative. Commissioner Wahrenbrock asked if variances are typically permanent. Ms. Richards confirmed that variances are typically permanent. Commissioner Wahrenbrock asked for clarification on how much larger the variance would allow the sign to be, and whether the request for a 7 height limit describes the top or the bottom of the sign. Ms. Richards explained that the variance would allow the sign to be considerably larger and that the 7 height limit describes the top of the proposed signage. Commissioner Corner opened the public hearing at 10:47 am. Jim Walters, project applicant, explained his long history of working with the County during the approval process of the Whitney Portal Subdivision. He asked if the Planning Commission should take a strict interpretation on the code, which does not address signage for subdivisions as opposed to individual houses. He pointed out that under a strict interpretation of the code, he would be allowed to have up to 54 signs to advertise the properties, which would total 486 square feet of signage, as opposed to the 84 square feet he is requesting through a variance. He stated his belief that the variance would not be contrary to the public interest, but would in fact support it. He also stated his belief that his situation constitutes a special condition since he is selling lots in a subdivision and not individual residences. Thus, a variance would not be an exception for his situation, but could be applied to other subdivision sales in the future. He concluded by stating that by not granting the variance, it would place unnecessary hardship on the community of Lone Pine because the alternative would be less attractive. County of Inyo Page 4 DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes

5 Kathleen New, Lone Pine Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of the variance. She stated that selling lots in the subdivision represented an opportunity for economic growth and development in Lone Pine, but in order to attract new families, they need to know the lots are available. She stated her opinion that having a greater number of smaller signs would be the less aesthetic option. She concluded by stating the signs would also be temporary, would be beneficial to Lone Pine and the proposed signage is supported by the Chamber of Commerce. Chair Corner closed the public hearing at 11:05 am. Commissioner Gentry stated his preference to place a time limit on the variance and to allow for two signs in lieu of many signs as permitted by the code. Mr. Walters provided an exhibit of the sign, and explained that the two signs would include a stylized picture of the mountains, and the other sign would illustrate which lots are available for sale. Commissioner Gentry asked if the signs would be engineered to withstand strong winds. Mr. Walters confirmed that the signs would be properly engineered to remain standing. Commissioner Wasson asked if the signs would face parallel or perpendicular to Whitney Portal Road. Mr. Walters explained that the signs will be placed on a slight diagonal, making a concave towards the road. Commissioner Wasson asked where within the subdivision the signs would be placed. Mr. Walters explained the signs would be placed approximately in the middle of the subdivision, along Whitney Portal Road, on lots 6 and 7. Commissioner Wasson asked if the variance of the height was necessary. Mr. Walters said it was not necessary that the signs be 7 feet high. Commissioner Stoll stated that this type of signage is typical for selling property in subdivisions elsewhere and inquired if it is possible to allow it, or if the Commission is required to make variance findings. Ms. Crom stated that the Commission would be required to make the findings point by point in order to allow the variance. She stated that it was understood that this type of signage is typical in other areas, though she was not sure if this type of signage is approved as a component of the overall project in those instances. Commissioner Corner noted that scenic viewsheds are an reoccurring issue of concern in Inyo County in regards to solar and antenna towers. He went on to say that 54 real estate signs would be unattractive, but nine signs would be sufficient, and that most people shop for real estate online. He stated that he was not supportive of the variance. Commissioner Stoll asked if the signage ordinance could be rewritten to address subdivision signage. Ms. Crom confirmed the signage ordinance could be amended. Commissioner Stoll stated that construction opportunities would contribute to economic growth in the County and that the signage ordinance should be amended to encourage real estate sales. Commissioner Wahrenbrock mentioned that such signage had been allowed historically for other subdivisions. Mr. Hart pointed out that the Signage Ordinance is fairly new and previous signs may have been approved under a previous ordinance. Commissioner Wasson asked Ms. Richards if it is possible for her to make the necessary findings. Ms. Richards explained that she did not think it would be possible for her to make the findings, and asked for additional direction from the Commission. Commission Wasson asked if it was possible for the applicant to obtain Conditional Use Permit for the project. Commissioner Stoll suggested the applicant could place two 3 foot by 3 foot signs next to each other on separate lots as would be allowed by the zoning code. County of Inyo Page 5 DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes

6 Ms. Crom asked if the Commission would like to attempt to address each variance finding. Mr. Walters provided the following variance findings: 1) The request is for a special circumstance, as the signage is for a subdivision and not a single property; 2) The proposed signage would not be injurious to the public as it would be a temporary use and would be preferable to many signs; 3) Not approving the variance would impose a hardship on the applicant and the community of Lone Pine by diminishing the attractiveness of the properties for sale; and 4) the same variance could be granted in other situations where a developer was trying to sell lots in a subdivisions. Commissioner Wahrenbrock agreed that it was a special circumstance that the signage is to sell lots in a subdivision as opposed to individual properties. Commissioner Corner asked about the Kemp subdivision and whether similar signage could be granted for other subdivisions. Mr. Hart confirmed that if the variance findings were met, it was possible they could apply to other subdivisions as well. Commissioner Wahrenbrock stated she was surprised there was limit of nine square feet per sign and that and abundance of signage would also create dust and pollution problems as well. She stated she was in favor of a time limit limitation on the proposed signage, and that two signs would be in lieu of any additional signage. Commissioner Corner inquired about how weather conditions could affect the proposed signage and if the time limit should address the condition of the signage to ensure they are maintained. Ms. Crom suggested that the variance allowing for the signage could be readdressed upon approval of the third phase of the project, and removal could be required at the end of the sale of the lots or after 5 years, whichever is earlier. Mr. Hart added stated that he had the following findings for the variance: 1) There are no neighbors, as Mr. Walters currently owns the entire subdivision; and 2) the signage is beneficial to the community of Lone Pine. Commissioner Wahrenbrock added that the use of signs is temporary. Ms. Crom added a final finding that the applicant owns most of the neighborhood,that the proposed signage is for and constitutes a special characteristic of the neighborhood. MOTION: Moved by Commissioner Gentry to adopt the following variance findings: 1) There are exceptional circumstances applicable to the property involved which do not generally apply to other property in the same district, as the sale of the subdivision is different than the sale of individual lots or homes. Also, the reduced number of signs proposed by the applicant may lessen dust that may result from interested parties driving through the subdivision to see additional signage, which would affect the visual resource mitigations placed on the subdivision. Finally, the reduced number of signs may lessen litter from signs that may blow over, which would also affect the visual resource mitigations placed on the subdivision; 2) The results would not be detrimental to the neighborhood or the community because there a very few neighbors in the vicinity; 3) The strict application of the zoning code would result in difficulties for the applicant and indirectly impact the community of Lone Pine by limiting the economic development potential associated with the sales of the subdivision; 4) The variance would not grant special privilege to the applicant as the subdivision is different in character than the sale of different lots, is limited in nature, and does not impact surrounding residents as Mr. Walters owns a majority of property in the vicinity; County of Inyo Page 6 DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes

7 Subject to the following conditions of approval: 1) The two 32-square-foot signs will be no higher than 6-feet. 2) No other signs will be allowed on any of the Portal Preserve properties. 3) A time limitation will be effective for the signs as follows: a) This variance will be reviewed by the Planning Commission upon the Final Map approval of Tentative Map 239/Walters Phase III. b) There will be a 5-year time limit for the signs, beginning with the approval of Tentative Map 239/Walters Phase III. c) The signs shall be removed upon the final sales of all the properties in the Portal Preserve subdivision. And approve Variance /Walters. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wasson. The motion passed 4-1, with Commissioner Corner dissenting. Break: 10 minutes. Chair Corner reconvened the meeting at 11:57 am. RENEWABLE ENERGY WORKSHOP The Planning Commission received a presentation regarding renewable energy and conducted a workshop. Cathreen Richards, Senior Planner presented background explaining different types of renewable energy technologies. Dr. James Stroh gave a presentation on the considerations for solar photovoltaic facility design. Commissioner Stoll asked for further information on how often solar photovoltaic panels need to be cleaned. Mr. Stroh stated that there is sufficient snow and rain in the Owens Valley that regular washing may be unnecessary. However, panels typically need to be washed once per month and are washed using a squeegee. Commissioner Stoll asked if the panels lose efficacy when they are dirty. Mr. Stroh confirmed that the panels can lose up to 17% of their efficacy if they are dirty, though they may be slightly more effective with a small amount of dust on them, and its possible panels may not need to be cleaned at all in some instances. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power has argued that it is not economical to wash the panels. There are also waterless washing systems available, such as compressed air. Other types of solar projects, such as solar thermal, require constant washing to maximize their efficiency. Commissioner Wasson asked for additional information on how the panels are mounted. Mr. Stroh explained that they are mounted on racking piers. Commissioner Stoll asked for clarification on why the panels are made overseas and why U.S.-based plants had closed. Mr. Stroh explained that U.S.-based couldn t compete with the affordability of Chinese manufacturing. Commissioner Stoll asked if there were guarantees for the panels if they malfunctioned, and if individual panels could be isolated in an array to be replaced. Mr. Stroh confirmed that the panels are typically guaranteed for up to 20 years and that the failure rate is low. When the panels do malfunction, it is usually a failure of the water-proofing. Commission Stoll asked if there were many chemicals in photovoltaic panels and if the panels could be disposed of in at local landfill when a project is decommissioned. Mr. Stroh stated that there are not chemicals in the panels, and that the panels could be recycled. County of Inyo Page 7 DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes

8 Commissioner Corner asked for additional information regarding Solar #2, a solar facility which has been mothballed. Mr. Stroh explained that the facility had been mothballed because it was not competitive on the market and better options are available. Commissioner Stoll mentioned that he had seen a solar facility in the California Valley where the developer had not scrapped the vegetation under the panels. He asked Mr. Stroh if there are different types of construction that do not require vegetation to be removed. Mr. Stroh said it was the developer s decision whether land must be disturbed or not. Commissioner Gentry asked if the State of California is requiring more solar energy than necessary in such a tight timeframe. Mr. Gentry stated that he could not comment on the State s policy, but that the biggest concern in the future of renewable energy is energy storage, and whether the storage would be distributed or utility scale. Commissioner Stoll asked if the carbon footprint of manufacturing solar panels exceeds the amount of CO2 saved by installing solar photovoltaic facilities. Mr. Stroh explained that over the timeline of the project, the carbon savings from renewable energy would be less than the footprint to construct the facility. Commissioner Wasson asked if Distributed Generation is a viable alternative to utility scale power. Mr. Stroh explained that in order to produce an equivalent amount of energy as a utility-scale project, it would require developing 10 to 20 distributed generation projects along the Owens Valley. COMMISSIONERS REPORT/COMMENTS Commissioner Stoll provided clarification on his vote on the Renewable Energy General Plan Amendment item at the Planning Commission meeting of February 26, 2013, stating that he had hoped to have an opportunity to become more educated on renewable energy, and appreciated the renewable energy workshop. DIRECTOR S REPORT- Mr. Hart welcomed Commissioner Gentry to the Planning Commission. Mr. Hart provided the following information: Commissioners Gentry and Wahrenbrock need to complete ethics training for ADJOURNMENT - With no further business, Chair Corner adjourned the meeting at 1:28 p.m., to reconvene at a time and location To Be Determined. Prepared by: Elaine Kabala Inyo County Planning Department County of Inyo Page 8 DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes