BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SPECIAL MEETING
The Lassen
County Board of Supervisors convenes in Special Session at
Also
Present: Planning Commissioners Mark
Totten, Aaron Albaugh, Bob Beckett, Rick Stewart. Commissioner Toni Poulsen enters after the
meeting begins.
AGENDA
APPROVAL, ADDITIONS AND/OR DELETIONS
It is moved by
Supervisor Pyle, seconded by Supervisor Hanson and carried to approve the
agenda as posted.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Susanville
resident Dimitrous Fylaktos presents detailed information on a complaint he has
presented to the Clerk’s office on behalf of Lauren Argyriadis against the
County. Chairman Dahle accepts a copy of
the information and states the matter will be referred to Supervisor Chapman to
investigate and report back to the Board at a later date. Public comment closes at
JOINT WORKSHOP
– LASSEN
Assistant
Community Development Director Joe Bertotti reports the County team that has
been working on the Dyer Mountain Project includes County Administrative
Officer (CAO)
Mr. Bertotti
presents historical information regarding the
This is the
first major resort planned since the enactment of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and it is important to understand that on the environmental
analytical side we are attempting to conform with not only the act as it has
become effective in the early 70s but in the way it has evolved and is still
evolving. This is the first development
agreement to be created for development of a voter approved project. This is also the first project processed by
the County using the updated environmental review guidelines (amended at the
request of DMA) to allow more of a peer review process with the EIR. The project has presented many challenges.
Cathy
Spence-Wells presents a power point presentation on the
Development
Concept Plan Components: Phased
development of +-6,780 acres; four season resort; 4,104 residential dwelling
units; +607,000 square feet of commercial, retail, support and common areas;
recreational: 3 golf courses (+- 300
acres), reservoir access, downhill skiing (+-600 acres) facilities with a
design capacity of 9,500 people.
Project
Revisions: Many revisions occurred in
response to policy, market and environmental issues: Applicant has submitted a revised proposed
parcel map; the wastewater treatment system has been revised; there will be no
new surface water use; Deerheart Meadow will remain a permanent open
space.
There has been
a change in land ownership with Dyer Mountain Associates’ purchase of the
southern area of the side of the mountain from
Parcel Map: Parcel map shown is a total of 7,007 acres
and has been revised somewhat from the previous submittal.
EIR Process
and Timelines: The key steps
in the EIR process public workshops and hearings were held to review each
document; the draft circulation was extended two weeks beyond the 45 days
required based on comments received at one of the earlier workshops. The final EIR should be published in June.
Required Final
EIR Contents: CEQA Guidelines
requires a Final EIR to contain the Draft EIR or a revision; comments and
recommendations received on the Draft EIR; a list of persons, organizations and
public agencies that commented; responses to significant points raised in
comments; and any other information added by the Lead Agency.
Final EIR
Organization: Consists of six
Volumes - Introduction, Master Responses, Agency Comments and Responses,
Individual Comments and Responses, Consolidated EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program and Appendices.
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting Plan (MMRP):
Required by CEQA in order to document compliance with all the mitigation
measures outlined in the EIR. The MMRP
identifies the necessary timing of implementation, the parties responsible for
funding implementation and the mechanism for monitoring compliance with each of
the mitigation measures in the EIR. The
applicant or developer for each development phase is required to demonstrate
compliance with applicable mitigation measures as they’re listed in the MMRP
through preparation of project compliance reports and annual mitigation
reports. Both of which will be reviewed
and verified by
Attorney Rick
Crabtree reports he has been working closely with the EIR consultants and with
planning staff on the Dyer Mountain Project.
He states he has spent the last few months reviewing all of the comments
and all of the draft responses, hundreds of pages, and he states
2000
Initiative: In 2000 the
Initiative adopted a General Plan Amendment establishing one land use
designation for the entire project area – Mountain Resort (MR) that allows
varied uses: four season mountain resort, single family and multi-family
residential, commercial, public facilities, lodges, clubs, hotels, inns, skiing
facilities, marinas, campgrounds, restaurants and related businesses and
permits a very wide variety of uses.
