|
COUNTY OF SAN MATEOInter-Departmental CorrespondencePlanning and Building Department |
|
||||||||
DATE: |
August 30, 2010 | |||||||||
BOARD MEETING DATE: |
September 14, 2010 | |||||||||
SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING: |
Noticed | |||||||||
VOTE REQUIRED: |
Majority | |||||||||
TO: |
Honorable Board of Supervisors | |||||||||
FROM: |
Jim Eggemeyer, Community Development Director | |||||||||
SUBJECT: |
Public hearing to consider a request by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), pursuant to Government Code Section 65402(b), that the County determine if the SFPUC’s proposed Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant Long-Term Improvements Project, located at 2901 Crystal Springs Road in unincorporated San Bruno, conforms to the San Mateo County General Plan. (Appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission that the project conforms with the County General Plan.) | |||||||||
County File Number: PLN 2010-00162 (Planning and Building Dept.) | ||||||||||
RECOMMENDATION: | ||||||||||
1. |
Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission that the project conforms with the County General Plan; and | |||||||||
2. |
Find that the Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant Long-Term Improvements Project conforms with the County General Plan by making the findings included at the end of this report. | |||||||||
PROPOSAL | ||||||||||
The SFPUC is requesting, pursuant to Government Code Section 65402(b), that the County determine if the SFPUC’s proposed Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant Long-Term (HTWTP) Improvements Project conforms to the County General Plan. (Appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission that the project conforms with the County General Plan.) | ||||||||||
A. |
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT | |||||||||
Report Prepared By: Matt Seubert, Project Planner, Telephone 650/363-1829 | ||||||||||
Appellant: Skyline Stables | ||||||||||
Applicant: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) | ||||||||||
Owner: City and County of San Francisco Water Department | ||||||||||
Location: The project is located at 2901 Crystal Springs Road in an unincorporated area adjacent to the cities of San Bruno and Millbrae. It is bounded on the north by residential and recreational areas in incorporated San Bruno, on the south and east by residential, recreational, and educational areas of incorporated Millbrae, and on the west by I-280 and unincorporated SFPUC-owned watershed lands. | ||||||||||
Setting: The HTWTP facility includes an administration building (operations complex), two treated water reservoirs, water treatment process units, various chemical treatment and storage facilities situated along the main plant access road, and several outlying facilities located adjacent to the southern and northern site boundaries, including the wash water tank, raw water pump station, and an emergency chlorination facility. The site also includes Skyline Stables, which is comprised of 52 stalls on approximately 13 acres of SFPUC property. Skyline Stables currently has a lease to operate at the HTWTP site, subject to SFPUC’s use of the site for water system needs. | ||||||||||
APN: 093-120-050 | ||||||||||
Parcel Size: 52.3 acres | ||||||||||
Existing Zoning: RM (Resource Management) | ||||||||||
General Plan Designation: General Open Space (Rural) | ||||||||||
Sphere-of-Influence: Millbrae | ||||||||||
Existing Land Use: The parcel currently contains the Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant, related reservoirs and other SFPUC facilities, as well as the Skyline Stables. | ||||||||||
Flood Zone: Zone C, Area of Minimal Flooding, FEMA Community Panel 060311-01060B | ||||||||||
Environmental Evaluation: As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) has been completed that evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the project. | ||||||||||
The DEIR determined that potentially significant individual and cumulative impacts from the portions of the project in the unincorporated County could be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation measures. Relevant portions of this DEIR are discussed in Section F of the staff report. The DEIR is several hundred pages long, and is available online at http://www.sfplanning.org/index.aspx?page=1829. | ||||||||||
While staff has reviewed the DEIR for the project, the purpose of a General Plan Conformity determination is not to determine the adequacy of a CEQA document (the DEIR), nor pass judgment on a project’s environmental impacts and the adequacy of its mitigation measures. Rather, it is to determine if the project conforms with the County General Plan. | ||||||||||
B. |
PROJECT DESCRIPTION | |||||||||
The proposed improvements to the HTWTP include treatment process improvements to meet water quality and delivery reliability goals, seismic reliability improvements, and other improvements such as pipeline distribution, access and site improvements. | ||||||||||
The specific objectives of the proposed project include: | ||||||||||
• |
Increase water delivery reliability. | |||||||||
• |
Improve seismic reliability. | |||||||||
• |
Maximize the use of existing SFPUC facilities and infrastructure. | |||||||||
• |
Maintain a gravity-driven system. | |||||||||
• |
Allow for timely construction of proposed facilities. | |||||||||
The goal of the project is to increase the reliability of the regional system to meet customer demand under a range of operating conditions, such as reservoir replenishment requirements during planned maintenance and unplanned outages, and loss of any one water source. The HTWTP provides the treatment processes necessary (i.e., filtration, fluoridation, and disinfection) to convert raw water from the San Andreas Reservoir to drinking water that serves SFPUC customers in northern San Mateo County and San Francisco. | ||||||||||
