The item is an appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission not to approve a Use Permit for a proposed large special events facility and large bed and breakfast known as Field & Pond. On August 11, 2016, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the Field & Pond Use Permit application and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project. The Commission voted not to approve the project and not to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (1 for approval, 3 against, 1 recused, 2 absent). The applicants for Field & Pond filed a subsequent appeal within the appeal period on August 24, 2016. As per County Code Section 8-2.225, a timely filing of a notice of appeal nullifies the decision of the Planning Commission, whose decision shall serve as a recommendation to the Board.
For a thorough project description and detailed project discussion, the August 11, 2016, Planning Commission staff report is attached for reference, which also includes the environmental review document, staff analysis and prior recommendation (Attachment D).
BACKGROUND
The application for Field & Pond, initially proposed in April 2015, has sparked a significant amount of public interest. As a result, separate from the planning and environmental review process for the project, a series of workshops were held to engage interested parties and the County on addressing the role of "agri-tourism" generally, and more specifically, whether or not large event centers in and of themselves are agriculturally-related and/or agriculturally-compatible uses in the rural areas of the County. In the interim, the Field & Pond proposal underwent several revisions, including a reduction in the number of requested events per year.
Currently, large special event facilities (more than 12 events per year and/or more than 150 attendees or 100 trips per event) and large bed and breakfasts (up to 10 rooms) require the issuance of a Use Permit in the agricultural zones. Specific use requirements and performance standards for these uses are outlined in the Zoning Code (County Code Sections 8-2.306(k), (l)). There is also a provision in the Zoning Code that allows a property owner of a parcel greater than 40 acres to hold up to eight paid, for profit events per year, not more than one such event per month. The applicants have exercised this zoning allowance over the last year while the Use Permit application has been pending.
The key concerns regarding the proposed project arise from site constraints with respect to location and access, roadway safety, fire susceptibility, conflicts with agriculture, and biological sensitivities. From staff's perspective, the issues center on whether the project, as proposed, is properly sited. The project site's rural location, with its backdrop against the Blue Ridge Mountains, lends itself to serene and rustic beauty, which is currently a sought after setting for a wedding. With the success of other permitted rural wedding venues such as Park Winters and others, the applicants were encouraged by the 2030 Countywide General Plan, which supports agricultural commercial and industrial support uses, where appropriate (Policy LU-2.2, emphasis added). Thus, in accordance with County Code Section 8-2.210(g), staff's review of the proposal included an evaluation of impacts on the rural landscape and the identification of potential land use incompatibilities.
During staff's review, the Agricultural Commissioner and Yolo Habitat Conservancy (YHC) were consulted, among other county and outside agencies, as addressed below. Based on feedback from the Ag Commissioner and spray permit conditions provided for reference, staff proposed several mitigation measures to limit the project's scope to address the potential for conflicts with neighboring agricultural operations, particularly with respect to spray buffers. YHC also provided feedback with respect to the potential for special status species and/or their habitat to occur at and within the vicinity of the project site. The revised Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project includes a biological assessment that addresses species issues in detail.
THE APPLICANT'S APPEAL
After a four-hour hearing, the Planning Commission voted not to approve the Use Permit. Thereafter, the Commission adopted oral findings proposed by counsel that the requested permit does not meet the requirements for approval of a use permit under the Yolo County Code [Section 8-2.217(e)] because of concerns related to road hazards and potential conflicts with agriculture.
Thereafter, the applicants filed a timely appeal (Att. A). The applicant's appeal claims that the Planning Commission's decision was:
- biased and arbitrary;
- carried out by a partial Commission;
- inconsistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance;
- not supported by evidence;
- inconsistent with CEQA and the Williamson Act;
- vague and ambiguous;
- overtly political;
- based on inadequate findings;
- and "other grounds."
Although the appeal was filed within the appeal period, the appeal did not discuss or analyze evidence to support any of the claims itemized above. Therefore, Staff cannot properly address each claim with specificity. Rather, Staff briefly responds below.
It is unclear whether the applicant's claim of a "partial" Commission refers to the number of Commissioners present at the meeting, or a commission that was not impartial. Staff disagrees that the Commission was not impartial. All Commissioners complied with their legal and ethical obligations, and explained the basis for their decision. Staff agrees that the August 11, 2016, Planning Commission meeting was attended by a "partial" Commission of four, with two absentees and one Commissioner who recused himself and did not attend. However, a Commission of four is a quorum, and all four members cast a vote. Per the Planning Commission's rules, a vote requires a majority of those present to pass. In this case, approval of the use permit did not obtain the necessary three out of four votes needed for passage.
Staff disagrees that the Planning Commission's decision was made arbitrarily given that the project had been subject to thorough vetting, individual meetings with the applicants, site visits, meeting with neighbors in opposition, pouring over staff materials provided at the August 11, 2016, public hearing, the February 2016, public workshop, two CEQA review periods, as well as their individual efforts to better understand the merits of the project in light of a newly adopted Zoning Code and updated General Plan. After nearly three hours of public testimony, each Commissioner gave a lengthy summary during their deliberations prior to making a final decision.
Staff also disagrees with the claim that the Planning Commission's decision was inconsistent with the Yolo County Zoning Code and 2030 Countywide General Plan. On the contrary, the very nature of the proposal is subject to their discretion under County Code Section 8-2.212 based on an evaluation of compliance with applicable requirements of zoning, the General Plan, and other relevant County regulations. A conditionally permitted use in an agricultural zone is not automatically granted just because a proposal has been submitted or because a similar project was approved in another location under a previous zoning ordinance within a different zone. The Commissioner's decision not to approve the project was based on grounds that the requested use does not meet the requirements for approval a Use Permit under Yolo County Code Section 8-2.217(e).
Similarly, staff does not agree with the claims that the Planning Commission's decision was inconsistent with CEQA and the Williamson Act. Staff is not aware of any environmental impact or inconsistency with CEQA that would not otherwise authorize the Planning Commission to deny the Use Permit based on findings unrelated to the project's environmental compliance. Likewise, the Planning Commission's decision not to approve the Use Permit does not otherwise affect the Williamson Act, and it is unclear from lack of evidence supporting the appeal how denying the project can be considered inconsistent with the Williamson Act.
In the appeal, the applicant asks the Board to adopt Planning staff's recommendation to the Planning Commission (see the Planning Commission staff report in Attachment D), but with two revisions. The applicant asks that the Board approve the Use Permit for 20 events per year, instead of the previously requested 35. Staff does not necessarily view this as a change in the project scope, but rather the applicants' advocating for the maximum number of events that would be allowed under the existing CEQA document (which included mitigation measures containing a limit of 20 events).
However, applicants deviate from their application when they ask the Board to approve a nine-room bed and breakfast in the three existing structures on the property. The original request included five rooms in the main house and four future rooms in stand-alone bungalows. The appeal modifies this request to omit the four stand-alone bungalows, but allow a more intensive use of the two other existing residences at the project site, each apparently containing two bedrooms. For reference, the relevant 11-acre home site includes the main residence (proposed as 5-bedroom B&B), a two-bedroom cottage used by the applicants, and an unoccupied residence that was originally proposed for a future resident farmer. Staff recommends that the Board not consider the modifications not included in the original application, not considered in the CEQA review process, and not presented to the Planning Commission.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff is bringing forward the Planning Commission's decision not to approve the project as the recommended action, in accordance with County Code. Staff has also provided the Board its previous staff recommendation to the Planning Commission, which is part of the Planning Commission Staff Report in Attachment D. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff recommended a significant reduction in the number of allowed annual events, from the applicant-requested 35 and the CEQA-analyzed 20, to a total of 12 events. It should be noted, though, that the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project found that environmental impacts could be mitigated to less than significant levels if the number of events was limited to 20. Accordingly, the Board is free to approve any amount of events up to the 20 event cap included in mitigation measures set forth in the CEQA document; anything more would likely require further environmental review.
Staff has provided two sets of findings for the Board's consideration. Attachment C contains findings that can be adopted in the event the Board adopts the Planning Commission's recommendation and denies the application. Attachment E contains the proposed findings presented to the Planning Commission which can be adopted in the event the Board desires to approve the application. In the event of a project approval, Attachment F contains proposed conditions of approval for the Board's consideration. Attachment G contains a redline showing Staff's proposed changes in the conditions of approval compared to those to the Planning Commission.
Comment letters on the project are included as Attachment H and Attachment H.1. |
| Several agencies, including other County offices/departments, as well as outside agencies, were consulted during the review of this proposal. A "Request for Comments" was originally routed for early agency review soon after the application was submitted in April, 2015. A second agency review was subsequently routed in July, 2015, when the project was revised and additional information was submitted based on the initial review of the project. Those agencies consulted include the Office of the County Counsel, Agricultural Commissioner's Office, Sheriff's Department, and the Yolo Habitat Conservancy, as well as the Building, Public Works and Environmental Health Divisions of the Department of Community Services. Outside agencies include the Yolo County Farm Bureau, the Natural Resource Conservation Service, Winters Fire Department, Cal Fire, City of Winters, Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation, Yolo County Water Conservation and Flood Control District, Department of Conservation, Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Wildlife Heritage Foundation. |