|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
Inter-Departmental Correspondence |
|
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY |
|
|
DATE: |
February 9, 2004 |
|
|
SET TIME: |
9:15 a.m. |
|
|
BOARD MEETING DATE: |
February 24, 2004 |
|
|
TO: |
Honorable Board of Supervisors |
|
FROM: |
Marcia Raines, Director of Environmental Services |
|
SUBJECT: |
Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny certification of the Negative Declaration and request that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared for a parcel legalization and new single-family residence in the Community Open Space Conservation (COSC) Zoning District in El Granada. |
|
|
County File Number: |
PLN 1999-00082 (Impink/Russi) |
|
|
RECOMMENDATION |
|
That the Board of Supervisor's deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to not certify the Negative Declaration and require the preparation of an EIR. |
|
PROPOSAL |
|
The applicants seek to: (1) legalize a 0.83-acre parcel, (2) drill a maximum of three test wells for one domestic well on the project parcel site, and (3) construct a new 3,324 sq. ft. single-family residence. A Negative Declaration was prepared by the Planning Division; however, the Planning Commission did not certify the document and requested that an EIR be prepared. |
|
BACKGROUND |
|
Report Prepared By: Sara Bortolussi, AICP, Project Planner, Telephone 650/363-1839 |
|
Appellants: Robert Russi and Wayne Impink |
|
Applicants: Wayne and Jill Impink |
|
Owner: Robert Russi |
|
Location: South Side of Avenue Alhambra at Coronado Street, El Granada |
|
APN: 047-251-100 |
|
Size: 0.83 acres |
|
Existing Zoning: COSC/DR/CD (Community Open Space Conservation District/Design Review/ Coastal Development) |
|
General Plan Designation: Open Space |
|
Sphere-of-Influence: City of Half Moon Bay |
|
Existing Land Use: Vacant |
|
Water Supply: The applicants are proposing, with their application, to drill a well. |
|
Sewage Disposal: The applicants have a sewer connection fro the Granada Sanitary District. |
|
Flood Zone: Zone C, Area of minimal flooding |
|
Environmental Evaluation: A Negative Declaration was prepared with public review form January 8, 2002 to January 28, 2002. No comments were received; however, the Negative Declaration was not certified by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission requested preparation of an EIR. |
|
Setting: The parcel is one of 11 parcels located along a strip of land located between Avenue Alhambra and Cabrillo Highway in unincorporated El Granada, located one mile north of the city limits of Half Moon Bay. The site is rectangular in shape consisting of 0.83 acre with an average downward slope of 4 percent in a southwesterly direction from Avenue Alhambra. The site is currently vacant and is covered with weeds and grasses, and has no trees. Residences have been developed to the east, a preschool exists to the north, the land to the south is vacant, and the land to the west, located in the City of Half Moon Bay across Cabrillo Highway, has been developed with a hotel. Other than a residence that has been developed three parcels north of the project site, and the adjacent pre-school, the rest of the block is undeveloped. |
Chronology: |
|
Date |
|
Action |
|
|
|
November 6, 1998 |
- |
Application submitted. |
|
|
|
February 4, 1999 |
- |
The Zoning Hearing Officer (ZHO) grants a continuance at the request of the Midcoast Community Council (MCCC) which requested additional time to review the proposed development. |
|
|
|
February 1999 |
- |
Applicants meet with concerned neighbor and revise plans to address her concerns. |
|
|
|
March 4, 1999 |
- |
ZHO conditionally approves the project. |
|
|
|
March 18, 1999 |
- |
Appeal filed by Ric Lohman and Leni Schultz. |
|
|
|
April 28, 1999 |
- |
Planning Commission upholds the appeal and denies the permits. |
|
|
|
May 12, 1999 |
- |
Appeal filed by the applicants, Wayne and Jill Impink. |
|
|
|
June -July, 1999 |
- |
Research reveals that the parcel was not legally subdivided. |
|
|
|
August 20, 1999 |
- |
Applicants submit application for a Certificate of Compliance Type B to legalize the parcel. |
|
|
|
December 20, 1999 |
- |
Applicants submit a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) application for three test wells, in order to achieve one domestic well. |
|
|
|
July 2001 |
- |
County Counsel, based on information submitted by the property owner's legal counsel, determines that the parcel complies with all County regulations regarding parcel legality and concludes that a Certificate of Compliance Type B is the appropriate mechanism to legalize the parcel. |
|
|
|
October 3, 2001 |
- |
County Counsel determines that the Certificate of Compliance and CDP for the wells need to be heard by the Planning Commission before taking the pending appeal forward with the subsequent applications to the Board of Supervisors. |
|
|
|
January 8, 2002 |
- |
Initial Study and Negative Declaration Public Review Period begins. |
|
|
|
January 28, 2002 |
- |
Initial Study and Negative Declaration Public Review Period ends. |
|
|
|
February 27, 2002 |
- |
Planning Commission public hearing. The Planning Commission does not certify the Negative Declaration and requires the preparation of an EIR. Since the Commission could not certify the Negative Declaration, the Commission could not render a decision on the project itself. |
|
|
|
March 8, 2002 |
- |
Appeal filed by Wayne Impink, applicant. |
|
|
|
March 18, 2002 |
- |
Appeal filed by legal counsel for Robert Russi, owner. |
|
|
|
February 3, 2004 |
- |
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing. |
|
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|
A. |
KEY ISSUES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONS DECISION |
|
|
|