The proposed project seeks to support SFPUC objectives related to its Water Supply Improvement Program (WSIP) level-of-service goals for seismic reliability. The WSIP goal for seismic reliability is to reduce the regional system’s vulnerability to earthquakes, thereby ensuring water service to customers within a defined period following a major earthquake. In addition to upgrading critical facilities to meet current seismic standards, WSIP seismic level-of-service goals require improvements to seismic reliability addressing the ability of the SFPUC to restore disrupted service after an earthquake. To reduce seismic vulnerability of the HTWTP, slopes near the fault locations must be stabilized and existing facilities must be seismically retrofitted or relocated. | ||||||||||
External improvements and new facility construction will require substantial construction activities, such as vegetation removal, excavation and grading, trenching, relocation of existing utilities, and pile driving or drilling. Techniques for constructing the new treated water reservoir, installing pipelines, and slope stabilization will utilize a variety of construction vehicles and equipment. Temporary lighting will be required for nighttime construction activities. Lighting will be directed downward and inward to minimize visibility from adjacent residences. Construction of the proposed project would occur over a period of approximately four years, between early 2011 and 2015. Most work would be completed during weekdays, with occasional Saturday and 24-hour, 7-day work. | ||||||||||
Specific improvements include: | ||||||||||
• |
Decommission two existing treated water reservoirs. | |||||||||
• |
Demolish two former sedimentation basins and existing buildings. | |||||||||
• |
Remove existing equestrian facilities. | |||||||||
• |
Remove and replace segments of pipeline and storm drain facilities. | |||||||||
• |
Construct new water reservoir, connection pipelines, water junction structure or filter effluent chamber, sampling building and ancillary facilities, emergency chlorination building, chemical storage area, and electrical substation. | |||||||||
• |
Replace water pump, wash water and chemical tanks, calcium thiosulfate system and structure, and other equipment. | |||||||||
• |
Install backup generator, new filters, pumps, pipelines and electrical equipment. | |||||||||
• |
Improvements to coagulation and flocculation basins. | |||||||||
• |
Retrofit wash water clarifiers and install high-rate clarifiers. | |||||||||
• |
Retrofit and install sludge holding tanks. | |||||||||
• |
Retrofit chloramination building to a solids dewatering facility. | |||||||||
• |
Seismic upgrades. | |||||||||
• |
Widen portions of secondary access road and gate. | |||||||||
• |
Realign portion of main plant access road. | |||||||||
• |
Construct driveways. | |||||||||
• |
Construct equipment pads at PG&E substation. | |||||||||
• |
Other minor site improvements (utilities, lighting, resurfacing, and paving). | |||||||||
• |
Slope stabilization and erosion control, re-grading, construct retaining walls. | |||||||||
C. |
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION | |||||||||
On June 30, 2010, the Planning Commission considered whether the project conforms to the General Plan. Speakers at the public hearing included: Bill Clark, a horse owner, and Christine Hanson, President of Skyline Stables. Ms. Hanson stated that the DEIR was inadequate, and that the project does not conform to the County General Plan policies regarding Parks and Recreation. These issues are more fully discussed in sections D and F.5 of the staff report below. | ||||||||||
Joseph Graff also spoke, objecting to the potential noise and nighttime lighting impacts of the proposed project. These issues are discussed more fully in sections D and F.3 of the report below. Representatives of the SFPUC also spoke at the hearing, responding to the above comments raised by the public and the Commissioners. | ||||||||||
The Commission found that the project conforms with the County General Plan, by making the findings included at the end of this report. The Commission added findings number 2 and 3 at the public hearing in response to public testimony. The motion was carried 4-1, with Commissioner Slocum dissenting, stating that she could not find that the project conformed with General Plan Policy 6.29 relating to parks and recreation. | ||||||||||
D. |
APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION | |||||||||
Issue: The Commission’s determination that the project conforms with the County General Plan was appealed to the Board of Supervisors on July 9, 2010, by Christine Hanson, President of Skyline Stables Corporation. A copy of the appeal is included at the end of this report. In its appeal, the appellant contests the decision that the project conforms to the General Plan Policy 6.29, which states that the County will encourage all providers of park and recreation facilities to make provisions to protect, operate and maintain park and recreation systems. The appellant states that the decision cites SFPUC’s efforts to work with horse owners to find a new location(s) for their animals, even though the SFPUC maintains that they are not obligated to relocate the stables. The appellant also challenged the statement in the DEIR that stated that there are sufficient stabling opportunities within 35 miles of the existing facility, maintaining that Appendix C of the DEIR states that all but two of these locations are at capacity and the cost of stabling at other locations is more expensive than at Skyline Stables. The appellant also states that if the stables are destroyed and not relocated, it will create a negative environmental impact for the local horse community and remove the only low cost, non-profit stable on the Peninsula. | ||||||||||