Some policies that were adopted provide more guidance as to how the
resort area is to develop. The
initiative states the land uses shall be planned through a mixed-use village or
town center plan. The village/town
center uses could include a mixture of permanent and vacation housing,
restaurants, retail shopping, offices and community facilities. Other residential neighborhoods integrated
with skiing, golf, other recreational amenities and mixed-use commercial
facilities shall be incorporated into the overall plan.
Initiative Zoning:
The initiative adopted a zoning ordinance change that is primarily
Mountain Resort, encompasses most of the project area and is similar to those
described in the General Plan Amendment.
Some other zones include timber harvest protection, hydroelectric
district and some other miscellaneous zones.
The General Plan Amendment and zoning were both adopted by initiative
and, with a few exceptions, can only be changed in the future by an initiative. This has presented a planning challenge. The
Other Initiative Provisions:
The initiative requires the County comply with CEQA prior to the
County’s approval of subdivision maps or other implementation of the
measure. CEQA work is being done on the
overall vision of the project. Other
provisions for the initiative indicate that the zoning might be changed if done
at the request of the landowner of the affected property. Also, the zoning may be amended by the Board
if after 7 years construction has not been initiated with respect to ski
facilities.
Development
Agreement (DA): The DA was
created by the legislature in response to developers saying they need more
certainty in the process, that they can’t build large, multi-faceted projects
unless it is known at the beginning of the process that they would have
guaranteed entitlement. They could need
assurances up front in order to secure financing. The DA is an optional process and must be by
mutual consent. If approved by the
Board, the DA would give the developer assurances they have approvals to move
forward with the various phases of the project. The County gets agreement from the developer
to help implement things the County needs to see – adequate public
infrastructure, public improvements, orderly development, and planned uses that
are compatible. Normal nexus requirements and rules do not apply with a DA,
which gives more flexibility in working with the developer and in negotiating
conditions in the DA.
Draft DA
Provisions: In working with
DMA some new terms were invented in conjunction with the EIR such as
Development Manuals/Project Compliance Reports and Annual Mitigation Reports
(reports submitted annually or with an application for new subdivision
map). These documents help insure that
all mitigation measures are implemented as the process goes forward. The DA is a tool to help insure that all
mitigation measures happen. These new
planning tools help insure that the project is well planned and that the County
is protected in the future.
The twelve
point “Dyer Mountain Development Agreement
Key Points” dated
Further
discussion is held.
Jim McCarthy
of Gold Run Realty states that he voted for this initiative seven years ago and
had a vision that with the public support, our local government and staff would
not have to worry about being constantly second-guessed; it was a kind of
mandate to get something done. He states
he came today with an expectation of hearing a solution to the log jam that has
stopped DM from ever happening; has heard a lot of history of what has happened
but it appears that there’s nobody here that’s able to function in that
manner. This may be something that’s
beyond the ability of
Steve Pezzullo
states he agrees with Mr. McCarthy. He
says the agenda states “provide direction to staff” and he urges the Board to
provide direction to staff to implement the vote on the
Standish
resident Richard Parker states he also voted for the initiative and expected
our leaders to get it done. He states
that no one can anticipate everything that is going to happen in a project of
this size but you can plan so hard it will never get done. He states as a potential buyer he is not
worried about being protected from the Fire Department but this should have
been done seven years ago – we should be talking about how we’re going to get
it done, not all the things it’s not going to do.
