APPROVED MINUTES

LASSEN COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

NOVEMBER 4, 2009

The Commission convened in regular session at 1:10 p.m. in the Board of Supervisors’ chambers, 707 Nevada Street, Susanville, CA. Chairman Rick Stewart presided with Commission members Tim Purdy, Toni Poulsen and Aaron Albaugh present; Commissioner Beckett was absent. John Ketelsen, Secretary, arrived at 1:30 p.m. Also present were Maurice Anderson, Planning Director; Planning Department staff; and Recording Secretary Nancy Summers.

GENERAL UPDATE OF PLANNING ACTIVITIES:

Maurice Anderson, Planning Director, reported that he had been offered and has accepted the position of Planning Director. He provided a status report on the reduction in force with the Planning Department, which affected the senior administrative clerk, senior building inspector, and building inspector I/II positions; the building inspector I/II has been reassigned to the permit technician position for the county’s Surface Mining and Reclamation Act program.

Mr. Anderson also announced that Grant Amen had withdrawn the appeal of his parcel map application (#2008-084) before the Board of Supervisors; and reported on a site visit to the Lassen Gold Mine by he and Commissioner Purdy. Commissioner Purdy elaborated on his visit.

MATTERS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS:

None.

CORRESPONDENCE:

There was no new correspondence not included in the Commissioners’ packets.

PRESENTATION BY STAFF

None.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

October 7, 2009, minutes:

It was moved by Commissioner Albaugh, seconded by Commissioner Poulsen, and carried to approve the October 7, 2009, Planning Commission meeting minutes. Commissioner Beckett was absent.

May 6, 2009, minutes:

It was moved by Commissioner Poulsen, seconded by Commissioner Albaugh, and carried to approve the May 6, 2009, Planning Commission meeting minutes; motion passed with Commissioners Poulsen, Albaugh and Stewart voting ‘Aye.’ Commissioner Beckett was absent; Commissioner Purdy was ineligible to vote.

April 1, 2009, minutes:

The minutes from April 1, 2009, were postponed to the December 2, 2009, meeting due to lack of a quorum of eligible voting members.

April 9, 2009, minutes:

It was moved by Commissioner Albaugh, seconded by Commissioner Poulsen, and carried to approve the April 9, 2009, Planning Commission meeting minutes; motion passed with Commissioners Poulsen, Albaugh and Stewart voting ‘Aye.’ Commissioner Beckett was absent; Commissioner Purdy was ineligible to vote.

MATTERS INITIATED BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC

None.

A brief recess was held from 1:18 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.

John Ketelsen, Secretary, arrived at 1:30 p.m.

PUBLIC HEARING: RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, REZONE #2009-049, Heinz Ranch LLC/Bob Lissner

Gaylon Norwood, Senior Planner, presented the staff report describing the project to establish an agricultural preserve on various parcels totaling approximately 9,993 acres; enter said land into a Williamson Act Contract as associated with a proposed rezone which would rezone said lands from A-1 (General Agriculture District) to E-A-A-P (Exclusive Agriculture, Agriculture Preserve Combining District). The project is exempt from CEQA under Section 15317 (class 17) of the Guidelines. The project site is located north of the Herlong Access Road, south of Honey Lake and also includes property south of Doyle off of Homestead Ranch Road.

A power point presentation depicting the project, including graphics, was shown.

The property owner’s agent, Bill Thomas, was present.

Mr. Norwood entered correspondence into the record received from C. Windham (Exhibit A).

Responding to Commissioner Albaugh, Mr. Ketelsen provided a status report of the Williamson Act Program, summarizing the Board of Supervisors’ recent study session in response to the State’s elimination of the Subvention funds from this years’ budget. The Board took no action, leaving the current program in tact and will continue to entertain new applications; staff will bring back an economic study next year and wait to see if the State reinstates the funding.

Responding to Commissioner Albaugh’s question about concerns addressed in Mr. Windham’s letter, Mr. Anderson explained that staff has no concerns that this application will make the situation worse as expressed by Mr. Windham.

Responding to Commissioner Stewart as to why the Land Conservation Committee (LCC) made no recommendation to the Board, Mr. Norwood stated that, while the LCC typically takes a position and makes a recommendation, given the current state of the budget, it took a conservative stance, providing information to allow the Commission and Board to determine whether it’s consistent with the regulations.

Commissioner Stewart solicited comments from Mr. Bill Thomas, applicant’s agent, related to the staff report; Mr. Thomas concurred with staff’s recommendation.

The public hearing was opened and closed at 1:37 p.m. with no one speaking for or against the project.

Commissioner Albaugh voiced support for the Williamson Act program and asked whether the Commission could condition this contract whereby other funds set aside for mandated programs could be accessed in the event the State doesn’t reinstate the subvention funds. Mr. Ketelsen explained that, because the subvention program was not a part of the original Williamson Act (the funds were added later), his tentative conclusion is that is probably doesn’t fit within the eligible uses for which Proposition SB 90 funds are available – he would need to defer to county counsel. It would not, however, preclude the Commission from sending that message to the Board of Supervisors as a part of its recommendation.

Mr. Anderson also clarified that the County has the option to non-renew the contract should there be issues in the future. Mr. Ketelsen discussed efforts by other counties to tie Williamson Act contracts to subvention funds, the history of the Williamson Act, and its benefits and assessment.

Commissioner Stewart clarified that the Commission is making a recommendation to the Board on the rezone application, and not the contract; staff concurred.

MOTION:

It was moved by Commissioner Albaugh, seconded by Commissioner Purdy, and carried to adopt Resolution No. 11-01-09, recommending that the Board of Supervisors approve Rezone #2009-049, Heinz Ranch LLC. Commissioner Beckett was absent.

PUBLIC HEARING: NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND SUBDIVISION MAP #2009-003, Michael Frederick.

Gaylon Norwood, Senior Planner, presented the staff report to divide a 448 acre parcel into six parcels and a 416.23 acre remainder. The proposed parcels range in size from 5.10 acres to 6.00 acres. The portion of the property proposed to be subdivided is zoned A-2-B-5 (Agricultural Residential, 5 acre Building Site Combining District) and the remainder (which is not part of this application) is zoned U-C-B-160 (Upland Conservation, 160 acre Building Site Combining District). The project site is located approximately one mile north of Pittville at 546-400 Old County Road. APN: 013-020-78. A power point presentation, including graphics, was shown.

The applicant, Michael Frederick, was present.

Commissioner Stewart solicited comments from the applicant related to the staff report; Mr. Frederick offered no comments.

The public hearing was opened and closed at 1:55 p.m. with no one speaking for or against the project.

Mr. Norwood answered questions posed by the Commission related to Health Department and CALFIRE requirements.

MOTION:

It was moved by Commissioner Poulsen, seconded by Commissioner Albaugh, and carried to adopt Resolution No. 11-02-09, approving Negative Declaration and Subdivision Map #2009-003, Michael Frederick, subject to the conditions of approval; Commissioner Beckett was absent.

PUBLIC HEARING: NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND PARCEL MAP #2009-062, Tom Hammond.

Gaylon Norwood, Senior Planner, presented the staff report to divide a 3.31 acre parcel into two parcels. Proposed Parcel A would be 2.19 acres and proposed Parcel B would be 1.12 acres. The project site is zoned C-H (Commercial Highway) and is located approximately 1,800 feet northwest of the intersection of Highway 395 and Herlong Access Road (Co. Road A-25), and approximately ten miles northwest of Doyle. APN: 139-050-33. A power point presentation, including graphics, was shown.

Craig Settlemire, Lassen County Counsel, arrived at 1:58 p.m.

The applicant, Tom Hammond, and his representative, Everd McCain, were present.

Mr. Norwood entered correspondence into the record received from the Office of Planning and Research (Exhibit B). He reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Technical Advisory Committee meeting, summarized on page 6 of the staff report.

Commissioner Stewart solicited comments from the applicant related to the staff report; the applicant’s representative, Mr. McCain, offered no comments.

The public hearing was opened at 2:04 p.m.

Mr. McCain explained Mr. Hammond’s previous efforts to develop his property which had to be abandoned due to Caltrans’ requirements that he pave Tucker Road, make it an intersection and create a frontage road – cost prohibitive improvements that would kill his business. This proposal has been submitted to facilitate separate deeds of trust for his home and business, as they can’t adhere to Caltrans’ demands. The business has been here for approximately 40 years, and during Caltrans’ last highway improvement project, it widened and paved the access road, thereby acknowledging that Mr. Hammond has the right to access the highway. He stated that Caltrans has plans for this highway to become an expressway, which limits additional access to the highway and makes it difficult for property owners to develop their property. He believes that Caltrans feels it has a right to require an encroachment permit for anyone that accesses their highway, and they do have that right; however, an encroachment permit allows a property owner to conduct an activity on the highway – it has nothing to do with the property rights of that property to access the highway. All properties along that stretch of the highway have a legal right of access unless the deed explicitly restricts it. If the applicant has to obtain a letter from Caltrans as required in condition #6, Caltrans will require cost-prohibitive improvements; therefore, he requested that condition #6 be deleted.

