Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02122002 - D2 i TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS y ✓ ,k Contra f FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR v County DATE: February 12, 2002 SUBJECT: Hearing on the Appeal of Robert M. Walls of the County Planning Commission Approval of a Land Use Permit, File#LP002048,for a Commerlcial Rlding School, Horse Boarding and Training,and Veterinarian Services,In the Martinez/Alhambra Valley area (Spragens -Applicant & Owner) (Dist. ll) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. For purposes of compliance With the California Environmental Quality Act, adopt the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration determination as adequate. 2. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program. 3 . Sustain the County Planning Commission approval of t land use permit application. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ONahniatZz Y�, m2- APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _g_OTHER.X„ See attached addendum for Board action. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND UNANIMOUS(ABSENT None } CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact: Rose Merle Pletras[(925)335-1216] ATTESTED _ rebruaryl2, 2002 Cc: Laura&Steve Spragens JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Robert M.Walls SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Public Works Dept., Eng.Serv. Div. County Counsel eA�& Community Development Dept. BY d , DEPUTY February 12, 2002 Board of Supervisors File#LP002048 Page 2 4. Deny the Appeal of Robert M. Walls. 5. Adopt the findings of the County Planning Commission as the basis for the Board approval. 6. Direct staff to post a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk based on the Board's action. FISCAL IMPACT NONE. The applicant is responsible for paying the cost of this appeal. BACKGROUND On April 28, 2000, the applicants submitted a land use permit application to establish a commercial riding school, horse boarding, horse training and veterinary services. On August 30, 2000, staff made a field visit. Staff's field visit confirmed the diversity of agricultural uses in the Alhambra Valley area surrounding the subject property. It was also observed and verified the great distance between the proposed building envelope from the surrounding neighbors. The subject property's status quo is vacant unused agricultural property. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT Over the following months, staff worked very closely with the applicant to resolve issues discussed in one of the neighbors, Lynn Sugayan's letter of July 20, 2000, who eventually appealed this application to the County Planning Commission. On February 22, 2001, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted at the County Clerk's Office. Staff discussed and mitigated relevant impacts brought up in Lynn Sugayan's letter that pertains to the proposed project in the initial study. See attachment. The public comment period ended on March 29, 2001 for accepting comments on the adequacy of the environmental documents. No written comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration were received by the Community Development Department within the public comment period. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HEARING This application was scheduled for the May 7, 2001 public hearing before the County Zoning Administrator. After taking public testimony,the Zoning Administrator approved the project and modified conditions of approval by eliminating the variance to the design standards of the Off- Street Parking Ordinance, Section 82-16.012. The applicant agreed to establish a parking lot meeting all the design standards of the Off-Street Parking Ordinance, Chapter 82-16. APPEAL TO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — BOARD OF APPEALS On May 17, 2001,two neighbors, Lynn D. Sugayan and Dina Walls,submitted an appeal of the Zoning Administrator decision of approval. The reasons for the appeal were for noise, dust, February 12,2002 Board of Supervisors File#LP002048 Page 3 flies, odors, traffic and potential loss of property value. The appeal was scheduled for the August 28, 2001 public hearing before the County Planning Commission - Board of Appeals. After taking public testimony, the County Board of Appeals denied the appeal and sustained the Zoning Administrator's approval decision. The County Board of Appeals denied the appeal based on the following. 1. The subject property and surrounding neighbors are in the A-2 Zoning District. Upon the approval of a Land Use Permit,the applicant is allowed to establish dude ranches, riding academies, stables and dog kennels. The principal use is a riding school and horse training facility. The A-2 Zoning District does not restrict the number of horses. 2. Any odors produced by agricultural operations, such as the one proposed, are exempt from the State of California Health and Safety Code, Section 41705. According to the applicant and observed by staff,the surrounding neighbors have horses and other types of livestock in the immediate vicinity. 3. To reduce odors and flies,staff has included a condition of approval to submit a manure management plan for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator and Public Works Department. The manure management plan and other agricultural wastes are subject to all the rules, regulations and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES). The applicant submitted a proposed manure management plan in July 2000. The plan is based on the Council of Bay Area Resource Conservation Districts, Equine Facilities Assistance Program's Best Management Practices,dated July 2000,for management of manure, pastures, riparian corridors and runoff water. A manure management plan, in accordance to all the Equine Facilities Assistance Program's Best Management Practices will reduce odors and flies. 4. To help reduce traffic, the access has been diverted from what was originally proposed to a different entrance over the creek, utilizing and upgrading an existing culvert. The culvert upgrade has been approved by the State Department of Fish and Game, by the issuance of a 1603 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement— Notification Number R3-2001-0568. The notification was issued to Van Bond, NV Landscape, representing Steve and Laura Spragens. See attachment. The Public Works Department has conditioned the use of the culvert upgrade. Therefore, no additional traffic on the private road from the proposed project would be impacting Lynn Sugayan and Dina Wall's property. 5. The appellant's noise concern, staff has determined, is less than significant. Staff has included a condition of approval that no electronic amplification shall be used. Outdoor speakers will not be allowed. February 12, 2002 Board of Supervisors File#LP002048 Page 4 6. Staff has no evidence that such land uses lower property values. APPEAL TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS On September 6, 2001, a neighbor, Robert M. Walls, (husband of Dina Walls), submitted an appeal of the Board of Appeals decision to deny the appeal and sustain the Zoning Administrator's approval. The reason for the appeal is based on an inadequate environmental review. The following is staff's response to the issue brought up in the appellant's appeal letter: A. Appellant's Statement "The Environmental Impact Report (E'IR) regarding the use of this property as a commercial horse facility is in error in that it does not list known endangered species resident to the Pinole creek drainage, which is a part of this property. Further, the EIR was based upon thirty horses being boarded on the property. The report sited a number of significant environmental impacts from this land use. Failure of the commission to limit the number of horses to thirty should warrant a new, more thorough environmental impact study to examine the consequences of boarding larger numbers of horses, waste management and the effects of run off on the watershed." B. Staff Response On February 22, 2001, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted at the County Clerk's office. The period for accepting comments on the adequacy of the environmental documents expired on March 29, 2001. No comments were received from the neighbors or anyone else who may have been concerned. Staff while preparing the Mitigated Negative Declaration, did not find evidence of endangered species listed on the U.S.G.S Quad Maps. This review reflected the original proposal with access coming off Pereira Road onto the property. Since the Zoning Administrator's approval of County File LP002048, the applicants have diverted the access to cross over the creek, utilizing and upgrading an existing culvert with the approval of the Department of Fish and Game by issuance of a Streambed Alteration Agreement, Notification Number: R3-2001-0568. The Department of Fish and Game has identified this area to be potentially inhabited by the California Red-legged Frog, a federally threatened species. According to Fish and Game, the agreement does not allow for the take, or incidental take of any State or Federal listed threatened or endangered species. The Department requires that pre- construction surveys be conducted by a competent biologist, and the Department is provided a written copy of the survey results prior to the commencement of the project. Liability for any take or incidental take of such listed species remains the responsibility of the operator for the duration of the project. Any unauthorized take of such listed species may result in prosecution and nullify the agreement. If Red-legged Frog is found in the proposed work area, or is in a location, which could be impacted by the work proposed, the applicant shall immediately consult the Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife February 12,2002 Board of Supervisors File#LP002048 Page 5 Service to ensure this species is protected. If the work requires that the species be removed, disturbed, or otherwise impacted, the applicant shall obtain the appropriate Federal endangered species permit. John Kopchik, Senior Planner of Community Development Department, Conservation Division, informed the project planner, that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has declared this area to be within the Alameda Whipsnake critical habitat area. However, according to Mr. Kopchik, unless there is a Federal nexus to a Federal action (permit, funding, etc.), the process for enforcing endangered species regulations is unchanged by a critical habitat designation. Any impacts that would stem from the culvert crossing would need to be addressed by the applicant with the Department of Fish and Game and, of required,the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. As was mentioned previously, the A-2 Zoning District has no limitation on the number of horses. The Public Works Department has conditioned the permit to address manure management and storm water drainage as follows: • To submit a manure management plan for the review and approval of the Public Works Department and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator; • To comply with all rules, regulations, and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) for municipal, construction and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board, or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards (San Francisco Bay— Region II). Compliance shall include developing long-term best management practices (BMP's) for the reduction or elimination of storm water pollutants. The project design shall incorporate, wherever feasible,the following long-term BMP's, in accordance with the Contra Costa County Clean Water Program for the site's storm water drainage. See attachment. STAFF CONCLUSION The zoning district allows commercial recreational facilities when the principal use is not within the building. The principal use is not within a building. The principal use is a riding school and horse training. Training is conducted within an open arena and the covered arena. A covered arena is required so that horse training may be conducted during rainy season. The stables are secondary to the horse training use. Since many students do not have the facilities to board their own horses, stables are required. The proposal is requesting a land use permit for the establishment of a commercial riding school, horse boarding, horse training and veterinary services on a 50-acre parcel. The General Plan and Zoning Ordinance conditionally allow this use. February 12,2002 Board of Supervisors File#LP002048 Page 6 The proposed equestrian facility is situated a far distance from the surrounding neighbors, more than a quarter mile from the Walls family. In staff's opinion, the proposed project is adequately distant from the neighbors, therefore, not creating a nuisance to its immediate surroundings. ALTERNATIVE BOARD ACTIONS If the Board is not satisfied that the environmental documentation for the project is adequate, or that required ordinance findings can be made for the project, then the Board could consider alternative actions to the staff recommendation. A. Require Modifications to the Commission Approval Should the Board determine that the environmental documentation is adequate for purposes of compliance with CEQA, but the Board is unable to make the required ordinance findings to grant the land use permit,then the Board could consider changes to the project conditions that might allow for the findings to be made. For example, if the Board determined that the required findings could only be made by establishing a limit on the number of livestock at this facility,then the Board could make that a condition to the permit. B. Require Additional Environmental Review Notwithstanding the (CEQA) initial study and related documentation including mitigation monitoring program prepared for this project, should the Board determine the documentation is not adequate to establish that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts, then there are two alternatives that the Board may consider. Both would need to be completed prior to considering any project approval action, and the granting of the Wall appeal. 1. Require Preparation of an Environmental Impact—Repo The Board may determine that an Environmental Impact Report is required for this project. In this instance the Board should identify the specific potential environmental impacts it feels should be better documented. further, the matter should be continued indefinitely and staff directed to re-notice the project after a Final Environmental Impact Report is prepared. In this instance, staff would initiate the following steps: • Issue a Notice of Preparation on the project based on a revised initial study. • Solicit outside consultants to make proposals to prepare an EIR, and select a consultant. • Staff would approve inform the applicant of the EIR preparation fee associated with the selected consultant proposal, plus a 30%administrative surcharge. This February 12, 2002 Board of Supervisors File#LP002048 Page 7 fee would need to be collected from the applicant before proceeding further with the project. Upon collection of the fee from the applicant, staff would request authorization from Board to enter into a contract with the consultant for preparation of the EIR. • A draft EIR would be prepared, reviewed by staff, then circulated to the public with a Notice of Completion for public comment. • Following a public comment period, responses-to-comments would be prepared and brought to the Zoning Administrator for recommendation to the Board on adoption of the EIR. • Following the Zoning Administrator action,the EIR would be placed on the Board agenda for adoption, and re-notice of the hearing on the project. 2. Require Additional Documentation for a Revised Negative Declaration--If the Board determines that inadequacies with the environmental documentation might be corrected with additional documentation (including potential mitigation agreed to by the applicant), then the Board could see if the applicant is willing to pay for the necessary documentation that might allow for a project finding of no significant impact. In this instance, staff would: • Develop a scope of work for the additional documentation. • Arrange for necessary additional documentation to be prepared at the expense of the applicant. • Assuming that the study determines any new significant impacts, can be mitigated to a less than significant level, ask the applicant to agree to those measures. • Make appropriate revisions to the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, and issue a Revised Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration for public comment, including the appellant. • After completion of the public comment period, schedule the proposed Negative Declaration for adoption action by the Board and re-notice the hearing before the Board on the land use permit. Again, in this instance the Board should direct staff to re-notice the hearing once the revised CEQA procedures have been completed. S:\curr-plan\board\board orders\L.p002048.Board Order-b ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.2 February 12, 2002 The Board of Supervisors considered the appeal by Robert and Dina Walls, (Appellants) of the County Planning Commission approval of a Land Use Permit, File #LP002048, for a commercial riding school, horse boarding and training, and veterinarian services, in the Martinez/Alhambra Valley area. Dennis Barry, Director, Community Development, and Rose Marie Pietras, Community Development, presented the staff report and recommendations. Mr. Barry advised that he wanted to add a 7t'recommendation to incorporate into the conditions of approval fora land use permit and make part of the mitigation program. That recommendation is from the August 2, 2001, 1603 Lake and Streamed Alteration, condition 3 which reads, "The project site has been identified as an area that is potentially inhabited by the CA Red-legged frog, a federally threatened species. This agreement does not allow for the take, or incidental take, of any State or Federal listed threatened or endangered species. Therefore, the Department requires that pre-construction surveys be conducted by a competent biologist, and that the Department is provided a written copy of the survey results prior to the commencement of the project. Liability for any take or incidental take of such listed species remains the responsibility of the Operator for the duration of the project. Any unauthorized take of such listed species may result prosecution and nullify this agreement". He also read into the record the following from the CEQA Guidelines Section 15074: 1. On the basis of the whole record before it, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the Negative Declaration reflects the County's independent judgment and analysis. 2. The documents and other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Board basis its decision may be found in the Community Development Department, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California, and by contacting the project planner, Rose Marie Pietras. After further discussion by the Board, the Chair opened the public hearing the following people presented testimony: Page 2 February 12, 2002 D.2 Eric Hesseltine, (on behalf of the applicant), 3182 Old Tunnel Road, Suite E., Lafayette; Lynn Sugayan, 1071 Periera Road, Martinez; Frank Huback, 1033 Overlook, Berkeley; Mike Walls, 1091 Periera Road, Martinez. The Chair closed the public hearing and after further discussion, Supervisor Uilkema moved to adopt the six recommendations with a 7t' condition to be added as proposed by Dennis Bary, and to modify the Condition of Approval #8 to read, "No outdoor loudspeakers or electronic amplification shall be permitted." By an unanimous vote, with all five supervisors present, the Board took the following actions. CLOSED the public hearing; DENIED the appeal by Robert M. Walls; ADOPTED the proposed modified Mitigated Negative Declaration; ADOPTED the modified Mitigation Monitoring Program; SUSTAINED the County Planning Commission approval of the land use permit application; ADOPTED the findings of the County Planning Commission as the basis for the Board approval; DIRECTED staff to post a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk based on the Board's action as modified today.