County of Inyo

Board of Supervisors

The Board of Supervisors of the County of Inyo, State of California, met in special session at the hour of 8:30 a.m., on Monday, November 21, 2005, in the Board of Supervisors Room, County Administrative Center, Independence, with the following Supervisors present: Chairperson Ted Williams presiding, Linda Arcularius, Susan Cash, Jim Bilyeu, and Richard Cervantes. Supervisor Bilyeu provided the Invocation, and Supervisor Arcularius led the Pledge of Allegiance.

Public Comment

The Chairperson announced the public comment period, and there was no one from the public wishing to address the Board.

County Dept. Reports

The Chairperson announced the County Department Report period. Ms. Linda Anisman, Director of Child Support Services, updated the Board on the conversion of the disbursement payments to the State system, informing the Board that the system should be on line January 3, 2006.

CAO-Purchasing/ CSS Room Divider P. O.

Moved by Supervisor Bilyeu and seconded by Supervisor Cervantes to declare Allsteel, Inc., in c/o The Keller Group a sole source provider of super acoustic room dividers and approve the purchase of two sets of room dividers for Child Support Services from Allsteel, Inc., through State Contract #1-01-71-50 in an amount not to exceed $5,078.80 plus tax, freight charges and any applicable administration fees charged by the State of California. Motion carried unanimously.

P.W.-ESRA/Fed Ex Lease

Moved by Supervisor Bilyeu and seconded by Supervisor Cervantes to approve a two-year lease agreement with Federal Express Corporation, Inc., for a ground lease at the Eastern Sierra Regional Airport, in an amount not to exceed $510.41 per month, for the period of November 1, 2005, through September 30, 2007; and authorize the Chairperson to sign, contingent upon the appropriate signatures being obtained. Motion carried unanimously.

Clerk-Elections/ Statement of Votes Cast

Ms. Beverly Harry, Clerk-Recorder, briefly reported on the results of the new voting machines used during the most recent election, with the Board offering their thanks to all of the Staff and poll workers who helped make the transition a success. Moved by Supervisor Arcularius and seconded by Supervisor Bilyeu to A) order accepted the Statement of All Votes Cast at the November 8, 2005 Consolidated Special Statewide Election; B) declare passed or failed those measures under your jurisdiction; and C) declare elected or appoint in lieu of election the winners in those contests under your jurisdiction. Motion carried unanimously.

Rd. Dept./ Change in Authorized Strength

Moved by Supervisor Cash and seconded by Supervisor Bilyeu to A) change the authorized strength in the Road Department by deleting one BPAR (16-29.99 hrs./wk.) Road Maintenance Worker I position at Range 50A ($11.86 per hour) and adding one BPAR (16-29.99 hrs./wk.) Account Technician II position at Range 59A ($14.61 per hour); and B) waive the hiring freeze and authorize the recruitment and filling of one BPAR Account Technician One position at Range 59A. Motion carried unanimously.

Rd. Dept./ Storage Container P. O.

Moved by Supervisor Bilyeu and seconded by Supervisor Arcularius to A) approve the purchase of one storage container from Martin Container, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $6,250.75, including sales tax and delivery; and B) amend the FY 2005-06 Road Budget Unit 034600 by decreasing appropriations in Office & Other Equipment <$5,000 (Object Code #5232) by $6,251; and increasing appropriations in Other Equipment >$5,000 (Object Code #5670) by $6,251. Motion carried unanimously.

CAO-Purchasing/ Transit Program Office Furniture P. O.

Moved by Supervisor Cervantes and seconded by Supervisor Arcularius to A) reject the bid submitted by Prison Industry Authority for items 4 and 13 of Bid No. 2005-02 for cabinets; B) award items 1-16 of Bid No. 2005-02 to multiple vendors and approve the purchase of office furniture as recommend by Staff in an amount not to exceed $7,128.16 plus tax; and C) amend the FY Transit Program Budget Unit 153101 as follows: increase appropriations in Office and Other Equipment <$5,000 (Object Code #5232) by $4,000; and decrease appropriations in Office Equipment >$5,000 (Object Code #5669 ) by $4,000. Motion carried unanimously.

BofS/Minute Approval

Supervisor Cash asked that the spelling of Stottlemyre be corrected. Moved by Supervisor Cash and seconded by Supervisor Cervantes to approve the minutes of the November 8, 2005, Board of Supervisors Meeting, as corrected. Motion carried unanimously.