Mr. McCain referred to page 6 of the staff report which addresses the issue of paving Tucker Lane, which he believes is unnecessary; he requested that the sentence, “As such the applicant will need to provide proof (i.e. an encroachment permit) from Caltrans approving the existing encroachments onto Highway 395” be deleted.

Mr. McCain referred to page 24 of the staff report, requesting that condition #6 of the draft resolution be found unnecessary and be deleted; the applicant is not establishing legal access (that’s a property owners’ right). Caltrans only grants an encroachment permit to control how you use the state right-of-way; as the applicant can’t make any improvements, there is no need for that condition.

Mr. Hammond, applicant, stated he had nothing further to add.

Rick Washabaugh, Milford Fire Protection District Chief, the Board has determined that this project would have no significant impact on the fire district.

The public hearing was closed at 2:12 p.m.

Mr. Norwood clarified the Health Department’s findings and conditions in response to Commissioner Albaugh.

The Commission asked for staff’s opinion of Mr. McCain’s concerns.

Discussion was held between Mr. McCain and John Ketelsen, Secretary, related to condition #6. Mr. McCain indicated that the applicant does not currently hold an encroachment permit – he is grandfathered in – and he is concerned that Caltrans will not provide a letter without requiring expensive improvements as they’ve indicated in the past.

A brief recess was held for staff to confer.

County Counsel Settlemire stated that he agrees that Mr. McCain’s statement is correct in that it is not necessary to have a note on the map related to change of ownership or change of use as requested by Caltrans, as it is just stating what the law is and would clutter up the map. There is no change of owners or use, so there is no need to get a new encroachment permit. Regarding Mr. McCain’s request to delete condition #6, staff agrees that there is evidence that there is an existing access to Highway 395, the property does abut highway 395, and unless Caltrans purchased right of access, the property owner does have a right to access the highway. If there were no current access there now, the County would probably want a title search of the property to ensure there was no relinquishment of the right of access, but that is unnecessary.

The Commission and staff concurred that page 6 of the staff report be amended to delete the last sentence from paragraph six related to “Paving of Tucker Lane,” and delete recommended condition of approval #6 from the draft resolution to address the applicants’ concerns.

MOTION:

It was moved by Commissioner Poulsen and seconded by Commissioner Purdy to adopt Resolution #11-03-09, approving Negative Declaration and Parcel Map #2009-062, Tom Hammond, subject to the conditions of approval with the following amendments: deletion of condition #6 requiring that the applicant provide proof of legal access from Caltrans to/from Highway 395; and page 6 of the staff report is amended to delete the last sentence from paragraph six related to “Paving of Tucker Lane” which reads, “As such the applicant will need to provide proof (i.e. an encroachment permit) from Caltrans approving the existing encroachments onto Highway 395.”

Responding to Commissioner Albaugh, Counsel Settlemire confirmed that if one of the parcels changed ownership, the new owner would be required to apply for a new encroachment permit from Caltrans.

VOTE:

Motion on the floor carried with Commissioners Poulsen, Purdy and Stewart voting ‘Aye’; Commissioner Albaugh voted ‘No’; Commissioner Beckett was absent.

PUBLIC HEARING: USE PERMIT #2009-053, Larry and Reta Standiford.

Thomas Maioli, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report to allow a digital display to be placed on an existing appurtenant sign, which currently advertises the business identified as “Skyline Self Storage.” The applicant proposes two digital displays, 34 square feet and 14 square feet each, that would display time and temperature in addition to other appurtenant advertising. Four additional signs (static), totaling 50 square feet, are also proposed to advertise appurtenant businesses only. The project site is zoned M-1 (Light Industrial District) and is 26.73 acres in size. The project site is located at 702-900 Johnstonville Road, Susanville, on the southeast side of the intersection of Big Sky Boulevard and Johnstonville Road. APN: 116-070-63. A graphic depicting the project site was shown.

The applicant, Larry Standiford, and his representative, Everd McCain, were present.

Mr. Maioli reviewed a timeline of activity with respect to this project, emphasizing that any advertising must be appurtenant to business conducted on the parcel.