Adobe Acrobat Reader 0

SUP. BURKE: THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATIONS. SUP. MOLINA, CHAIR

Download 495.34 Kb. Page 3/13 Date 17.08.2017 Size 495.34 Kb. #33897

Navigate this page:

• CLERK VARONA-LUKENS
• SUP. MOLINA, CHAIR
• WILLIAM ROOT
• SUP. ANTONOVICH
• SPEAKER
• RICHARD WAGNER
• SUP. YAROSLAVSKY

SUP. BURKE: THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATIONS. SUP. MOLINA, CHAIR: ANY OTHER PRESENTATIONS? SUP. BURKE: I'VE CONCLUDED MY PRESENTATIONS. SUP. MOLINA, CHAIR: OKAY. IT IS NOW 11:10, WE CAN NOW BEGIN OUR MEETING ON OUR ITEMS. ALL RIGHT. WE ARE GOING TO START WITH OUR... CLERK VARONA-LUKENS: MADAM CHAIR, I'D ASK ALL OF THOSE WHO PLAN TO TESTIFY ON ANY OF THE PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS TO PLEASE STAND, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, AND BE SWORN IN. SUP. MOLINA, CHAIR: AND THOSE ITEMS ARE WHAT? CLERK VARONA-LUKENS: THOSE ITEMS ARE... SUP. MOLINA, CHAIR: 1 THROUGH... CLERK VARONA-LUKENS: 1 THROUGH 9. SUP. MOLINA, CHAIR: 1 THROUGH 9. CLERK VARONA-LUKENS: [ ADMINISTERING OATH ] CLERK VARONA-LUKENS: THANK YOU. PLEASE BE SEATED. OKAY. SUP. MOLINA, CHAIR: ALL RIGHT. FIRST ITEM IS... CLERK VARONA-LUKENS: WE HAVE THE HEARING ON ANNEXATION OF 18 PARCELS TO THE CONSOLIDATED SEWER MAINTENANCE DISTRICT WITHIN UNINCORPORATED TERRITORIES AND THE CITIES OF LANCASTER AND PALMDALE AND THE LEVYING OF ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007 AND WE HAVE NO WRITTEN PROTESTS, MADAM CHAIR. SUP. MOLINA, CHAIR: NO WRITTEN PROTESTS? WE DO HAVE A REPORT? NICHOLAS ABIBO: YES, MADAM CHAIR. MY NAME IS NICOLAS ABIBO. I'M A SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. I AM FAMILIAR WITH THESE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNEXATION AND LEVY OF SEWER SERVICE CHARGES FOR THE 18 PARCELS DESCRIBED IN THE BOARD LETTER TO BE CONSOLIDATED AS SEWER MAINTENANCE DISTRICT. SOME OF THE PARCELS TO BE ANNEXED LIE WITHIN THE CITIES OF LANCASTER AND PALMDALE AND THE CONSENT AND JURISDICTION OF THOSE CITIES HAS BEEN OBTAINED. IN MY OPINION, ALL THE 18 PARCELS TO BE ANNEXED WILL BE BENEFITED BY THE ANNEXATION AND THE SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED. IN MY OPINION, THE SEWER CHARGES HAVE BEEN FAIRLY IMPOSED. SUP. MOLINA, CHAIR: THAT COMPLETES THE REPORT? OKAY. WE HAVE NO ONE HERE TO TESTIFY ON THIS ITEM. SHOULD WE MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? RICHARD WEISS: YES, MADAM CHAIR, AND THE MATTER IS BEFORE YOU. SUP. MOLINA, CHAIR: ALL RIGHT. THE HEARING IS CLOSED BY SUPERVISOR ANTONOVICH, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR BURKE AND I GUESS THE ITEM IS BEFORE US? MOVED BY SUPERVISOR ANTONOVICH, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR BURKE. IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, SO ORDERED. THANK YOU, SIR. CLERK VARONA-LUKENS: OKAY. ITEM NUMBER 2, HEARING ON ANNEXATION OF APPROVED TENTATIVE SUBDIVISIONS TO COUNTY LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1687 AND COUNTY LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA-1, UNINCORPORATED ZONE, AND TO LEVY AND COLLECT ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS FOR STREET LIGHTING PURPOSES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006. WE HAVE NO WRITTEN PROTESTS, MADAM CHAIR. ANTHONY NYIVIH: MY NAME IS ANTHONY NYIVIH AND I'M A SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. I AM FAMILIAR WITH THESE PROCEEDINGS FOR ANNEXATION OF THE SIX SUBDIVISION AREAS DESCRIBED IN THE BOARD LETTER TO LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1687 AND COUNTY LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA-1, UNINCORPORATED ZONE, FOR THE LEVYING AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENT WITHIN IN THE SUBDIVISION AREAS. ALTHOUGH THE SUBDIVISION AREAS LIE WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF ANY CITY, IN MY OPINION, THE SUBDIVISION AREAS WILL HAVE BENEFITED BY THE ASSESSMENT AND BY THE ANNEXATION AND THE SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED AND THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN SPREAD IN PROPORTION TO BENEFITS. IN THE EVENT THAT THERE ARE NO MAJORITY PROTESTS, WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT YOUR BOARD ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION TO ANNEX AND LEVY THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS AND THAT YOU APPROVE AND ACCEPT THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUES FOR THE NON-EXCEPT TAXING AGENCIES AS IDENTIFIED IN THE BOARD LETTER. CLERK VARONA-LUKENS: AND, MADAM CHAIR, WE DIDN'T HAVE ANYONE TO SIGN UP ON ITEM NUMBER 2. BUT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE, AT THIS TIME, TO CLOSE THE HEARING, DIRECT THE TABULATION OF BALLOTS AND TABLE THE ITEM UNTIL LATER IN THE MEETING FOR TABULATION RESULTS AND ACTION BY YOUR BOARD. SUP. MOLINA, CHAIR: SO MOVED. SUP. ANTONOVICH: SECONDED. SUP. MOLINA, CHAIR: ALL RIGHT. IT'S MOVED BY SUPERVISOR ANTONOVICH, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR BURKE. SO ORDERED ON THAT. SO WE'LL GET THAT TABULATION LATER IN THE HEARING. OKAY. ITEM NUMBER 3. CLERK VARONA-LUKENS: HEARING ON PURCHASE OF 50.88 ACRES OF UNIMPROVED REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN MARSHALL CANYON AREA OF CITY OF LA VERNE AND THE ADJACENT UNINCORPORATED AREA FROM THE TRUST OF PUBLIC LAND IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,310,000. WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY WRITTEN PROTESTS FOR THIS, MADAM CHAIR. SUP. MOLINA, CHAIR: ALL RIGHT. IS THERE A REPORT ON THAT ITEM OR IT'S JUST BEFORE US? ALL RIGHT. IF WE ARE PREPARED, WE CAN CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. SUP. ANTONOVICH: SO MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE ITEM. SUP. MOLINA, CHAIR: OKAY, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TO MOVE THE ITEM, MOVED BY SUPERVISOR ANTONOVICH, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR YAROSLAVSKY. IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, SO ORDERED ON ITEM NUMBER 3. CLERK VARONA-LUKENS: NUMBER 4, HEARING TO PURCHASE 4.65 ACRES OF UNIMPROVED REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE ANTELOPE VALLEY COMMUNITY OF LITTLE ROCK, FROM FRED A. ZULLO AND TERESA P. ZULLO IN THE AMOUNT OF $335,000. WE HAVE NO WRITTEN PROTESTS, MADAM CHAIR. SUP. MOLINA, CHAIR: ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE A REPORT ON THIS ITEM? NO. THAT IS BEFORE US. SUP. ANTONOVICH: MOVE TO CLOSE THE HEARING AND ACCEPT THE ITEM. SUP. MOLINA, CHAIR: ALL RIGHT. THE HEARING HAS BEEN MOVED THAT IT BE CLOSED AND THAT WE APPROVE THE ITEM. MOVED BY SUPERVISOR ANTONOVICH, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR BURKE. IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, SO ORDERED ON ITEM NUMBER 4. CLERK VARONA-LUKENS: NUMBER 5, HEARING TO SET ASIDE PORTIONS OF TAPIA PARK FOR STREET, HIGHWAY AND SLOPE EASEMENTS, ACCEPTING THE HIGHWAY INTO THE COUNTY ROAD SYSTEM AS MALIBU CANYON ROAD. WE HAVE NO WRITTEN PROTESTS ON THIS ITEM, MADAM CHAIR. SUP. MOLINA, CHAIR: WE DO HAVE A REPORT ON THIS ITEM, EITHER, BUT THIS ITEM IS MOVED BY SUPERVISOR YAROSLAVSKY TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TO MOVE THE ITEM. SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR ANTONOVICH. IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, SO ORDERED ON ITEM NUMBER 5. CLERK VARONA-LUKENS: NUMBER 6, HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE COUNTY CODE, TITLE 2, ADMINISTRATION; TITLE 12, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; TITLE 20, UTILITIES; TITLE 21, SUBDIVISIONS; TITLE 22, PLANNING AND ZONING; AND TITLE 26, BUILDING CODE, TO ESTABLISH NEW FEES AND REVISE EXISTING FEES FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECOVERING COSTS INCURRED BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, HEALTH SERVICES, PARKS AND RECREATION. WE HAVE NO WRITTEN PROTESTS ON THIS ITEM. SUP. MOLINA, CHAIR: ALL RIGHT. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THERE IS NO ONE HAS SIGNED UP FOR THIS, WE CAN WAIVE THE STAFF REPORT AND MOVE THE ITEM. MOVED BY SUPERVISOR BURKE, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR YAROSLAVSKY. IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, SO ORDERED. ITEM NUMBER 7. CLERK VARONA-LUKENS: HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 22, PLANNING AND ZONING, TO ESTABLISH A STREAMLINED AND LESS COSTLY PROCEDURE FOR PROCESSING SHARED WATER WELL ZONING APPLICATIONS FOR THE SHARING OF WATER WELLS IN CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL AND AGRICULTURAL ZONES IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF THE COUNTY. WE HAVE NO WRITTEN PROTESTS. SUP. MOLINA, CHAIR: ALL RIGHT. GENTLEMEN, YOU HAVE A REPORT? SPEAKER: YES, WE DO. SUPERVISORS, YOUR BOARD DIRECTED STAFF AND THE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION TO REVIEW EXISTING REGULATIONS RELATING TO THE LIMITED SHARING OF WATER WELLS IN OUTLYING AREAS. THE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION, IN 2004, PROPOSED RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF A RELATED ORDINANCE AND WE BROUGHT THAT ORDINANCE BEFORE YOU IN EARLY 2005. AT THAT TIME, YOU CONTINUED THE ITEM UNTIL TODAY AND DIRECTED STAFF TO WRITE AN INTERIM REPORT REPORTING BACK REGARDING THE ORDINANCES, APPLICATION, REVIEW-- APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS. THAT REPORT WAS SUBMITTED TO YOU ON MARCH 31ST. THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE RESPONDS TO YOUR CONCERNS ABOUT THE CURRENTLY REQUIRED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCEDURE AND ITS DIFFICULTY, PERHAPS UNRELATED DIFFICULTY FOR THE LIMITED SHARING OF A WATER WELL WITH ONE'S NEIGHBORS. THE RECOMMENDED ORDINANCE WOULD DELETE THE C.U.P. REQUIREMENT IN FAVOR OF A DISCRETIONARY DIRECTOR'S REVIEW PROCEDURE FOR THE LIMITED SHARING OF A WELL. IT WOULD ESTABLISH THESE NEW PROCEDURES FOR THE SHARING OF A SINGLE WELL BY UP TO FOUR DWELLING UNITS ON THE LOT THAT CONTAINS THE WELL AND ON IMMEDIATELY ADJOINING LOTS. IT WOULD ALSO AUTHORIZE THE DIRECTOR TO MAKE A DECISION ON THE APPLICATION WITHOUT A PUBLIC HEARING. THE ORDINANCE WOULD INCLUDE NUMEROUS SAFEGUARDS, INCLUDING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, PROCEDURE, HEALTH, FIRE AND PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENT APPROVALS, REQUIRED EASEMENT AND COVENANT AND PERIODIC SUBMITTAL OF A BACTERIOLOGY REPORT AND GENERAL OPERABILITY REPORT. THE ORDINANCE WOULD ALSO SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE THE APPLICATION FEE. IN RESPONSE TO YOUR DIRECTION TO REVIEW THE ORDINANCES APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING REDUCING THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNER NOTIFICATION RADIUS FROM 1,500 FEET TO 1,000 FEET, DEFERRING FIRE, PUBLIC WORKS AND HEALTH SERVICES' APPROVAL TO THE BUILDING PERMIT STAGE, DELETING THE COMPREHENSIVE HYDROLOGY