Response: The Planning Commission found that the project conforms to the General Plan and with Park and Recreation Policy 6.29. The reasons for this are discussed more thoroughly in Section F.5 of the staff report. In brief, this policy is a direction to the County to encourage park and recreation providers to protect, operate and maintain park and recreation systems. It is not a mandate for the providers themselves to maintain or replace such park and recreation facilities. In fact, although Skyline Stables is a park and recreation provider, it is not clear that the General Plan defines the SFPUC itself as a park and recreation provider. The term ‘provider’ is not defined in the General Plan, and the SFPUC does not provide such facilities directly, instead leasing its property to the provider, which is Skyline Stables. The SFPUC, in its response to the appeal, maintains that the site should not be equated with a parks and recreation facility within the meaning of the County General Plan, and that the primary use of the property is as a water treatment plant, while the Skyline Stables is secondary and accessory to this principle use. | ||||||||||
The SFPUC, in its response to the appeal, which is included at the end of this staff report, also cites additional research it has conducted to identify possible relocation sites for the horses at Skyline Stables. As mentioned in Section F.5 of the staff report, the SFPUC has previously been in contact with the County Planning Department to explore possible relocation sites for the stables. However, the sites explored had significant environmental and/or potential community opposition constraints making them less than ideally suited for a stable operation. | ||||||||||
On July 23, 2010, the appellant also submitted a substantial volume of written materials in support of the appeal, including letters and written responses addressed to Planning staff, meeting notes, various emails including many between the appellant and the SFPUC, studies regarding horse keeping and other materials. Staff has reviewed this material in the course of preparing this staff report. The written responses directed to Planning staff are included with this report for reference, however, the emails, meeting notes, and studies are not included in the interest of brevity, but are available upon request. Many of these materials relate to contractual details between the SFPUC and the appellant, to which the County is not a party, and many of which are not relevant to the question of the project’s conformity with the General Plan. In fact, the evidence submitted by the appellant of numerous meetings and email between SFPUC staff and Skyline Stables indicates that the SFPUC has, in fact, been working in good faith to try and accommodate many of the desires of its tenant, although with a limited degree of success. Taken together, all of the above points support the Planning Commission’s conclusion that the project conforms with the park and recreation policy of encouraging park and recreation facilities to make provisions to protect, operate and maintain park and recreation systems. | ||||||||||
Issue: Joseph Graff, a resident of Millbrae, also submitted a letter dated July 15, a copy of which is included with this report, stating that he was appealing the project. However, the project had already been appealed and the appeal fee paid by Skyline Stables. Mr. Graff stated in his letter that the SFPUC had not adequately addressed the impacts of lighting, noise, dust and dirt. Mr. Graff asked that defined procedures be put in place to mitigate these impacts, as he was concerned about the possible health impacts. | ||||||||||
Response: The project DEIR addresses the concern raised by Mr. Graff regarding nighttime lighting of the project. The DEIR identifies a mitigation measure consisting of light reduction measures that would minimize light spillover to nearby areas. These measures would include the use of temporary lights equipped with cut-off shields and directed downward and inward, away from adjacent residences. This would reduce impacts from temporary sources of light and glare to less than significant levels, and would conform to General Plan policies related to lighting. This is more fully discussed in Section F.3 of the staff report. | ||||||||||
The project DEIR also discusses the concern raised by Mr. Graff regarding noise. Construction noise will be mitigated to less than significant levels with proposed mitigation measures. The only noise impact that is significant and unmitigable is on the Sunset Branch pipeline portion of the project, which is within the incorporated city of Millbrae, not within the unincorporated County. County General Plan policies, therefore, do not apply to this part of the project. The SFPUC proposes noise source control mitigation measures that would reduce construction-related daytime noise levels to less than significant levels from the portion of the project that is within the unincorporated County. These measures include the use of noise-reducing measures on construction vehicles, limiting the hours of construction operation, distributing public notices, worker awareness training, a noise control plan, and limiting truck traffic at night. In addition, the Planning Commission added a finding that it is appropriate to suggest that the SFPUC consider monetary incentives for the project contractor to exceed the noise performance standards adopted for the project for nighttime work, and for the SFPUC to continue to diligently coordinate with the neighborhood. These multiple proposed mitigation measures for this project would reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels for the portion of the project that is within the unincorporated County, and bring the project into conformance with the County’s General Plan policies regarding noise. The issue of construction noise is also discussed in section F.9.a of the staff report. | ||||||||||
