Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09252012 - D.3PDF Return D. 3 To: Board of Supervisors From: Catherine Kutsuris, Conservation & Development Date: September 25, 2012 Contra Costa County Subject:Hearing on an Appeal of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a land use permit County File #LP10-2079 in the Alamo area. (District II) APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/25/2012 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact:Jennifer Cruz, (925) 674-7790 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: September 25, 2012 David Twa, BY:June McHuen , Deputy RECOMMENDATION(S): Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors: 1. OPEN the public hearing and accept testimony on the appeal. 2. CLOSE the public hearing. RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) 3. FIND that on the basis of the whole record before it, 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. 4. ADOPT the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program as adequate for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and prepared in accordance with the County CEQA Guidelines. 5. DENY the appeal filed by the appellants, Paul and Kathi Schafer, and Mark and Marge Taylor. 6. UPHOLD the County Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Land Use Permit, County File #LP10-2079, with the conditions of approval. 7. ADOPT proposed Resolution No. 2012/401, which incorporates certain findings as the basis for the Board’s approval. 8. DIRECT the Department of Conservation and Development to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. FISCAL IMPACT: None. The applicant has paid the necessary initial application deposit and fees, and is obligated to pay any additional costs above the initial application deposit associated with processing the Land Use Permit application and appeal. BACKGROUND: PROJECT SUMMARY Round Hill Country Club was created as part of a master planned community in the Round Hill area of Alamo established in 1958. In addition to the Country Club, a subsequent Land Use Permit approved in 1959 established the golf course, clubhouse, swimming pool, tennis courts, pro-shop, and maintenance facilities. There are nine (9) upper tennis courts that are lighted for nighttime use. The six (6) lower tennis courts were established sometime in the 1970s. The applicant requests approval to have lighting on the lower tennis courts due to the increase of member use on the upper tennis courts. According to the applicant, the lower tennis courts would primarily be used for instructional and recreational purposes. The subject properties total of approximately 15.3 acres (Assessor’s Parcel Number: 193-170-061 is 14.19-acres and Assessor’s Parcel Number: 193-170-062 is 1.1 acres) owned by the Round Hill Country Club. The larger parcel (APN: 193-170-061) is part of the golf course (2nd and 3rd fairways). The smaller parcel (APN: 193-170-062) is used for tennis and is identified as the “lower tennis courts.” The lower tennis courts are enclosed by 10-foot tall metal fences. There is also an existing restroom building located on the eastern portion of the property. The access road and parking spaces for the lower courts are located along the western portion of the property. Assessor’s Parcel Number 193-170-062 is located within the General Plan Land Use designation of Single-Family Residential-Low Density (SL). Assessor’s Parcel Number 193-170-061 is located within the General Plan Land Use designation of Parks & Recreation. The subject properties are zoned Single-Family Residential District (R-15). Round Hill Country Club filed a Land Use Permit application on November 9, 2010, requesting approval to install forty-eight (48) tennis court lights and to allow use of the tennis courts until 11:00 p.m. The proposed project was referred to the Alamo Municipal Advisory Council (MAC) and the Alamo Improvement Association (AIA). The Alamo MAC submitted their recommendations to the County with a split decision - there were members in support of and in opposition to the project. In a letter dated February 15, 2011, the AIA initially recommended that there must be significant mitigation measures and that the hours of operation must be controlled to minimize impacts. In a subsequent letter dated March 21, 2011, the AIA recommended denial of the project. Meeting with the Alamo MAC and the AIA resulted in the applicant’s request to shorten the proposed operational hours for the lower tennis courts from 11:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. to address light and noise impact concerns. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HEARING On February 6, 2012, the Zoning Administrator received testimony from the property owner and their representing attorney, the lighting consultant for the property owner, supporters, and opponents of the project. The Zoning Administrator continued the project to the next public hearing date of February 22, 2012, to have the County’s consultant prepare an independent analysis of the photometric light study submitted by the applicant. In addition, the Zoning Administrator requested that the applicant display one lighting fixture at the lower tennis courts at a convenient time for the public to view. The report from the County’s consultant was not ready in time for the February 22, 2012, hearing; therefore, the project was recommended for continuance by staff. The Zoning Administrator received testimony at the February 22, 2012, hearing and continued the matter to March 19, 2012. On March 19, 2012, the Zoning Administrator approved the project with modified conditions of approval. On March 29, 2012, the Zoning Administrator's decision was appealed to the County Planning Commission. COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING ON APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION On July 10, 2012, the County Planning Commission conducted a hearing on the appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision. Six members of the public provided testimony in opposition to the project and 17 members of the public provided testimony in support of the project. After accepting testimony and allowing rebuttal from the applicant, the Commission voted 5-1 (Steele, Peterson, Snyder, Stewart, and Terrell - Ayes; Clark - No; Sloan - Absent) to deny the appeal, uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator, and approve the project, with the addition of two conditions. The new conditions required that when the tennis courts are not in use, the lights shall be turned off, and that the tennis court lights shall be mechanically and independently controlled. APPEAL OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION An appeal filed by Paul and Kathi Schafer, and Mark and Marge Taylor, was received by the Department of Conservation and Development on July 20, 2012. A copy of the appeal letter is attached. Below is a summary of the appeal points raised in the letter and responses by staff. Appeal Point #1 Appeal was limited to the evidence and testimony in the files in this matter at the time of the appeal. The Commission violated its Appeal Procedures by not reviewing the full record in this matter and by allowing Round Hill to introduce additional testimony not referenced or voiced prior to the day of the appeal. Staff did not provide the Commission all of the records, reports, transcripts of testimony before the Zoning Administration in the records. The Commission made its decision based on recommendations of staff, which does not cite specific evidence in the record that there would not be any adverse effect on property values or that the decision complied with the General Plan. Staff Response The County Planning Commission (Board of Appeals) hears and decides all appeals from the decision of the Zoning Administrator (County Code Section 26-2.1004). A staff report to the County Planning Commission was prepared by staff responding to the appeal points of the appellants. Previous staff reports for the Zoning Administrator public hearings, findings and conditions, initial study document and mitigation monitoring program, and lighting reports were included in the report to the Commission. The staff reports prepared for the Zoning Administrator included staff responses to comments received from the public during the comment period for CEQA. The Commission was within the powers and duties, as allowed in County Code Section 26-2.1004. Further, the Commission conducted a de novo public hearing, where the Commission opened the hearing and accepted public testimony. Appeal Point #2 Insufficient evidence had been presented to the Zoning Administrator and staff in order to adequately analyze the potential safety risks to pedestrians and motorists of the bright commercial lights on the subject property at night, if the project is approved. Staff Response The Zoning Administrator made the decision only after having adequate information. There were three Zoning Administrator public hearings regarding this project. The information submitted was analyzed during the CEQA review and in the staff report prepared for a recommendation to the Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator made a decision based on the project description, studies completed for the project, an independent analysis conducted by a consultant, and staff’s recommendation and findings. The proposed tennis court lights will be facing downward and not onto motorists or pedestrians traveling on Stone Valley Road. Appeal Point #3 The applicant had not established justification for the lighting level requested. On March 19, 2012, the Zoning Administrator made a decision to approve the project, allowing a light intensity of 75 footcandles (fc). The appellants feel that this is too much for residential recreational courts within 36 feet of neighboring properties. Light level must be reduced not to exceed United States Tennis Association (USTA) Class IV (30 fc) levels or the project must be denied. Staff Response The County consultant determined that the illuminance level shown in the January 13, 2012, photometric study is acceptable for the proposed use of Class II (college, regional, municipal, club, and residential) play and Class III (club, high school, instructional, parks, and residential) play, and meets the required standards published by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA). The Zoning Administrator approved the project only