REPORT IN FAVOR OF A GROUNDWATER DEPTH, WELL YIELD AND WATER QUALITY INFORMATION, AND, FINALLY, DELETING THE REQUIREMENT FOR TOPOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE INFORMATION ON THE RELATED PLOT PLAN. THAT CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION. SUP. MOLINA, CHAIR: VERY GOOD. ANY QUESTION OR COMMENT? IF NOT, LET'S SEE. IT'S ALL DISTRICTS, SO THAT WE CAN ASK-- OH, I'M SORRY, WE DO HAVE SOMEONE HERE. I APOLOGIZE. WE HAVE MR. WILLIAM ROOT WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS. I APOLOGIZE, MR. ROOT. IF YOU'D JOIN US. WILLIAM ROOT: MADAM CHAIR, THANK YOU. FIRST, I'D LIKE TO SAY I HOPE YOU SUPPORT WHAT THE REGIONAL PLANNING HAS SUGGESTED IN CHANGING THE ORDINANCE. SUP. MOLINA, CHAIR: ALL RIGHT. COULD YOU SPEAK RIGHT INTO THE MIKE? WILLIAM ROOT: SORRY ABOUT THAT. I HOPE YOU WOULD TAKE THEIR CONSIDERATION AND ACCEPT WHAT THEY PRESENTED TO YOU AND ADOPT THE ORDINANCE CHANGE. MY ONLY CONCERN WAS THE THOUSAND FEET RADIUS. IT SEEMS EXCESSIVE, SINCE 500 IS THE STANDARD FOR MOST LAND USE REGULATIONS. I WOULD SUGGEST TO TAKE IT DOWN TO 500 AND GIVE THE DIRECTOR AN OPTION TO INCREASE IT, BASED ON THE DENSITY OF THE SURROUNDING LOTS OF THE APPLICANT. THAT'S MY ONLY CONCERN. SUP. MOLINA, CHAIR: DO WE HAVE ANY KIND OF RESPONSE FOR HIM? RON HOFFMAN: YES, MADAM CHAIR, RON HOFFMAN FROM THE REGIONAL PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WHEN THEY CONSIDERED THE NOTIFICATION RADIUS ACTUALLY WAS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE IMPACTS OF SHARED WELLS ON ENTIRE AQUIFERS. HOWEVER, RATHER THAN NOTIFYING RESIDENTS WITHIN ENTIRE AQUIFERS, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY EXTENSIVE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED A 1,500-FOOT RADIUS NOTIFICATION. UPON FURTHER REVIEW AND DIRECTION BY THE BOARD, STAFF HAS REVIEWED THAT NOTIFICATION RADIUS AND WE BELIEVE THE THOUSAND FOOT WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED EXCESSIVE BASED ON THE FACT THAT, IN MOST OF THESE AREAS, THEY WOULD BE RURAL LARGE LOTS, SO WE DON'T THINK THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE NOTIFIED WOULD BE EXCESSIVE. SO WE THINK IT'S A REASONABLE STANDARD AND IT'S A STANDARD THAT'S BEEN APPLIED, ACTUALLY, AS A MATTER OF POLICY, WITHIN THE MORE RURAL AREAS OF THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE COUNTY. WILLIAM ROOT: THAT'S FINE WITH MY CONCERN, MADAM CHAIR. SUP. MOLINA, CHAIR: I'M SORRY? WILLIAM ROOT: THAT'S OKAY WITH-- HIS EXPLANATION IS FINE, MADAM CHAIR, SO I'D JUST LIKE YOU GUYS TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE AND THAT'S ALL MY CONCERN. SUP. MOLINA, CHAIR: VERY GOOD. THANK YOU SO MUCH, SIR. I APPRECIATE IT. ALL RIGHT. THAT ITEM IS-- WE'VE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVED THE ITEM. MOVED BY SUPERVISOR ANTONOVICH, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR BURKE. IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, SO ORDERED ON ITEM NUMBER 7. NUMBER 8. SUP. ANTONOVICH: THE MOTION HAS TO BE READ IN FOR THE RECORD, MADAM CHAIRMAN, SO-- FOR THIS ITEM, I'VE BEEN TOLD. SUP. MOLINA, CHAIR: WELL, THEN WE'LL HAVE RECONSIDERATION... SUP. ANTONOVICH: OKAY. I'D MOVE FOR RECONSIDERATION. SUP. MOLINA, CHAIR: ...THE ITEM. MOVED BY SUPERVISOR ANTONOVICH, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR BURKE, THERE'S NO OBJECTION. THE ITEM IS BEFORE US. SUP. ANTONOVICH: SHARED WATER WELL ORDINANCE WILL ESTABLISH A REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR THE PROPOSED SHARING OF A WATER WELL. THE REQUIREMENT FOR A C.U.P. AND A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE REPLACED BY A