Resol. #2005-58/ Owens Valley School Bonds

On a motion by Supervisor Bilyeu and a second by Supervisor Cervantes Resolution No. 2005-58, entitled “Resolution of the Board of Supervisors, County of Inyo, State of California Authorizing the Governing Board of the Owens Valley Unified School District to Issue and Sell General Obligations Bonds of the District on Its own Behalf Pursuant to State Law,” was adopted: motion unanimously passed and adopted.

Closed Session

The Chairperson recessed open session at 8:50 a.m., to convene in closed session to discuss Agenda Items No. 15. PERSONNEL – [Pursuant to Government Code § 54957] Public Employee Performance Evaluation, Title: Director of Planning; No. 16. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR [Pursuant to Government Code §54957.6] Instructions to Negotiators re: wages, salaries and benefits, Title: Director of Planning - Negotiators: Members of the Board of Supervisors as designated; and No. 17.

CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR [Pursuant to Government Code §54957.6] Instructions to Negotiators re: wages, salaries and benefits, Employee Organization: ICEA - Negotiators: CAO Ron Juliff. The Chairperson recessed closed session at 10:05 a.m., to reconvene in open session at 10:30 a.m., with all Board Members present.

Planning/GPA #2005-04/Fortney

The Chairperson opened the public hearing at 10:30 a.m., on General Plan Amendment No. 2005-08/Fortney (to be re-numbered to 2005-04 by this action), Specific Plan No. 2004-01/Fortney and a proposed ordinance approving Zone Reclassification #2004-07/Fortney. Ms. Adena Fansler, Assistant Planner, reviewed the Staff Report and recommendations. At the conclusion of her remarks, Ms. Fansler requested that the Staff Report and all the attachments be entered into the record and they were marked Exhibit A. As a result of a question from the Board regarding the Planning Commission’s change to allow for advertising of this project, as required by California Code, which was not reflected in the information presented for the Board’s consideration, the Chairperson recessed the public hearing at 10:35 a.m., with direction to Staff to correct the Specific Plan covering this project and return later in the day to continue the hearing.

Planning/Appeal of Alser Project

The Chairperson opened the public hearing at 10:35 a.m., to c onsider Dave Mason and Roy W. Harthorn’s appeal of the Planning Commission decision to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-04/Alser and to consider the updated information and new comments submitted since the Planning Commission hearing of August 25, 2004. The Planning Director, Ms. Leslie Klusmire, reviewed the Staff Report and explained in detail the Staff’s recommendations regarding the Appeal of the Alser Project. Ms. Klusmire also reviewed the alternative recommendation presented by the Assistant County Counsel which would implement the zoning variance process, explaining that she had concern with setting a precedent by implementing something that a property owner had not requested. At the conclusion of her comments, Ms. Klusmire requested that the Staff Report and all of the attachments be entered into the record and they were marked Exhibit A. The Clerk requested that an email letter and the attachements dated November 18, 2005, from Mr. Michael W. Shonafelt of Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott, LLP, Attorney’s for the Alsers, be entered into the record and it was marked Exhibit B. Ms. Jan Larson requested that the following correspondence received after the Agenda was published be entered and they were marked as follows:

Exhibit C. An email letter from Mr. David Mason, documenting remarks Mr. Mason expected to make during today’s hearing, to Randy Keller dated November 17, 2005;

Exhibit D. An email to the Planning Department from Eldon Wilkins, dated November 17, 2005, supporting the appeal.

Supervisor Arcularius requested that the following information received by her be entered into the record and they were marked as follows:

Exhibit E. A November 14, 2005 letter from Sharon E. Ford supporting the appeal;

Exhibit F. An October 20, 2005 letter from Dustin Drew supporting the appeal;

Exhibit G. An October 31, 2005 letter from Dr. Jeannette Schneider and Joanne Schneider supporting the appeal;

Exhibit H. An October 31, 2005 letter from Alois Geiger supporting the appeal;

Exhibit I. An October 31, 2005 faxed letter from James Archer, supporting the appeal;

Exhibit J. A November 4, 2005 letter from Tim & Charlene Reed supporting the appeal; and

Exhibit K. An October 31, 2005 letter from Elfriede Geiger supporting the appeal.

