SU0007408 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(2) The Community Development Department offers the following comments on the findings proposed by Mr. Towers: ' Page 2, third paragraph: It is not clear that "Sector C-8 was specifically excluded from " Significant Resource Sectors identified in General Plan Figure'Vl4." Nor is it clear that it was not excluded. The findings conclude that "Extractive Policy 1 does not apply, nor do any of the implementation measures associated with Policy 1". Policy 1 does not restrict implementation measures or County ordinances from protecting extractive resources more broadly than expressed in the policy. The Resource Conservation designation on the General Plan does not exactly follow the MRZ-2 zone, and it definitely includes most of the Towers property. Development Title Sections 9-605.60) and 9-1525 rely on the Resource Conservation designation, not on General Plan Extraction Policy 1. The result, relative to this issue, is that a Site Approval is required for this project, and the Commission must determine that this project does not require a significant capital investment in facilities and structures. The Community Development Department has made that determination in finding 1 in the staff report. The Community Development Department has no comment on Mr. Towers' proposed findings B, C, and D which correspond to findings 2, 3, and 4 in the staff report. The Community Development Department is recommending that finding 5 (corresponding to finding E in the Towers submittal) can be made for the corporation yard and cannot be made for the residence. Mr. Towers makes two basic arguments for making finding 5 for the residence. First, he cites the California Mineral Resource Management Policies definition of compatible land use which includes "very low density residential". The Development Title and the Uniform Building Code do not define compatible use. Pursuant to Section 9-110.2 of the Development Title, if a term is not defined in the Development Title or the Uniform building Code, the definition provided in Webster's Third New International Dictionary shall be used. So a definition in the California National Resource Management Policies is not relevant. In the second argument, Mr. Towers notes that the Initial Study prepared by the Community Development Department did not find a significant land use conflict, and the EIRs for the adjacent quarries (DSS and CEMEX) suggest there would not be significant impacts from those quarries on a residence at this site. The Planning Commission may find, pursuant to CEQA, that the residence does not pose a potentially significant impact relative to land use, and still find that the residence is incompatible with the existing quarries. If the Planning Commission chooses to use Mr. Towers' recommended findings, the Community Development Department recommends that the discussion regarding nuisance (No. 5) be dropped as it is not relevant. Attachments The Community Development Department has no comment on the attachments to the i packet submitted by Mr. Towers.