for Class III with a IESNA recommended standard average of 75 footcandles. Further, conditions of approval are included to mitigate the aesthetic impact addressed in the initial study document. Specifically, conditions of approval #4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 18, 20, and 21 would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Appeal Point #4 Finding #1 - The proposed project shall not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the County. No analysis was conducted or submitted into the record by the Applicant on the impact of the commercial lights on the health and safety, and general welfare of the community and the County. There would be loss of the quiet enjoyment on the neighboring properties. No analysis was conducted on possible safety risks on traffic on Stone Valley Road, where there would be severe bright light glare. The conditions imposed by the Zoning Administrator acknowledge the impact, but do not eliminate it. Staff Response The lower tennis courts have been in use during daylight hours since the 1970s. The initial study identified the impact of new lighting to the immediate area. Mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Conditions are also proposed to address concerns by the neighbors that will reduce the lighting effects on the adjacent properties. The proposed lighting will be downward facing with the fixtures on Courts #10, 12, 14, and 15 fitted with back shields. In addition, the applicant has proposed a solid black opaque vinyl on Courts #10, 11, 12, 14, and 15. The Zoning Administrator restricted the hours of play until 9 p.m. Currently, members do play tennis until dark during the summer months. The lighting of the tennis courts would allow the members to play tennis year-round until 9 p.m. The lighting would allow an additional 2-3 hours of play during the winter months. There are no flashing or blinking lights to distract drivers on Stone Valley Road. The proposed lighting will not be directed to shine onto the motorists traveling on Stone Valley Road or onto the properties surrounding the tennis courts. Appeal Point #5 Finding #3 – The proposed project shall not adversely affect the preservation of property values and the protection of the tax base within the County. The loss of property values would result in the permanent, continuing, and substantial loss of tax revenue to the County by lowering annual property taxes and lowering real estate property transfer taxes, both resulting from lower assessed values in the community. The homeowners within 100 feet of the property estimate they will lose 15%-25% of the present market value of their homes, and that surrounding properties within 300 feet of the subject property will lose at least 5% of their value. Homes with direct views of the lower courts will be negatively impacted for resale value because of the loss of natural views and the rural character of the area. Staff Response The site has been used for tennis play since the 1970s. The Country Club would like to extend tennis play until evening hours. Use of the site for tennis play is a recreational activity associated with the Round Hill Country Club and is allowed under the Zoning District and General Plan. There is no view ordinance in place for Alamo and the immediate area is not defined as rural. The Growth Management Element of the County’s General Plan defines rural as parts of the County that are designated in the General Plan for agricultural, open space or very-low-density residential uses, and which are characterized by medium to very large parcel sizes (10 acres to several thousand acres). This is not the case for the subject property and the immediate area. The project is conditioned so that the lighting impact would be minimized. Landscaping conditions are included (condition #14) to shield the impacts of the lights between the courts and adjacent neighbors. The property owner has also proposed landscaping on the southern and western portion of Court #12. A solid opaque vinyl is also proposed along Courts #10, 11, 12, 14, and 15. The land use finding relating to the protection of property values and the County’s tax base requires that the hearing body consider a project’s impact to the County’s tax base as a whole, not individual property values. The added value to the community as a whole that will be created by the lower tennis court lights must be considered when making a determination on the project, not impacts to individual properties. Appeal Point #6 Finding #7 – That special conditions or unique characteristics of the subject property and its location or surroundings are established. The rural character of the area has been established since the late 1950s and the proposed project, with its bright commercial lights and the proposed late night use, would alter the rural character of the community. Nighttime use is not the established use of the subject property and does not match the existing conditions of the property and surrounding properties. Staff Response The Growth Management Element under the County’s General Plan defines rural areas as generally those parts of the County that are designated in the General Plan for agricultural, open space or very low density residential uses, and which are characterized by medium to very large parcel sizes (10 acres to several thousand acres). These areas have very low population densities, usually no more than 1 person per acre or 500 people per square mile. Further, use of the site for tennis play is existing and the proposal is to install lights to allow members to play until 9 p.m. The proposed project is consistent with the R-15 Zoning District and the Single-Family Residential-Low Density and Parks and Recreation General Plan designation. Appeal Point #7 The project is not consistent with the General Plan and the following policies for the Alamo-Diablo-Blackhawk area: • 3-111 - Promote the individuality and unique character of each community based on existing community images. • 3-113 - Large scale commercial uses which rely on drawing business from outside the community are inconsistent with this plan. • 3-120 - Developments shall be reviewed to ensure the continued rural character of the Alamo- Diablo-Blackhawk area. Staff Response As stated earlier, the Growth Management Element of the County’s General Plan defines rural areas as generally those parts of the County that are designated in the General Plan for agricultural, open space or very low density residential uses, and which are characterized by medium to very large parcel sizes (10 acres to several thousand acres). These areas have very low population densities, usually no more than 1 person per acre or 500 people per square mile. The Growth Management Element of the County’s General Plan also defines suburban. Suburban is defined as generally those parts of the County that are designated in the General Plan for low- and medium-density single-family homes; low-density multiple-family residences; low-density neighborhood and community oriented commercial/industrial uses; and other accompanying uses. Lots vary in size from about one fifth of an acre (8,000 or 9,000 square feet) up to 2 or 3 acres. The subject property and the surrounding area are considered suburban. The proposed project would not change the suburban character of the area. The surrounding area is developed with properties primarily zoned for residential uses that typically range from approximately 15,000 square feet and up. The Round Hill area is an established community, with residential and recreational uses. Use of the site would remain for recreational purposes, which is an allowed use that was approved for the area as part of the Round Hill master plan community during the 1950s. The proposed project would not change the unique character of this area in Alamo and is consistent with the already approved use. CONCLUSION The Land Use Permit to allow installation of 48 tennis court lights with tennis play until 9 p.m. is consistent with the R-15 Zoning District and the Single- Family Residential-Low Density and Parks & Recreation General Plan land use designations. The project will not result in significant environmental impacts. Aesthetic impacts have been reduced to a less-than-significant level with the proposed mitigation measures. Therefore, it is recommended that the appeal by Paul and Kathi Schafer, and Mark and Marge Taylor, be denied and the Board sustain the County Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Land Use Permit for the Round Hill Country Club lower tennis court lighting (County File #LP10-2079). CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the Board decides to uphold the appeal and deny the Land Use Permit, then no lighting would be installed and there would be no night use on the lower tennis courts of the subject property. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. CLERK'S ADDENDUM OPENED the public hearing and accepted testimony on the appeal from: Marge Taylor, Paul Schafer, and Mark Taylor (Appellants); Allan Moore of Gagen & McCoy, Sue Leo, Director of Tennis, Keith Kosiba, architectural lighting consultant (Applicants); Greg Gonsalves, General Manager of Round Hill Country Club (RHCC); Debby Grauman, President RHCC Tennis Club; William Monheit, Cecily Barkley; Gary Mintz, resident of Walnut Creek, Colleen Pastore, resident of Alamo; Mike Weldon, resident of Walnut Creek; The following did not wish to speak, but left written comments: Christine Hoover, resident of Alamo; Lyn Haithcock, resident of Alamo; David Bowlsy, resident of Alamo; David Barclay, resident of Alamo. CLOSED the public hearing; FOUND that on the basis of the whole record before it, 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; ADOPTED the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program as adequate for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and prepared in accordance with the County CEQA Guidelines; DENIED the appeal filed by the appellants, Paul and Kathi Schafer, and Mark and Marge Taylor; UPHELD the County Planning Commission decision to approve the Land Use Permit, County File #LP10-2079, with the conditions of approval. ADOPTED proposed Resolution No. 2012/401, which incorporates certain findings as the basis for Board approval; and DIRECTED the Department of Conservation and Development to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. AgendaQuick©2005 - 2022 Destiny Software Inc., All Rights Reserved