To: Board of Supervisors
From: Supervisor Brown and County Counsel
Meeting Date: June 18, 2019
|
Department Contact: |
Carre Brown |
Phone: |
463-4221 |
|
Department Contact: |
Matt Kiedrowski |
Phone: |
234-6885 |
|
Item Type: Regular Agenda |
|
Time Allocated for Item: 1 Hour |
Agenda Title:
title
Discussion and Possible Action Including Approval of Request for Proposed Direct Review of Actions Related to the Harris Quarry Pursuant to Chapter 2.54.010 of the Mendocino County Code, Original Jurisdiction of Land Use Matters
(Sponsors: Supervisor Brown and County Counsel)
End
Recommended Action/Motion:
recommendation
Approve request for direct review of actions related to the Harris Quarry, finding that the overall project provides a special contribution to the County’s general welfare and economic well-being, pursuant to Section 2.54.010 of the Mendocino County Code, Original Jurisdiction of Land Use Matters.
End
Previous Board/Board Committee Actions:
On January 7, 2014, the Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance 4320, which added Chapter 2.54 to the County Code. Chapter 2.54 allows, upon a majority vote of the Board, that the Board may call for “direct review of any application, approval or permit, including actions assigned to, or taken by, the Planning Commission…” On April 10, 2012, the Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance Nos. 4292, 4293, 4294, and 4295, making certain amendments to the County Zoning Code related to surface mining, including the establishment of a new Mineral Processing Combining District chapter, and adopted Ordinance No. 4296, which rezoned certain property known as the Harris Quarry to the District, and certified an environmental impact report (“EIR”) and adopted a statement of overriding considerations regarding the same. On June 19, 2012, the Board denied an appeal of the May 17, 2012, decision of the Planning Commission regarding Use Permit and Reclamation Plan Renewal #UR 19-83/2005, for an asphalt plant and expansion of an existing surface mine, making modifications to the conditions of approval for said project.
Summary of Request:
The owner of the Harris Quarry, Northern Aggregates, Inc. (“Applicant”), has submitted a letter to Chair Brown asking that the Chair request the Board of Supervisors to take original jurisdiction, also known as direct review, of all actions necessary to comply with court decisions regarding the County’s 2012 approvals for the quarry expansion and proposed asphalt plant at the Harris Quarry. Such actions would include all actions necessary to rescind prior approvals by the Board of Supervisors to comply with the writ issued by the Superior Court, and everything necessary to reconsider such actions.
The County’s ordinance adoptions, use permit approval, certification of the environmental impact report and related actions (“2012 actions”) were challenged by Petitioners Keep the Code in 2012 on several grounds, including compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The only deficiency found by the Superior Court was that additional evidence in the administrative record was needed to support the County’s rejection of two alternatives to the proposed asphalt plant and surface mine expansion. This conclusion was affirmed by the Court of Appeal.
The next step in responding to the determination of the court is rescinding the 2012 approvals of the Board of Supervisors. After doing so, the applicant may provide additional evidence to the County, the County may recirculate the portions of the EIR impacted by the court decision, and the County may reconsider the 2012 actions.
The Applicant has requested that the Board take original jurisdiction of the rescission and any reconsideration of the 2012 actions, as a formal mechanism of keeping the jurisdiction of these matters with the Board of Supervisors and not returning any part of these matters to the Planning Commission. As noted by the Applicant in its letter to Chair Brown, the Commission has previously considered and made its recommendations regarding the 2012 actions, and, given the relatively narrow scope of the court decisions, changes to the project as described are not required. The ordinance amendments and use permit must be set aside until the issues of the EIR can be addressed, but the order does not require alterations to the ordinance amendments or the project.
Section 2.54.010 provides that the Board of Supervisors may reserve to itself the functions of the planning agency when time is of the essence with respect to any permit or approval, based on the project’s special contribution to the County’s general welfare and economic or environmental wellbeing. Such projects include, but are not limited to, projects that provide substantial employment opportunities, support necessary government services and involve County-wide infrastructure improvements.
The request for direct review shall be granted upon a majority vote of the Board of Supervisors. If the Board of Supervisors takes direct review, all matters shall be heard and decided at a noticed public hearing of the Board of Supervisors. For the 2012 actions, both the rescission actions and any reconsideration of the 2012 actions by the Board would be heard at separate noticed public hearings later this year. No substantive action on the 2012 actions is proposed at today’s meeting.
The letter from the Applicant cites to the quality of the aggregate material found at Harris Quarry as the primary reason to support granting direct review. The letter states that Harris Quarry is the only significant source of aggregate in the County that meets CalTrans standards, which benefits state and local public works agencies because trucking and transportation expenses comprise a significant portion of aggregate product costs.
Alternative Action/Motion:
Decline to grant direct review.
Supervisorial District: District 5
vote requirement: Majority
Supplemental Information Available Online At: N/A
Fiscal Details:
|
source of funding: N/A |
budgeted in current f/y: N/A |
|
current f/y cost: N/A |
if no, please describe: |
|
annual recurring cost: N/A |
revenue agreement: N/A |
|
|
budget clarification: N/A
Agreement/Resolution/Ordinance Approved by County Counsel: N/A
|
CEO Liaison: Executive Office |
|
|
|
CEO Review: Yes |
|
|
CEO Comments:
FOR COB USE ONLY
|
Executed By: Lindsey Dunham, Deputy Clerk I |
Final Status:Approved |
|
Date: June 21, 2019 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|