Finally, the DEIR analyzes the issue of construction-related dust and dirt raised by Mr. Graff. The DEIR states that there are potentially significant impacts from construction-related emissions and diesel particulate matter both from this project and cumulatively from other SFPUC projects in the area. However, these impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant level if Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) recommended dust and exhaust controls are implemented. Dust controls include watering surfaces to keep dust down, covering hauling trucks, limiting vehicle speeds, and minimizing truck idling times. Exhaust control measures include limiting the use of diesel generators, limiting truck idling times, and strict fuel, tune-up, and emission-control requirements for construction vehicles. These measures would reduce dust, dirt, and emissions to less than significant levels and ensure conformity with General Plan policies related to air quality. This is also discussed in section F.9.b of the staff report. | ||||||||||
E. |
REASON FOR GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY | |||||||||
Government Code Section 65402 states, in relevant part, that “... a city shall not ... construct or authorize a public building or structure, in ... unincorporated territory, if ... the county in which such unincorporated territory is situated has adopted a general plan ... and such general plan ... is applicable thereto, until the location, purpose and extent of such ... public building or structure have been submitted to and reported upon by the planning agency having jurisdiction, as to conformity with said adopted general plan ...” Because the project is undertaken by a city, under Government Code Section 65402, SFPUC must request, and San Mateo County may choose to report on, a determination of the project’s conformity with the San Mateo County General Plan. | ||||||||||
The Board has previously delegated the authority for General Plan Conformity determination to the Planning Commission. As decisions made by the Planning Commission are appealable to the Board of Supervisors, the appropriate avenue for an aggrieved party to seek relief from a decision made by the Planning Commission regarding a determination of General Plan Conformity is an appeal to the Board of Supervisors. | ||||||||||
No San Mateo County building permits or other development approvals are required for this project. As such, the County has no development approval authority to attach conditions of approval to the project, although the SFPUC has expressed a willingness to seriously consider comments or suggestions from the County seriously. While the project is located primarily on property owned by the SFPUC and is not subject to San Mateo County development or building permit requirements, work on the proposal may require County encroachment permits and/or easements for construction for use of County lands or rights-of-way, as well as permits for road closures and traffic control plans. | ||||||||||
The purpose of a General Plan Conformity determination is not to evaluate the adequacy of a CEQA document (the DEIR), nor of a project’s environmental impacts and the adequacy of its mitigation measures. Although the CEQA document is a useful tool to help understand the project, the purpose of the General Plan Conformity analysis is to determine whether the project conforms to the policies contained in the County General Plan. | ||||||||||
F. |
CONFORMANCE WITH THE SAN MATEO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN | |||||||||
The conformance analysis focuses on project impacts that raise potential conflicts with the policies of the General Plan. Some discussion of beneficial impacts is also included where relevant. This section examines project impacts that are identified in the DEIR as significant or potentially significant, but that can be mitigated to less than significant levels. Potential impacts that are identified as less than significant for purposes of CEQA were reviewed by staff and found to be in conformance with General Plan policies, but are generally not discussed in the staff report. | ||||||||||
1. |
Vegetative, Water, Fish and Wildlife Resources Policies | |||||||||
Policies 1.22.a, 1.23 and 1.26 require that the County regulate land uses and development activities to prevent, and if infeasible, mitigate to the extent possible, significant adverse impacts on water, fish, vegetative and wildlife resources. | ||||||||||
Policy 1.24 requires, in part, that the County ensure that development will (1) minimize the removal of vegetative resources; (2) protect vegetation that enhances microclimate, stabilizes slopes or reduces surface water runoff, erosion or sedimentation; and (3) protect historic and scenic trees. | ||||||||||
Policy 1.27 requires the County to regulate development within and adjacent to sensitive habitats in order to protect critical vegetative, water, fish and wildlife resources; protect rare, endangered, and unique plants and animals from reduction in their range or degradation of their environment; and protect and maintain the biological productivity of important plant and animal habitats. | ||||||||||
Policy 1.31 requires the County to regulate the location, siting and design of development in sensitive habitats to minimize to the greatest extent possible adverse impacts, and enhance positive impacts. | ||||||||||