The Chairperson called a brief recess at 10:48 a.m., to allow the Board the opportunity to review the information which had just been placed in the record. The Chairperson reconvened the public hearing at 11:10 a.m., with all Board Members present. The Planning Director reviewed the history of the Alser project in detail. In her discussion, Ms. Klusmire used diagrams she drew of the subject property as visual aids and they were entered in to the record as Exhibits L and M. The Board and Staff discussed the CUP process, encroachment rules and guidelines, setback requirements, as well as the variance process. Mr. James Stewart, Attorney for the Appelant, Mr. Mason, addressed the Board to present Mr. Mason’s objections to the Alser project and to the changes in the recommendation regarding Condition 5 and the addition of Condition 6. Mr. Andy Holmes of Triad Holmes Engineering, provided information regarding his survey of the Alser property and to support the appeal. Mr. Holmes requested that his survey of the site dated 9-28-05 and a photograph of the subject property be entered into the record and they were marked Exhibit N and O. The Chairperson recessed the public hearing at 12:00 p.m., to reconvene at 1:00 p.m., with all Board Members present.

The Planning Director presented a copy of the plans for the Alser project and requested that it be entered and it was marked Exhibit P. Mr. Ron Chegwidden, Public Works Director, provided additional clarification on the photograph of the property, explaining that the structures show the framing for the detached deck. Mr. Harthorn, the Appelant, made an overhead presentation to justify his support of the appeal, copies of which he requested be entered and they were marked Exhibit Q. Mr. Dave Mason, the Appelant, commented on the project and submitted the site plans and photographs of the Alser property to support the appeal and they were marked Exhibit R. Mr. Mason also submitted an alternative recommendation for the building and the site which would be acceptable to him and it was marked Exhibit S. Mr. Neil McCarrol, Co-Council for the Appelants, requested that this project be returned to the Planning Commission for consideration of the amended recommendations. Mr. Michael Shonaflet, Attorney for the Alsers addressed the Board to highlight the Alser’s concerns with the appeal, the CUP and other County planning and building processes. Mr. and Mrs. Alser also addressed the Board to provide clarification on their project and the building timelines, and submitted photographs of the site which were marked Exhibits T and U. The Board, Staff and various members of the audience continued to discuss the project and the exhibits which had been submitted. Mr. Alser submitted a photograph of a property in the area which appeared to not conform to setback requirements and it was marked Exhibit V. Mr. Dustin Drew, an adjacent property owner, submitted for the record two diagrams and photographs to support the appeal and they were marked Exhibit W. Mr. James Archer, Aspendell Resident, supported the appeal and requested the Board reject the CUP and adhere to existing setback requirements. Ms. Joanne Schneider, Aspendell Resident, supported the appeal and entered into the record a one page map of the Aspendell Subdivision which was marked as Exhibit X and photographs of the site from the roadways which were marked Exhibit Y. Mr. Roger Wilhelm, Aspendell Resident, supported the appeal and submitted his written comments for the record and it was marked Exhibit Z. Ms. Peggy Wilhelm also addressed the Board to support the appeal. The Board, Staff and members of the audience continued to discuss the project. The Applicant’s Attorney requested a continuance in order to prepare a rebuttal to information presented at today’s hearing. The Board took a short recess to provide the Alsers the opportunity to confer with their counsel. The Chairperson recessed the public hearing at 4:00 p.m., reconvening at 4:15 p.m., with all Board Members present. Mr. Shonafelt, requested that whatever action is taken regarding the project, that the Alsers be given the opportunity to winterize their home in order to protect against storm damage. After further discussion, the Chairperson recessed the public hearing on the Alser project at 4:20 p.m., explaining that the Board would revisit this item after the Board had considered the remaining items on the Board’s agenda.

Resol. #2005-59/ GPA #2005-04/

Fortney

The Chairperson reopened the public hearing at 4:30 p.m., to consider General Plan Amendment No. 2005-08/Fortney (to be re-numbered to 2005-04 by this action), Specific Plan No. 2004-01/Fortney and a proposed ordinance approving Zone Reclassification #2004-07/Fortney. Staff presented the Board with an amended Site Plan, which changed Condition #2 to allow signage as required by State law and it was marked Exhibit B. The Chairperson closed the public hearing at 4:35 p.m.