On February 27, 2002, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project. The Planning Commission declined (4-0; Commissioner Kennedy was absent) to certify the Negative Declaration for the project and required that the applicants prepare an EIR. The standard for determining whether an environmental impact report should be prepared is whether there is substantial evidence to support a "fair argument" that the project as proposed may result in a significant environmental impact. In this case, the Planning Commission considered the Initial Study, written comments to the Initial Study, and comments received orally and in writing at the hearing, and determined that there was a fair argument that the project might result in the following potentially significant impacts: |
|
|
|
1. |
Will result in significant adverse changes in land use, both on and off the project site. |
|
|
|
|
2. |
Will require an amendment to or exception from adopted general plan, specific plans, or community policies or goals, in that the project does not comply with visual resources policies. |
|
|
|
|
3. |
Will have significant adverse impacts within a County Scenic Corridor. |
|
|
|
|
4. |
Will obstruct scenic views from existing residential areas, public lands, public water body, or roads. |
|
|
|
|
5. |
Will directly or indirectly affect historical resources on or near the site, namely the Burnham plan for El Granada. |
|
|
|
|
6. |
Will visually intrude into an area having natural scenic qualities. |
|
|
|
|
The Planning Commission believed that the above-referenced impacts were not able to be mitigated such that the impacts would be reduced to less than significant. |
|
|
|
B. |
KEY ISSUES OF THE SUBMITTED APPEAL |
|
|
|
Both appeals submitted focus on the adequacy of the environmental document prepared by Planning staff. Both appeals state the Negative Declaration prepared thoroughly evaluated the potential environmental impacts. The appeal by Robert Russi states that an EIR has never been required prior to the construction of one single-family residence. The appeal states that the County is merely stopping the construction of this property in an attempt to decrease the value of the property so it can be acquired cheaply via condemnation. |
|
|
|
As to the adequacy of the environmental document, the Planning Commission reviewed the document prepared by staff and could not certify the document for reasons listed above. Regarding the issue of preparing an EIR for the construction of one single-family residence, the California Environmental Quality Act has provisions whereby an EIR may be necessary depending upon the impacts created by the proposed project including the construction of one single-family residence. While there is a specific categorical exemption in the State CEQA Guidelines for single-family residences, the exemption does not apply: (1) where the project may impact on an environmental resource of critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted, (2) where the cumulative impacts of successive projects of the same type on the same place, over time, is significant, or (3) where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. Regarding the claim that the County is stalling the project in order to devalue the property and thus attain it cheaply, staff is not aware of any interest or attempts by the County to purchase the property. |
|
|
C. |
PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT |
|
|
|
If the Board of Supervisors upholds the decision of the Planning Commission and requires the applicants to prepare an EIR, the following generally outlines the process to be undertaken by staff and the applicants to complete an EIR. |
|
|
|
1. |
Staff would circulate a Request for Proposal (RFP) to EIR consultants, which describes the project and solicits the preparation of the EIR. |
|
|
|
|
2. |
Staff would review the submitted Proposals. Consultants with proposals that have met the objectives of the RFP would be interviewed. |
|
|
|
|
3. |
Planning staff would then select the EIR consultant and a contract would be entered into for the preparation of the EIR. |
|
|
|
|
4. |
The contract, depending on the scope and amount, would either be reviewed and approved by the County Manager or would be brought to the Board of Supervisors for review and approval. |
|
|
|
|
5. |
Once the contract had been approved, the EIR consultant would begin to prepare the environmental document. |
|
|
|
|
6. |
Planning staff and the EIR consultant would hold a scoping session with the public to determine all the issues the EIR should address. |
|
|
|
|
7. |
Draft EIR is prepared and a Notice of Completion filed with the State Clearinghouse. |
|
|
|
|
8. |
During the public review and circulation period, approximately 30 to 45 days depending on State Agency involvement in the project, Planning staff holds a public meeting to take comments on the Draft EIR. |
|
|
|
|
9. |
Following the conclusion of the comment period, the EIR consultant prepares the response to comments, which together with the Draft EIR becomes the Final EIR. |
|
|
|
|
10. |
Public Hearing(s) to certify the EIR and render a decision on the project. |
|
|
|
D. |
ALTERNATIVE |
|
|
|
|
Should your Board grant the appeal and certify the Negative Declaration, then you should go on to consider and act on the related applications for a Coastal Development Permit and Certificate of Compliance to legalize the parcel and a Use Permit, Coastal Development Permit and Design Review Permit to construct a new single family residence thereon. If you chose to approve those permits, staff recommends you do so by adopting the findings and conditions of approval in Attachments A, B and C (pages 19 through 28) of the attached staff report to the Planning Commission. |
|
|
|
VISION ALIGNMENT |
|
The recommendation to require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report keeps the commitment of preserving and providing people access to the natural environment and the commitment of responsive, effective and collaborative government and goal number 13, protect the quality of the natural environment and goal number 20, government decisions are based on careful consideration of future impact. The preparation of an Environmental Impact Report contributes to these commitments and goals by properly assessing the environmental impacts of the proposed development. |
|
ATTACHMENTS |
|
A. |
Findings for Denial |
B. |
Planning Commission Staff Report |
C. |
Findings and Conditions of Approval for Alternative |
|
|