Discussion. The proposed project site contains significant vegetative and wildlife resources, and the project has the potential to significantly adversely impact these resources. The DEIR identifies several specific Federal and State-listed special-status plant and animal species as potentially occurring within the project site. The DEIR notes that construction impacts on raptors, nesting migratory birds, the western red bat, and the dusky footed woodrat are potentially significant unless mitigated. The proposed improvements have been sited and designed to minimize the removal and disturbance of the habitats used by these species, in conformance with the General Plan policies referenced above. Where impacts cannot be avoided, the proposed mitigation measures of worker awareness training and pre-construction species surveys would reduce potential impacts on these species to less than significant levels, bringing the project into conformance with General Plan policies regarding vegetative and wildlife resources. | ||||||||||
The DEIR also notes that approximately 15 significant trees and two heritage trees would be removed, a potentially significant impact in terms of compliance with the County’s policies to protect trees, and that the project would have a potential adverse effect on oak woodland sensitive habitat. The DEIR proposed a pre-construction tree survey, the installation of tree protection measures, and tree replanting at a 1:1 ratio for any significant trees that are removed (3:1 for the two heritage trees), in order to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. These measures are similar to what the County would require for tree protection and replacement, and conform to the relevant General Plan policies. | ||||||||||
The project will replace a section of pipeline that crosses under the willow riparian area of El Zanjon Creek, by tunneling under the creek using a jack-and-bore construction method. Although the work area is located outside of the riparian corridor, the DEIR identifies potentially significant impacts on this sensitive riparian habitat and/or water quality from construction-related erosion, sedimentation, and accidental release of pollutants. Proposed mitigation measures include erosion and sedimentation construction controls and the preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), including best management practices (BMPs) and a dewatering plan that would comply with NPDES requirements that would reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. This would ensure that the project conforms with General Plan policies regarding sensitive habitats and water quality. | ||||||||||
There may be unidentified storm sewer, sanitary sewer, gas, water, and utility lines that could be damaged during construction, resulting in potentially significant impacts to water quality. The DEIR would require a mitigation measure that would locate utilities prior to construction, ensure prompt reconnection of any utilities that are disrupted during construction, and develop a worker safety provision for excavation near natural gas lines. These measures would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels, and are in conformance with the County General Plan. | ||||||||||
All of these proposed mitigation measures are similar to what the County would require were it to issue permits for this project, and are sufficient to achieve conformity with the Vegetative, Water, Fish and Wildlife Resources Policies of the General Plan. | ||||||||||
2. |
Soil Resources Policies | |||||||||
Policies 2.17 and 2.23 call for the County to regulate development, excavation, grading, filling and land clearing activities to protect against and minimize soil erosion and sedimentation. | ||||||||||
Discussion. The DEIR notes that the project could result in loss of topsoil and accelerated erosion during construction, a potentially significant impact. However, the DEIR proposes mitigation measures including erosion and sedimentation construction controls and the preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) including best management practices (BMPs) that would reduce this impact to less than significant levels. In addition, the DEIR notes that there is a potentially significant impact for damage to facilities from expansive or corrosive soils. The mitigation measure of a site-specific geotechnical investigation for expansive and corrosive soils prior to construction would reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level. These measures would meet County requirements for similar projects and are sufficient to mitigate potential soil erosion and sedimentation in accordance with the Soil Resources Policies of the General Plan. | ||||||||||
3. |
Visual Quality Policies | |||||||||
Policy 4.59 seeks to minimize exterior lighting in scenic corridors. | ||||||||||
Discussion. Roughly the western half of the project parcel is within the Junipero Serra Freeway State and County Scenic Corridor, and this policy is applicable only to that portion of the property. The eastern portion of the project parcel is not within the designated Scenic Corridor, and neither are the surrounding residential neighborhoods in incorporated Millbrae and San Bruno. The County General Plan policy relating to lighting is not applicable to the portion of the project outside of the scenic corridor or within the jurisdiction of adjacent incorporated cities. | ||||||||||
The DEIR does identify potentially significant construction-related visual impacts due to lighting for nighttime construction activity that could be visible from nearby residential areas. The DEIR identifies a mitigation measure consisting of light reduction measures that would minimize light spillover to nearby areas. These measures would include the use of temporary lights equipped with cut-off shields and directed downward and inward, away from adjacent residences. This would reduce impacts from temporary sources of light and glare to less than significant levels. This mitigation measure adequately mitigates visual impacts and conforms to the General Plan policies related to lighting and visual quality. | ||||||||||