On a motion by Supervisor Bilyeu and a second by Supervisor Cash, Resolution No. 2005-59 entitled “A Resolution of the Board of Supervisors, County of Inyo, State of California, Adopting and Certifying the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact Prepared Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act for General Plan Amendment No. 2005-04/Fortney, Specific Plan No. 2004-01/Fortney and Zone Reclassification No. 2004-07/Fortney and Approving General Plan Amendment No. 2005-04/Fortney and Specific Plan No. 2004-01/Fortney,” which also amends the Land Use Element of the Inyo County General Plan by re-designating ½-acre of the 9.2 acre property located at 150 Tinnemaha in the community of Aberdeen from “Resort/Recreational” to “Retail Commercial” and establishes a Specific Plan covering the ½-acre and allowing for signage as required by law, was adopted: motion unanimously passed and adopted.

Moved by Supervisor Bilyeu and seconded by Supervisor Cash to waive the first reading of an ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Inyo, State of California, Approving Zone Reclassification No. 2004-07/Fortney and Amending the Zoning Map of Inyo County, by Reclassifying a ½-acre Parcel in the Community of Aberdeen from Commercial Recreation, 5.0-Acre Minimum (C-5-5.0) to Highway Services and Tourist Commercial, 0.5-Acre Minimum (C-2-0.5);” and schedule the enactment of the Ordinance for 10:00 a.m., Tuesday, December 13, 2005, in the Board of Supervisors Room, at the County Administrative Center in Independence. Motion carried unanimously.

Planning/GPA #2005-04/

LADWP

The Chairperson opened the public hearing at 4:40 p.m., on recommended actions for a 2.63 acre site located on Sunland Reservation Road, between the Bishop Community Landfill and Eastern Sierra Propane (within APN 13-020-07) as follows: (a) General Plan Amendment 2005-04/LADWP to change the General Plan designation of the site from “Public Service Facility (PF)” to “General Industrial (GI)”; and (b) an ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Inyo State of California Approving Zone Reclassification #2005-01/LADWP and Amending Title 18 of the Inyo County Code, the Inyo County Zoning Ordinance, by Reclassifying the Site from Public (P) to General Industrial & Extractive (M-1). Ms. Tanda Gretz, Associate Planner, reviewed the Staff Report and recommendations and at the conclusion of her presentation, she requested that the Staff Report and all attachments be entered into the record and it was marked Exhibit A. Supervisor Arcularius expressed her concern with the possibility of lighting intrusion and requested that the Applicant be cognizant of lighting concerns. There being no further comments, the Chairperson closed the public hearing at 4:50 p.m.

Resol. #2005-60/ GPA 2005-04/ LADWP

On a motion by Supervisor Arcularius and a second by Supervisor Bilyeu, Resolution No. 2005-60 was adopted, approving General Plan Amendment #2005-04/LADWP; Rezone #2005-01/LADWP; and Certify that the Requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been met; motion unanimously passed and adopted.

Moved by Supervisor Arcularius and seconded by Supervisor Bilyeu to waive the first reading of the ordinance and schedule the enactment for 10:00 a.m., Tuesday, December 13, 2005, in the Board of Supervisors Room, at the County Administrative Center, in Independence. Motion carried unanimously.

Resol. #2005-61/LORP

EIR/EIS Certified

Mr. Tom Brooks, Inyo County Water Director, and Mr. Greg James, Special Counsel, reviewed the request for the Board to consider the information contained in the EIR/EIS for the Lower Owens River Project per Section 15050(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines which require the Board to review and consider the information in the EIR/EIS before acting on the Project. They reviewed the Staff Report and recommendations concerning the project. The Board, Mr. Brooks and Mr. James discussed the project in detail and at length, including the exclusion of the brine pool, the mutual agreements which will be necessitated by the LORP project moving forward, the permitting process and the project timelines. Mr. George Milovich, Agricultural Commissioner, addressed the weed control and mosquito abatement issues associated with the project. Mr. Scott Kemp, Lessee, addressed the issue of adaptive management and the need for constant monitoring to ensure that adaptive management is being implemented.

