The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 02231988 - 1.103 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FRCJM; hf Contra Harvey E. Bragdon, V Director of Community Development Cx)sta DATE: �`1J I`" ,� , January 29, 1988 �1 ( 1111/ SUBJECT: Findings Regarding the Denial of Land Use Permit #2144-86 (Mike and Lori Farr, Applicants & Owners) to Establish a Commercial Metal Fabric pt-inn Rjigin ss SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION Adopt the following findings in accord with the Board of Super- visors ' denial of Land Use permit #2144-86 : 1 . The proposed business would adversely affect the orderly development of the Bollinger Canyon area. It would set a . precedent that might encourage owners of surrounding agri- cultural land to, establish non-agricultural ( industrial, commercial) uses. 2 . The proposed business would have an adverse impact on the goals and policies of the 1977 San Ramon Valley Area General Plan. That Plan contains policies that provide for the retention, protection and enhancement of agricultural properties in the Bollinger Canyon area. Permitting an industrial operation in the middle of the Canyon would encourage the establishment of similar operations. 3 . The proposed business would create a nuisance and/or. enforcement problem within the community. Two neighbors have registered objections to the noise generated by the existing operation. 4 . The proposed business would encourage marginal development within the area. The existing operation was established without proper permits. Approval might encourage similar uses to be established without applying and receiving prior approval. The cumulative effect could be inadequate public facilities and other effects of poor planning. 5. There are no special conditions or unique characteristics of the subject property that make it more suited for a home occupation or industrial use than surrounding agricultural properties in the Bollinger Canyon area. In fact, approval of the operation might be construed and challenged as a form of "spot zoning" . CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _ YES SIGNATURE; 41 A A4L RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMM D ION'T B ARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER - SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON February 23 , 1988 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS X I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS (ABSENT AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Cc: Community Development ATTESTED February 23 , 1988 Miller, Starr & Regalia_ Attn• Mike Zischke PHIL BATCHELOR. CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Mike and Lori Farr SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Louis Lockrem a M382;7-83 BY ,DEPUTY 2. Based on the foregoing findings, five of the seven findings required for land use permit approval (Section 26-2. 2008 of Title VIII ) cannot be made. BACKGROUND On November 3 , 1987 the Board of Supervisors denied the San Ramon Valley Regional Commission's approval of Land Use Permit *2144-86. The permit application was filed by Mike and Lori Farr in order to establish a metal fabrication business. In denying the land use permit application, the Board concomitantly sustained the appeal of Louis E. Lockrem, an adjoining property owner. Attached is a copy of the November 3 , 1987 Board Order. RD/aa cc: Community Development Department Miller, Starr & Regalia Mike & Lori Farr Louis Lockrem LTRXV/2144-86.RD FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon Contra - Director of Communf ' Development Cpst„ !� I^�,WICl DATE; ��ctober 16, 1987 �0i,�t,4-�P�TA W=Y SUBJECT: Appeal of Louis E. Lockrem from the.San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission de,i�,}} �,,QQ $$��?? v ��}}g the land use permit application of Mike an�72�5F��t��(Rt�nd Use Permit 2144-86) for a commercial metal fabricati.on•bms& nese as a home occupation. "'UM111ur1i i SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMEND r CKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: Sustain the appeal and deny Land Use Permit 2144-86 as described below in Option B. ALTERNATIVE BOARD ACTIONS ! There are essentially two options for the Board of Supervisors to consider in acting on this appeal. OPTION A 1. Accept environmental documentation as adequate. 2. _ Deny the appeal of Louis E. Lockrem. 3. Sustain the decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission (granting the permit). 4. Adopt the Planning Commission's findings as set forth in the Resolution as the determination for this decision. 4& CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: ACTION OF BOARD ON L �DVD�ltsan 1►S hj4lYWMANi)F1] X OTFYSR X The Board on October 27, 1987 deferred to November 3, 1987 deter- mination calendar the decision on the appeal of Louis E. Lockrem from the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission decision approving with conditions the request of Mike and Lori Farr for a commercial metal fabrication business as a home occupation (LUP 2144-86) in the Bollinger Canyon/San Ramon area. Supervisor Schroder commented on the November 2, 1987 memo from Victor Westman, County Counsel on the Lockrem appeal of Farr LUP 2144-86, and moved the appeal be granted and the land use permit be denied and requested the staff to determine whether the uses per- mitted under the agricultural zoning should be updated or expanded and to get input from the General Plan Congress Agricultural Committee and have staff report back as quickly as possible as to whether changes should be made to allow uses that are compatible with the agricultural zoning. The Board discussed the matter. Supervisor Powers clarified that the motion would be to grant the appeal, deny the land use permit, and direct the staff to evaluate ways to accomplish permitting agricultural related land use proce- dures and instruct the staff not to enforce the elimination of this business until those precedures come back to the Board. Therefore, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that Option B, recommendations 1 , 2, 3, and 4 are APPROVED; and Community Development Director and County Counsel are DIRECTED to determnine whether changes should be made in zoning and land use permitting in agricultural zones; and staff is DIRECTED to delay enforcement of the Land Use Permit denial pending the results of the evaluation. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A __.8_ UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. cc: Community Development Dept. ATTESTED November 3, 1987 Miller, Starr & Regalia PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Attn: Mike Zischke THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Mike and Lori Farr AN COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FT Louis Lockrem BY �,ww A AA a Q IADEPUTY r' w. -2- OPTION B 1. Accept environmental documentation as adequate. 2. Sustain the appeal of Louis E. Lockrem. 3. Deny Land Use Permit 2144-86 to establish a commercial metal shop as a home occupation. 4. Instruct staff to prepare findings as generally based on review in the staff report dated September 2, 1987, and set November 10, 1987 for adoption of same. BACKGROUND This matter originally came to the attention of the Planning Agency as a result of a complaint filed in 1986 by the appellant. A field investigation verified that a metal shop was being operated in violation of the agricultural zoning code. Shortly thereafter, staff met with the Farrs and their legal counsel, and indicated that the use would have to be brought into compliance. At that time, several options available to the applicant were reviewed. While pursuit of a land use permit was discussed, this option was not encouraged because of the apparent zoning conflict. On October 14, 1986, the Farrs filed a land use permit application to legalize the operation as a home occupation. The application record is described in the attached documents. Staff has consistently opposed the application because as an industrial activity, the metal shop operation a) conflicts with the open space designation and agricultural zoning; �. b) cannot satisfy the home occupation criteria in the zoning code (e.g., traffic generation; activity conducted outside the confines of a residence; non-family members employed); c) will establish a precedent that may encourage similar activity and applications on other agricultural properties, and make administration of the zoning code more difficult. These concerns were raised with the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission. However, after taking testimony from the applicant and neighboring property owners, the Commission determined that the use could be operated compatibly with nearby properties. Consequently, the Commission approved the application for a limited period and subject to a number of restrictions. CONCLUSION Notwithstanding, the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission's review, staff maintains that any approval of the application is not allowable under the zoning code. Further, were approval to be granted, the task of zoning administration in agricultural areas could become less manageable. Therefore, staff recommends that the Board grant the Lockrem appeal and deny Land Use Permit 2144-86 as set forth in Option B above.