DISCRETIONARY DIRECTORS REVIEW, WHICH SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE FEES. SHORTER PROCESSING TIMES, PROVISIONS REQUIRING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, NOTIFICATION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS AND RECORDED COVENANTS WILL PROVIDE APPROPRIATE HEALTH AND SAFETY SAFEGUARDS FOR COUNTY RESIDENTS SHARING A WATER WELL CONSISTENT WITH THE SUGGESTION OF THE BOARD REPORT DATED MARCH 31ST, SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL PLANNING. THE ORDINANCE ZONING APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS CAN BE MODIFIED WITHOUT REDUCING THESE SAFEGUARDS. SPECIFICALLY, THE ORDINANCE SHOULD BE CHANGED THE FOLLOWING WAY: THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNER NOTIFICATION RADIUS SHOULD BE REDUCED FROM 1,500 FEET TO 1,000 FEET, CONSISTENT WITH NOTIFICATION FOR OTHER DISCRETIONARY ENTITLEMENT APPLICATIONS IN THE DISTRICT. THE FIRE, PUBLIC WORKS AND HEALTH SERVICE DEPARTMENT APPROVAL SHOULD BE DEFERRED TO THE BUILDING PERMIT STAGE. THE COMPREHENSIVE HYDROLOGY REPORT REQUIREMENT SHOULD BE REDUCED TO DATA RELATING TO GROUNDWATER DEPTH, WELL YIELD AND WATER QUALITY. AND THE REQUIREMENT FOR TOPOGRAPHIC AND DRAINAGE INFORMATION ON THE PLOT PLAN SHOULD BE DELETED. AND THE BOARD WOULD THEN MOVE THAT WE ADOPT THE ATTACHED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, TOGETHER WITH ANY COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS, CERTIFY ITS COMPLETION AND FIND THAT THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WILL HAVE A SIGNIFICANT AFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THAT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION REFLECTS THE INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT ANALYSIS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH NEW CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS FOR THE SHARING OF A WATER WELL; DETERMINE THAT THE SHARED WATER WELL ORDINANCE IS COMPATIBLE AND WITH SUPPORT OF THE GOALS AND POLICIES OF THE COUNTY'S GENERAL PLAN AND THE COUNTY'S STRATEGIC PLAN; AND FIND THAT ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE WOULD BE MINIMUM IN ITS EFFECT ON FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES; AND AUTHORIZES THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING TO COMPLETE AND FILE A CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION FOR THE PROJECT; AND DIRECT COUNTY COUNSEL TO PREPARE A FINAL ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION REFLECTING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WITH THE CHANGES CITED ABOVE. SUP. MOLINA, CHAIR: ALL RIGHT. THAT ITEM IS MOVED BY SUPERVISOR ANTONOVICH, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR BURKE. DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION ON THIS? SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: I'D LIKE JUST TO UNDERSTAND FROM THE STAFF WHAT THIS IS. IS THIS-- IS THERE PLANNING STAFF HERE? SUP. MOLINA, CHAIR: YES. THEY WERE UP HERE JUST A MINUTE AGO. IF WE COULD ASK THEM TO COME BACK UP AND JOIN US. SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: CAN I HAVE THEM COME BACK? IS THIS A CHANGE FROM-- DOES THE CURRENT LAW PROVIDE THAT SUCH A SHARED WATER WELL ARRANGEMENT HAS TO BE DONE BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT? SPEAKER: YES, SIR. SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: AND WHERE DO THESE-- ARE THESE EXCLUSIVELY IN-- IN MR. ANTONOVICH'S PART OF THE COUNTY, IN THE ANTELOPE VALLEY, IN THAT AREA? IN THE SANTA CLARITA AREA? OR ARE THERE OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTY WHERE THIS IS APPLICABLE? SPEAKER: I WOULD SAY THE VAST MAJORITY WOULD BE IN THE FIFTH DISTRICT BUT THERE WOULD BE SOME PERHAPS IN THE SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS, IN OTHER RURAL AREAS OF THE COUNTY WHERE PUBLIC WATER IS NOT AVAILABLE. SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: YOU WOULDN'T-- YOU WOULDN'T HAPPEN TO KNOW OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD OF THESE-- WHEN YOU SAY OVERWHELMING MAJORITY, HOW MANY-- WHAT PERCENTAGE HAVE BEEN OUTSIDE THE FIFTH DISTRICT, DO YOU? I MEAN, I'M CURIOUS HOW THESE IMPACTS MY PART OF THE COUNTY, THE WESTERN PART OF THE COUNTY AND THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS. AND IF ANYBODY ELSE KNOWS, PLEASE COME UP. DON'T STAND ON CEREMONY. RICHARD WAGNER: RICHARD WAGNER, HEALTH SERVICES. SINCE WE HAVEN'T BEEN REQUIRING THIS C.U.P. OR IT HAS NOT BEEN SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN IN EFFECT, THAT HAS BEEN FORCED, WE REALLY DON'T HAVE A NUMBER. I KNOW OF SOME AREAS IN THE SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS WHERE THERE ISN'T WATER AVAILABILITY AND WE DO HAVE APPLICATIONS FOR WELL USE FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. AND THE PROBABILITY THAT A SHARED WELL MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT IS DESIRED IS THERE. I DON'T HAVE AN EXACT NUMBER. WE JUST DON'T HAVE THAT. SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: ARE YOU SAYING THAT, DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT'S BEEN ON THE BOOKS, THAT CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS HAVE NOT BEEN REQUIRED FOR SHARED WELL USE IN THE COUNTY? THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU JUST SAY. RICHARD WAGNER: THAT'S CORRECT. SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: SO STAFF HAS BEEN IGNORING THE CODE? RICHARD WAGNER: THAT'S A REGIONAL PLANNING ISSUE. I CAN'T REALLY ANSWER THAT. SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: I UNDERSTAND. RICHARD WAGNER: BUT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF AREAS IN THE SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS WHERE SHARED WELLS COULD BE USED UNDER THIS ORDINANCE AND WE KNOW THAT PUBLIC WATER IS NOT AVAILABLE. SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: RIGHT NOW, I'M INTERESTED IN WHAT YOU SAID A MINUTE AGO, WHICH IS THAT, DESPITE THE FACT-- IS THIS YOUR UNDERSTANDING, THAT THE CODE HAS REQUIRED A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BUT COUNTY HAS NOT REQUIRED IT? APPARENTLY YOU'RE ALREADY USING YOUR DISCRETION, WHICH YOU DON'T LEGALLY HAVE, BUT IF THAT'S TRUE... RICHARD WAGNER: THE THE ZONING ORDINANCE CURRENTLY REQUIRES A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR WATER WELLS. WHERE A WATER WELL IS ACCESSORY TO A SINGLE DWELLING UNIT, IT'S BEEN CONSIDERED AN ACCESSORY USE AND JUST APPROVED AS PART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT HEALTH SERVICES PROCEDURE. WHEN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS BECOME AWARE OF AN APPLICATION FOR A SHARED WELL, WE HAVE REQUIRED A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. I THINK THERE'S BEEN JUST A COUPLE IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS. BUT WHERE WE HAVE BEEN AWARE OF IT, WE HAVE REQUIRED THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: DOES AN INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER WHO WANTS TO DO HIS OWN WELL ON HIS OWN PROPERTY HAVE TO GET A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT? RICHARD WAGNER: NO. SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: SO COULD YOU JUST, AGAIN, EXPLAIN TO ME, WHAT IS IT-- WHAT ARE THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH REQUIRE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WHERE THE COUNTY HAS NOT REQUIRED ONE? RICHARD WAGNER: WELL, AS I SAID, WHERE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS BECOME AWARE OF A REQUEST FROM AN INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER WHO HAS A WELL, WHO WISHES TO SHARE THAT WELL WITH AN ADJOINING NEIGHBOR, WE HAVE REQUIRED A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. THAT'S BEEN IN THE CODE FOR YEARS. SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: BUT THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND WHAT MR. WAGNER IS SAYING AND I'M TRYING TO ASCERTAIN WHAT THAT DIFFERENCE IS. HE'S SAYING THAT THERE HAVE BEEN-- THAT WE HAVE NOT REQUIRED A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. YOU'RE NOT AWARE-- ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS THAT HAVE BEEN REQUIRED FOR SHARED OR OTHER-- FOR SHARED WATER WELLS? RICHARD WAGNER: I'M SORRY. AM I AWARE OF...? SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: OF ANY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT THAT'S BEEN REQUIRED FOR SHARED WATER WELLS UP UNTIL THIS POINT? RICHARD WAGNER: NO. I KNOW THE ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED. A WHILE AGO WHEN WE HAD THE WHOLE ISSUE OF WATER AVAILABILITY IS WHEN A LOT OF THIS CAME TO THE FOREFRONT OF EXACTLY WHAT PEOPLE WERE USING FOR WATER RESOURCES AND, PRIOR TO THAT POINT, THERE WERE SITUATIONS WHERE PEOPLE WERE BUILDING AND IT WAS ASSUMED THAT SECOND-- OR SECOND WELLS WERE BEING INSTALLED, YOU KNOW, FOR THE SECOND RESIDENTS. THAT DIDN'T ALWAYS OCCUR. SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: SO ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT THAT HAS BEEN REQUIRED FOR A SHARED WATER WELL USE IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES? RICHARD WAGNER: YES. SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: HOW MANY? RICHARD WAGNER: I THINK, AS I SAID, THERE'S BEEN ONE OR TWO IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS, A REVIEW OF OUR RECORDS, WE DID A PRINTOUT, AND WE FOUND A COUPLE IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS. SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: AND ARE THERE A LOT MORE SHARED WATER WELL-- WELLS THAT HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED THAT YOU ARE NOT AWARE OF OR THAT YOU WERE NOT ORIGINALLY AWARE OF? OR IS THAT REALLY IT, A COUPLE OF THEM IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS? RICHARD WAGNER: IT'S JUST A COUPLE OF THEM IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS THAT I'M AWARE OF. SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: IF THERE'S ONLY A COUPLE OF THEM IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS IN THE ENTIRE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, WHY ARE WE CHANGING THE CODE? RICHARD WAGNER: I BELIEVE THE REASON WE'RE CHANGING THE CODE IS BECAUSE THERE WERE ALTERNATIVE METHODS FOR PEOPLE WHO WEREN'T ABLE TO DEVELOP A WELL ON THEIR PROPERTY, THERE WERE ALTERNATIVE METHODS FOR FOLKS, THROUGH HAULED WATER OR OTHER PROVISIONS, TO HAVE WATER AVAILABLE TO THEM. I THINK THE REQUIREMENT, WHEN THAT DISCUSSION WAS TAKING PLACE, THE REQUIREMENT THAT, IF THERE WAS TO BE A SHARING OF WELLS, THAT IT WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH A PUBLIC HEARING AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WAS SEEN AS FAIRLY EXCESSIVE FOR WHAT COULD BE A MINOR KIND OF A USE. SO THE BOARD PASSED A MOTION DIRECTING US TO LOOK INTO THE MATTER, REPORT BACK TO THE BOARD WITH A RECOMMENDATION, WHICH WE DID, AND RECOMMENDED THIS DISCRETIONARY