On a motion by Supervisor Bilyeu and a second by Supervisor Cervantes, Resolution No. 2005-61 was adopted, certifying the Lower Owens River Project EIR/EIS and approving the Lower Owens River Project (“LORP”) as follows:

       Certifies that the Board has reviewed and considered the information in the EIR/EIS;

       Certifies that, except for the portion of the EIR/EIS that addresses the impacts of the LORP on the “brine pool transition area,” the EIR/EIS has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of CEQA;

       Approves and adopts the findings contained in the document titled “Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations” (Exhibit 1 to the Resolution) that describe the potential environmental impacts of the proposed LORP and of the mitigation measures that will minimize all but two of the impacts of the project to a level that is less than significant;

     Approves and adopts the mitigation measures for the LORP identified in the EIR/EIS (the mitigation measures include funding from the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (“LADWP”) to the County for the County to conduct control of noxious species (the implementation of this funding will require the execution of a new agreement between LADWP and the County), and funding to the County, as required by an existing order of the Inyo County Superior Court, to conduct salt cedar control);

     Adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations contained in the document titled “Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations” (Exhibit 1 to the Resolution) for the two impacts of the LORP that cannot be feasibly mitigated to a less than significant level ( w ater quality degradation from initial channel rewatering due to suspension of organic material, and fish kills which may occur due to the water quality degradation) ;

     Adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit 2 to the Resolution) which describes the mitigation measures, their implementation, the parties responsible for their implementation, the method of reporting on the implementation of the mitigation measures, and the parties responsible for the reporting;

     Approves the LORP, directs staff to proceed with the joint implementation and funding of the project with LADWP (including the development of required agreements and protocols between LADWP and the County concerning mosquito, deleterious species and salt cedar control), and directs staff to consider the issuance of grading and building permits required for the project (under the Water Agreement, the County is obligated to pay one-half of the initial construction costs of the project, up to $3.75 million, and once the LORP has been constructed and completed, the County and LADWP are obligated to jointly operate and fund the non-pumpback portions of the project--these obligations remain in effect whether or not the County certifies the EIR/EIS and/or approves the LORP); and,

     Authorizes and directs the Director of the Inyo County Water Department to file a “Notice of Determination” for the project.

Motion carried unanimously.

Recess/

Reconvene

The Chairperson recessed the special meeting at 5:35 p.m., reconvening at 5:40 p.m., with all Board Members present.

Resol. #2005-62/Appeal of Alser Project

The Chairperson reconvened the public hearing at 5:40 p.m. to consider Dave Mason and Roy W. Harthorn’s appeal of the Planning Commission decision to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-04/Alser . The Clerk entered into the record a verbal statement received during the break from Ms. Susan Chalakian, Aspendell Resident, supporting the Alser Project. The Board received rebuttal comments made by the Attorney’s representing the Appellants and the Alsers. The Board, Staff and members of the audience continued to discuss the project, with the Planning Director acknowledging that mistakes had been made. The Chairperson closed the public hearing at 6:54 p.m. The Board deliberated the matter, with the Board encouraging the Alsers to pursue a variance as identified in Condition #6 of Staff’s recommendation.

Moved by Supervisor Arcularius and seconded by Supervisor Bilyeu to d eny the appeal and affirm the August 25, 2004 Planning Commission decision by approving the amended site plan stamped received July 15, 2005, revising as follows: Condition 5 to: 5. The applicant shall construct the building with no greater encroachment into any setbacks than shown on the site plan stamped received July 15, 2005, and considered by the Inyo County Board of Supervisors; and by adding Condition 6: This Conditional Use Permit is not valid and shall not be issued until the front deck has been redesigned and approved within the allowable front yard setback; or the Planning Commission has approved a variance for front yard encroachments. The presence of this condition does not infer there are adequate grounds for a variance or that the Planning Commission is compelled to grant a variance. The granting of a variance is a discretionary act and must meet certain findings. The granting of a variance to allow the currently proposed front yard encroachment is not inferred or guaranteed; and C) adopt Resolution No. 2005-62, entitled “A Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the county of Inyo, State of California, Denying the Appeal and Affirming the Inyo County Planning Commission Decision to Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-04/Alser Concerning Property Located at 199 Cataract Road in the Community of Aspendell, 19 Miles Southwest of Bishop by Approving the Amended Site Plan Received July 15, 2005, Revising Conditions 5 and Adding Condition 6.” Motion carried unanimously. At the conclusion of the Board’s action, the Planning Director requested permission to waive the Variance fee should the Alsers request a zone variance and it was given.

Report on Closed Session

The Chairperson requested a report on closed session and County Counsel reported there were no items discussed in closed session, which were required by law to be reported on in open session.

Adjournment

The Chairperson adjourned the special meeting at 7:05 p.m.