Plumas County
resident Aaron Seandle asks the Board what conversations has anyone had with
the people from Plumas County on the certain implications of the DM project,
specifically traffic mitigation and traffic concerns on State Hwy. 147. He also asks about the water quality issues
affecting
Supervisor
Chapman responds that a workshop was held last summer on the project and Plumas
County Supervisor Dennison and others were specifically asked to participate in
a meeting on the project, but the proposed meeting never happened. Supervisor Chapman feels
Supervisor
Pyle replies that former Supervisor Dennison and his successor Sherrie Thrall
have met with him on the Almanor Regional Transportation Assessment (ARTA – a
planning document for the
Steve Robinson
of Mountain Meadows Conservancy states there is a concern regarding fire
protection; states there are areas where you cannot get a truck down right
now. He suggests reading the Pacific Gas
& Electric (PG&E) comments on the revised Draft EIR and questions a
requirement of a fence with guards.
Bill Abbott,
Attorney for DMA thanks everyone for taking time out of their busy schedules to
come and give staff some feedback. Staff
has worked very diligently with the material we’ve been able to provide. He states that Supervisor Pyle’s comment that
this process is also driven by the developer and how quickly the developer
would work is appropriate. He further
states that a number of issues have been addressed in the DA that were not
originally recognized and he appreciates the feedback.
Peggy Fulder
from Westwood asks what are the ramifications of the phrase that the
intitiative may be amended by the Board of Supervisors if no facility has been developed
in seven years; and how significant is this kind of deadline. Supervisor Pyle asks Mr. Crabtree if there
needs to be buildings or if there has to be an agreement prior to the seven
year deadline. Mr. Crabtree responds
that the provision says that at the end of 7 years the board would have the
discretion to change things if it wanted to if ski facilities had not yet been
constructed, or begun to be constructed.
At the end of 7 years if nothing has happened under the terms of the
initiative then the Board would have the ability to modify the zoning and
general plan land use amendments adopted by the initiative, if that is what the
Board chooses to do. The Board would be
under no requirement to do that but
would have that as an option if this contingency is not met. Supervisor Chapman states that the Board
would have the ability to amend the ordinance (zoning) and put back into place
either the zoning that pre-existed or some other zoning. It would take a Board action to do that.
Supervisor
Keefer states that he wants to keep moving forward; thinks the plan is a good one
and there are a lot of issues that have to be resolved; bring the issue to
closure. He commends staff on the work
done.
CAO Ketelsen
states that sometimes projects that do not involve ski resorts and sensitive
environmental areas take far longer to develop than 7 years; this has gone
fairly quickly. He commends staff and
Mr. Crabtree on the presentation and the Board on their questions. He asks if there are any significant changes
to the DA that may affect the EIR. He
asks if the Commissioner and Supervisors are happy with the EIR on the project
presented by the developers. The
Commissioners and Supervisors should be satisfied that they do not want to
change things.
Discussion is
held on what time frame can be worked out and what needs to be done first. It is moved by Supervisor Chapman that staff
be directed to present to the Board of Supervisors, no later than June 15, a
draft Development Agreement signed by
the proponents so it can be considered by the Board prior to taking action
within two weeks on the Final EIR.
Supervisor Pyle seconds the motion.
Supervisor
Pyle asks Supervisor Chapman if he wants to change the dates from June. Supervisor Chapman states he wants the motion
to state June and he wants the public to know that the Board is ready to
consider and act on this matter.
Chairman Dahle
and Supervisor Chapman clarify Supervisor Chapman’s motion:
It is to have
the Development Agreement signed by the developer by June 15. The motion to
receive and discuss the draft Development Agreement is carried unanimously on a
roll call vote.
Mr. Bertotti explains
that the earlier reference to the June date for the final EIR was for the
completion of the physical publication.
Mr. Bertotti reviews time frames for the Planning Commission, the Board
of Supervisors and public hearings. The Board
could review the draft DA at its June 19 meeting, and if acceptable would release
it then. After a Public Hearing of the Planning
Commission, their recommendation would be presented to the Board of Supervisors
on the parcel map, the recommendation on the DA and the certification of the
EIR. Discussion is held regarding the
Planning Commission schedule and the Planning Commission states they will hold
a special meeting July 11 at
There being no
further business, the meeting is adjourned at
______________________________
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS
ATTEST:
_______________________________________
JULIE
BUSTAMANTE, CLERK OF THE BOARD