DIRECTOR'S REVIEW PROCESS, WHICH IS A MUCH SIMPLER, LESS COSTLY PROCESS FOR AN APPLICANT BUT DOES CONTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND REVIEW BY HEALTH SERVICES, PUBLIC WORKS AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. SO WE FELT THERE WERE SAFEGUARDS BUILT INTO THE PROCESS THAT WE PROPOSED. SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: IS THE REVIEW THAT'S BEING PROVIDED FOR YOU, IT'S NON- DISCRETIONARY, IS IT? SPEAKER: SUPERVISOR YAROSLAVSKY, YES, THIS WOULD BE A DISCRETIONARY DIRECTOR'S REVIEW AND WOULD BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH C.E.Q.A. SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: AND DOES A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC HAVE A RIGHT TO APPEAL THE DIRECTOR'S FINDING AFTER HE MAKES THE FINDING? SPEAKER: YES, I BELIEVE THE PROCESS PROVIDES FOR APPEAL. SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: TO WHOM? TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION? RICHARD WAGNER: YES, SIR. THERE IS A NOTIFICATION PROCESS AS PART OF THE APPLICATION, WHICH WAS DISCUSSED BY THE MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC. WE NOTIFY PEOPLE WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET, WE NOTIFY HOMEOWNERS GROUPS, TOWN COUNCILS, FOLKS LIKE THAT. IF THERE IS A CONCERN AND THAT'S MADE TO THE DIRECTOR, THE DIRECTOR WILL TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION IN TERMS OF MAKING A DECISION. SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: ALL RIGHT. CAN YOU MAKE SURE, MR. WEISS, THAT YOU JUST GIVE US A MEMO BETWEEN NOW AND THE TIME THIS COMES BACK IN THE FINAL ORDINANCE FORM THAT THE APPELLATE-- WHAT THE APPELLATE PROCESS IS FROM A DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION? THAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO ME. THE ONLY OTHER THING THAT BOTHERS ME AND I'M NOT-- I MEAN, I'M SATISFIED WITH THIS PROCESS, AS LONG AS THERE'S AN APPEAL, IS WHETHER WE HAVE ROUTINELY-- WHETHER OUR CODE HAS BEEN ROUTINELY EITHER IGNORED OR WHETHER YOU'VE JUST SIMPLY NOT BEEN AWARE OF WHAT'S BEEN GOING ON, WHICH THEN GETS US INTO THE SITUATION, MR. WEISS, WHERE DEVELOPERS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS SAY, "WELL, YOU DON'T-- YOU NEVER REQUIRED A CONDITIONAL USE, YOU KNOW, ON THOSE 10 WELLS, WHY ARE YOU REQUIRING IT ON MY WELL?" AND THEN THEY MAKE ALLEGATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AND THAT THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS ARE BEING VIOLATED, THAT THEY'RE BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST OR WHAT HAVE YOU AND WHEN THE NUB OF IT IS THAT OUR OWN BUREAUCRACY DOESN'T SEEM TO BE FOLLOWING THE LAW. DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THAT? RICHARD WEISS: YES, SUPERVISOR. TO THE EXTENT THAT WE HAVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUIREMENT AND THE COUNTY SIMPLY IS NOT REQUIRING ENFORCEMENT OF ITS OWN CODES; THEORETICALLY, SOMEBODY COULD MAKE AN ARGUMENT THAT, IF WE WERE TO START DOING IT, THAT WE WOULD BE TREATING THEM DIFFERENTLY. I WOULD STILL CONTEST THAT ARGUMENT BUT... Directory: bos bos -> Chapter Six English Colonies in North America (1607-1732) bos -> Biographies of Patriots of Color at The Battle of Bunker Hill John Ashbow Colony: Connecticut Age: 22 Race: Native American Status: Free Rank: Private Position: Rail Fence Unit: Putnam/Durkee bos -> The Boston Revolution bos -> Los angeles dodgers clips bos -> - bos -> Los angeles dodgers clips bos -> Adobe Acrobat Reader bos -> Section 13700 detection and alarm bos -> Proposition de thèse 2016 de stage m2 Download 495.34 Kb. Share with your friends: