SISKIYOU COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT July 17, 2019
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SISKIYOU COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT July 17, 2019 AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: ALTES USE PERMIT (UP1802) APPLICANT: Matt & Ruth Altes P.O. Box 1048 Mt Shasta, CA 96067 PROPERTY OWNER: Matt & Ruth Altes P.O. Box 1048 Mt Shasta, CA 96067 PROJECT SUMMARY: The proposed project consists of a use permit to establish an equestrian and event center. LOCATION: The parcel is approximately 9 acres, located at 138 Big Canyon Drive, Mt Shasta, CA 96067, Siskiyou County, California on APN 037-260-510 (Latitude 41°17'05.12"N, Longitude 122°17'52.50"W). GENERAL PLAN: Woodland Productivity ZONING: Highway Commercial (CH) EXHIBITS: A. Proposed Use Permit Findings B. Resolution PC-2019-024 B-1. Proposed Notations and Recommended Conditions of Approval C. Recirculated Draft Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration D. Public Comments Altes Use Permit (UP1802) Page 1 SITE DESCRIPTION The 9-acre project site is located at 138 Big Canyon Drive. The project site is accessed via Big Canyon Drive. The project site is located in an open woodland area. Adjacent parcels are largely developed with residential and commercial uses and the property is near the intersection of Interstate 5 and Highway 89. Figure 1, Project Location PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is a proposed use permit to bring an existing nine-acre equestrian and special event facility into compliance with County Code as well as to facilitate future development of the site. The facility is currently used for horse boarding/training, riding lessons, trail riding, and outdoor events, such as weddings, parties, and retreats. The use permit would allow these unpermitted uses to continue, as well as allow for training clinics and development of a septic system and two additional structures: 1) a multi- use building containing offices, restrooms, storage, and a caretaker’s residence and 2) a barn for storing hay, tack, and other horse-related materials. Access to the site would be via Big Canyon Drive, which leads to the parcel. Altes Use Permit (UP1802) Page 2 ANALYSIS General Plan Consistency The Land Use Element of the Siskiyou County General Plan identifies the project site as being within the mapped overlay area for Woodland Productivity – High Suitability. In addition, Planning staff has identified that Composite Overall Policies 41.3(b), 41.3(e), 41.3(f), 41.5, 41.6, 41.7, 41.8, 41.9, 41.12, 41.14, and 41.18 all apply to the proposed project. As detailed in the findings contained in Exhibit “A”, this project is consistent with the Siskiyou County General Plan. Staff has conducted a detailed analysis of each of the required findings and has found that the proposed project is consistent with the applicable General Plan policies governing the subject site. The proposed project has been designed and/or conditioned to mitigate any potential impacts to area resources or hazardous conditions. In addition, the use (as designed and conditioned) would be compatible with the surrounding land uses, has adequate roadway access for transportation and public health and safety provisions, and would not create environmental impacts to on- or off-site resources. These findings are detailed in the General Plan Consistency Findings Section of Exhibit “A” attached to this staff report and are submitted for the Commission’s review, consideration, and approval. Zoning Consistency The project site is situated in the Highway Commercial (CH) zoning district, and the proposed project is a conditionally permitted use, pursuant to Section 10-6.1502(c) of the Siskiyou County Code. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with the Siskiyou County Zoning Ordinance provided that the Commission approves the requested Use Permit. In order for the Commission to approve the subject Use Permit, the Commission must find that the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan, would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood, and not be incompatible with the character of the area due to noise, dust, odors or other undesirable characteristics. Based on staff’s analysis of the proposed Use Permit, staff believes that the necessary findings can be made for the subject application. These findings are detailed in the Zoning Consistency Findings Section of Exhibit “A” attached to this staff report and are submitted for the Commission’s review, consideration, and approval. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CEQA Compliance Requirements The approval of the Use Permit is a discretionary action by the County and triggers the need to evaluate the project under CEQA. Upon completion of the Initial Study, staff determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) of Environmental Significance was the appropriate environmental document for the project because, in staff’s opinion, the proposed mitigation measures reduced the level of potential impact below the level of significance. The proposed MND was reviewed by the applicant who indicated that the proposed mitigations were acceptable. The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were sent to the State Clearinghouse (SCH#2018112061). The circulation period began on November 26, 2018 and ended on December 25, 2018. CEQA requires that prior to approval of a MND, the Planning Commission must consider the proposed MND together with any comments received during the public review process and that the MND shall only be approved if the Commission finds that 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 MND Altes Use Permit (UP1802) Page 3 reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis. The following is the description of the comments received. PUBLIC COMMENTS: To date, the County has received public comments on the proposed environmental document. (Exhibit D) These comments centered on concerns about potential impacts from noise. As such, a noise study for the project was prepared by Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. and submitted to the Planning Department on May 10, 2019. The results of this study indicate that with implementation of the feasible noise mitigation measures mentioned in the study, all potentially significant noise impacts at the nearest existing residences can be mitigated to a less than significant level. The Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, which includes the noise study prepared by Bollard Acoustical Consultants, is attached as Exhibit “C”. If comments are received following distribution of this staff report, those comments will be provided to the Planning Commission at the meeting. AGENCY COMMENTS: Environmental Health – April 16, 2018: Comments were received regarding the need for chemical toilets for guests and employees and compliance with the food code and event permit requirements. Conditions related to the need for chemical toilets and food permit regulations were added to the Conditions of Approval. Cal Fire – March 27, 2018 Comments were received related to compliance with the Cal Fire 4290 requirements. Conditions of approval were added regarding 4290 compliance. AB 52 Consultation AB 52 mandates early tribal consultation prior to and during CEQA review for those tribes which have formally requested, in writing, notification on projects subject to AB 52, i.e. projects which have published Notices of Preparation (NOPs) for Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) or Notices of Intent to adopt Negative Declarations or Mitigated Negative Declarations since July 1, 2015 (PRC section 21080.3.1). The bill establishes a new category of Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR’s) for which only tribes are expert; these resources may not necessarily be visible or archaeological, but could be religious or spiritual in nature. Significant impacts to a TCR are considered significant effects on the environment (PRC section 21084.2). AB52 notification was sent on May 29, 2018. In the case of this project, no tribes requested consultation. A Public Hearing notice was published on June 19, 2019. Public comments were received and have been included in Exhibit “D”. Altes Use Permit (UP1802) Page 4 PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION • Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration subject to the proposed findings listed in Exhibit “A”. • Approve the Use Permit (UP1802) subject to the proposed findings and conditions listed in Exhibits “A” and “B”. SUGGESTED MOTION I move that, on the basis of the Initial Study and comments received, we make the finding that the proposed project could not have a significant adverse effect on the environment because the Mitigation Measures described have been added to the project, and direct that a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program be adopted and, further, that we grant approval of the Altes Use Permit (UP1802) subject to the Findings and Conditions in the staff report. PREPARATION Prepared by the Siskiyou County Planning Division. For project specific information or to obtain copies for your review, please contact: Christy Cummings Dawson, Director Siskiyou County Community Development Department 806 S. Main Street Yreka, California 96097 Altes Use Permit (UP1802) Page 5 Exhibit “A” Proposed Findings – July 17, 2019 Altes Use Permit (UP1802) FINDINGS GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS MAP 11: WOODLAND PRODUCTIVITY Policy 31 – The minimum parcel size shall be one acre on 0-15% slope, and 5 acres on 16-29% slope. No new parcels are proposed as part of this project. Policy 32 – Single family residential, light commercial, light industrial, open space, non-profit and non- organizational in nature recreational uses, commercial/recreational uses, and public or quasi-public uses only may be permitted. The permitted uses will not create erosion or sedimentation problems. The proposed equestrian and event center is a permitted use per Policy 32 and will not create erosion or sedimentation problems. Policy 33 – All land uses and densities shall be designed so as not to destroy timber productivity on large parcels of high suitability woodland soils. (Class I and II.) The subject parcel is not large and no new land use or change in density is proposed as a part of this project.