4. |
Historical and Archaeological Resources Policies | |||||||||
Policies 5.3 and 5.21 protect archaeological sites from destruction and temporarily suspend construction work when such sites are discovered. | ||||||||||
Discussion. The DEIR acknowledges that there is a possibility that paleontological, archaeological materials and/or human remains could be discovered during the course of construction, resulting in a potentially significant impact to archaeological resources. The SFPUC proposes mitigation measures that would include conducting a paleontological assessment, alerting workers to specific policies and procedures to be followed, including stopping work and contacting a qualified archaeologist or coroner as appropriate should such items be discovered during construction, as well as an archaeological monitoring plan. These measures meet or exceed those that would be required by the County for similar projects, and thus conform with County General Plan policies regarding protection of archaeological resources. | ||||||||||
5. |
Park and Recreation Resources | |||||||||
Policy 6.29 states that the County will encourage all providers of park and recreation facilities to make provisions to protect, operate and maintain park and recreation systems. | ||||||||||
Discussion. Skyline Stables is a privately-operated non-profit equestrian facility operating under lease from the SFPUC on the project parcel. The project will require the removal of the stables for a treated water reservoir and other improvements. The new location for the reservoir is necessary because the existing reservoir, which will be decommissioned, is located on an earthquake fault line. The SFPUC has stated that relocation of the equestrian facilities to a different location within the parcel is not a viable option due, in part, to lack of available space. Locating the stables on other SFPUC property that is part of a watershed is not an environmentally feasible option, due to issues related to runoff from such a facility. The SFPUC has been working with horse owners to try and partially compensate them and/or find another site for the stables, including the possibility of locating on other non-watershed SFPUC property. However, using SFPUC funding for building another stable facility for horse owners may be difficult due to limits on approved uses of public funds for SFPUC projects. The SFPUC has also contacted County staff on several occasions inquiring about the suitability of alternative sites for relocation, and County staff has worked with the SFPUC to provide information on these alternative locations. However, the sites identified thus far have been less that ideally suited, due to a combination of environmental issues and/or possible neighborhood opposition. | ||||||||||
The DEIR notes that there are 18 equestrian facilities within 35 miles of the project with capacity to board horses currently located at Skyline Stables. The appellant has stated that many of these other locations either have limited capacity and/or higher fees compared to the existing facility. In their response to the appeal, the SFPUC replied that in addition to the survey of other available equestrian facilities in the draft DEIR, the SFPUC conducted an additional survey in 2010. This supplemental survey identified 188 spaces available for boarding within San Mateo County at a range of price points. The higher prices at many of these locations as compared to the existing facility may be due, in part, to the relatively favorable lease terms that Skyline Stables has enjoyed from the SFPUC over the years. | ||||||||||
The DEIR states that the public would still retain access to sufficient equestrian resources in the area, and identifies recreational impacts as less than significant. CEQA does not require mitigation for recreation impacts, as these impacts were identified in the DEIR as less than significant. The appellant is also correct in stating that the SFPUC is not obligated to relocate the stables. Relocation is not an obligation per any County plan policy, although there may be other contractual obligations that bind the SFPUC. The County has no permit authority to obligate the SFPUC to relocate the stables. | ||||||||||
Staff also notes that this policy does not require providers of park and recreation facilities to make provisions to protect, operate and maintain park and recreation systems. In other words, it does not require that park and recreation facilities maintain the status quo of their operations, and it does not require them to replace and/or relocate facilities that are being closed. Rather, the policy is an instruction to the County that it encourage providers to protect, operate and maintain park and recreation systems. In fact, although Skyline Stables provides recreational opportunities, it is not clear that the SFPUC is itself as a park and recreation provider as defined in the General Plan. The SFPUC does not provide park and recreation facilities directly, instead leasing its property to the provider, which is Skyline Stables. | ||||||||||
The Planning Commission found that, in fact, the County is complying with this policy by encouraging the SFPUC to work with the stable owners to find alternate locations for their horses, although finding alternative locations has met with limited success so far. The Planning Commission also added finding #3, consistent with this policy, that the County encourage the SFPUC to continue to work with the stable owners/operators to find alternative locations and on the provision of a replacement facility(ies). Taken overall, the points above lead staff to agree with the Planning Commission’s determination that the project does comply with the park and recreation policy of encouraging park and recreation facilities to make provisions to protect, operate and maintain park and recreation systems. | ||||||||||
6. |
Land Use | |||||||||
Table 7.1 describes primary feasible uses in the General Open Space land use designation as resource management and production uses including but not limited to agriculture, oil and gas exploration, as well as recreational uses including but not limited to stables and riding academies. | ||||||||||
Table 9.1P lists watershed or other resource protection, as well as outdoor recreation, as a locational criteria for the General Open Space Rural land use designation. | ||||||||||
Discussion. In its response to the appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission, the SFPUC replied that the primary use of the property is as a water treatment plant, and that the Skyline Stables is secondary and accessory to this principle use. The SFPUC maintains that the site should not be equated with a parks and recreation facility within the meaning of the County General Plan. | ||||||||||
Staff’s analysis concurs with the SFPUC that the primary use of the site is a water treatment plant, and that the Skyline Stables, a leaseholder, should be considered an accessory and secondary use. However, staff also maintains that Policy 6.29 of the General Plan relating to Park and Recreation facilities is relevant to this site and to the Skyline Stables, although it is perhaps not directly applicable to the SFPUC. The general plan does not define park and recreation providers, and does not specify who the provider is in a case such as this, where the SFPUC is the landowner and lessor, and the Skyline Stables, the lessee, are the direct providers of the park and recreation facility. | ||||||||||
Although the General Plan does not specifically call out a water treatment plant as a compatible use in the Open Space land use designation, such a use is consistent with a “resource management and production use” and can be considered an ancillary use to a watershed or reservoir. The existing and proposed use thus conforms to the General Plan land use designation of General Open Space. | ||||||||||
7. |
Water Supply Policies | |||||||||
Policy 10.13 requires that the County support efforts to improve water distribution and storage systems in unincorporated areas. | ||||||||||
Policy 10.14 requires the County to support development of a sufficient emergency supply of water. | ||||||||||
Discussion. A primary purpose of this project is to improve the water treatment and distribution system that serves parts of the unincorporated County and other areas. The project thus furthers these General Plan policies of supporting efforts to improve water distribution and storage systems and to develop and maintain a sufficient emergency supply of water. | ||||||||||
8. |
Solid Waste Policies | |||||||||
Policies 13.1, 13.5 and 13.6 seek to reduce waste generation, minimize dependence on landfills, and promote resource recovery. | ||||||||||
Discussion. Project implementation at all sites and staging areas would result in the generation of waste materials, including construction, demolition and excavated material, that could exceed local waste diversion goals or daily tonnage limits at local landfills, resulting in a potentially significant impact. However, a mitigation measure that would implement a waste management plan, including salvaging, recycling, and sources separating would ensure compliance with all applicable Federal, State and local solid waste statutes, and reduce impacts to a less than significant level, ensuring conformity with County General Plan policies relating to solid waste. | ||||||||||
9. |
Man-Made Hazards Policies | |||||||||
a. |
Noise | |||||||||
Policy 16.12 requires the County to regulate noise levels emanating from noise-generating land uses through measures that establish maximum land use compatibility and nuisance thresholds. | ||||||||||
Discussion. The project will not result in any permanent noise impacts. Construction noise and noise from construction-related vehicle traffic would be a potentially significant temporary impact, but can be mitigated to less than significant levels with proposed mitigation measures. The only noise impact that is significant and unmitigable is on the Sunset Branch pipeline portion of the project, which is not within the unincorporated County. County General Plan policies do not apply to this part of the project. The SFPUC proposes noise source control mitigation measures that would reduce construction-related daytime noise levels to less than significant levels from the portion of the project that is within the unincorporated County. These measures include the use of noise-reducing measures on construction vehicles, limiting the hours of construction operation, distributing public notices, worker awareness training, a noise control plan, and limiting truck traffic at night. | ||||||||||
The Planning Commission added a finding that it is appropriate to suggest that the SFPUC consider monetary incentives for the project contractor to do better than the noise performance standards adopted for the project for nighttime work, and for the SFPUC to continue to diligently coordinate with the neighborhood. These multiple proposed mitigation measures for this project and the other SFPUC projects in the area would reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels for the portion of the project that is within the unincorporated County, and bring the project into conformance with the County’s General Plan policies regarding noise. | ||||||||||
b. |
Air Quality | |||||||||
Policies 17.2 and 17.15 seek to reduce the amount of air pollutant emissions, and specifically require that dust and exhaust from construction activities conform with applicable BAAQMD regulations. | ||||||||||
Discussion. The DEIR analysis does not show any permanent significant impacts to transportation resulting from construction at any of the sites or staging areas in the unincorporated County. It does identify potentially significant, but temporary, displacement of on-street parking and school parking, and increased potential traffic safety hazards during construction. These impacts could potentially result in increased air pollution if not mitigated. The DEIR proposes implementing a traffic and parking control plan that would reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. | ||||||||||
The DEIR states that there are potentially significant impacts from construction-related emissions and diesel particulate matter both from this project and cumulatively from other SFPUC projects in the area. However, these impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant level if BAAQMD-recommended dust and exhaust controls are implemented. Dust controls include watering surfaces to keep dust down, covering hauling trucks, limiting vehicle speeds, and minimizing truck idling times. Exhaust control measures include limiting the use of diesel generators, limiting truck idling times, and strict fuel, tune-up, and emission-control requirements for construction vehicles. These measures would ensure conformity with General Plan policies related to air quality. | ||||||||||
c. |
Hazards and Hazardous Materials | |||||||||
Policies 16.47, 16.49, and 16.50 strive to protect the public and the environment from exposure to hazardous material and waste. | ||||||||||
Discussion. All operational impacts from the accidental release of hazardous materials are identified as less than significant. However, the DEIR notes that there is a potentially significant impact of accidental hazardous materials release from construction equipment during construction. This potential impact would be reduced to a less than significant level by a mitigation measure mandating construction water quality best management practices (BMPs) including a stormwater pollution prevention program. | ||||||||||
There is also a potential for exposure to hazardous materials in the soil, naturally occurring asbestos, and hazardous building materials during the construction process. This significant impact will be mitigated to less than significant levels by preparing a project-specific Hazardous Material Handling and Disposal Plan, which would include a site investigation for lead-affected soils and a hazardous materials building survey. These measures are consistent with the conditions of approval that the County would attach to permits for similar work under its purview, and are, therefore, in conformance with the General Plan. | ||||||||||
G. |
ALTERNATIVES | |||||||||
Staff recommends that the Board uphold the decision of the Planning Commission, deny the appeal, and make the recommended findings included at the end of this report that the project conforms with the General Plan. However, the Board may wish to consider alternative decisions. Possible alternative findings are outlined below, although this is not necessarily a comprehensive list of all possible alternative decisions that the Board might wish to make. | ||||||||||
1. |
Find that overall, the Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant Long-Term Improvements Project conforms with the General Plan, although it does not conform with Park and Recreation Policy 6.29, and/or Visual Quality Policy 4.59, Man-Made Hazards Noise Policy 16.12, or Man-Made Hazards Air Quality Policies 17.2 and 17.15. | |||||||||
2. |
Reverse the decision of the Planning Commission, uphold the appeal, and find that the Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant Long-Term Improvements Project does not conform with the General Plan because it does not conform with Park and Recreation Policy 6.29, and/or Visual Quality Policy 4.59, Man-Made Hazards Noise Policy 16.12, or Man-Made Hazards Air Quality Policies 17.2 and 17.15. | |||||||||
It is uncertain what the legal ramifications would be were the County to find that the project does not conform to the General Plan. | ||||||||||
H. |
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW | |||||||||
See the Environmental Evaluation discussion in the Background Section of this report. Potential environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures are discussed in Section F of this report. | ||||||||||
I. |
PUBLIC COMMENT | |||||||||
No public notice is legally required pursuant to Government Code Section 65402(b). However, public hearing notices were sent to property owners within 300 feet of the project site. Public comment at the Planning Commission hearing and by the appellant is discussed in Sections C and D of the report, respectively. Any additional public comment received after the publication of this report will be addressed at the Board hearing on September 14. | ||||||||||
J. |
REVIEWING AGENCIES | |||||||||
County Counsel | ||||||||||
Public Works | ||||||||||
Parks | ||||||||||
County Counsel has reviewed and approved these materials as to content and form. | ||||||||||
The determination that this project conforms with the General Plan contributes to the Shared Vision 2025 outcome of a Livable Community by ensuring an adequate and safe water supply, thus promoting a livable community. | ||||||||||
FISCAL IMPACT | ||||||||||
The determination of General Plan conformity should have no fiscal impact. |
||||||||||
