DATE: October 17, 2017
TO: Board of Supervisors
SUBMITTED BY: Steven E. White, Director
Department of Public Works and Planning
SUBJECT: Initial Study No. 7104 and Unclassified Conditional Use Permit
Application No. 3528 (Appellant: Grand Petroleum, Inc.; Applicant: Shawn Shiralian)
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
TITLE
1. Consider and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for Initial Study Application No. 7104; and
2. Determine that the required Findings specified in Fresno County Ordinance Code Section 873-F can be made for approval of a Conditional Use Permit by adopting staff’s proposed findings found in the Staff Report to the Planning Commission (Exhibit B), and approve Unclassified Conditional Use Permit Application No. 3528 to allow an Interstate Freeway Interchange Commercial Development, including adoption of its Master Plan. The project site is within the AE-40 (Exclusive Agricultural, 40-acre minimum parcel size) Zone District.
The project site is located on the northwest corner of Interstate 5 (I-5) and Nees Avenue, approximately 17 miles west of the nearest city limits of the City of Firebaugh (Sup. Dist. 1) (APN 005-100-47s).
REPORT
This item comes before the Board on appeal of the Planning Commission’s unanimous approval of the subject application (7 to 0, with two Commissioners absent) at its August 24, 2017 Planning Commission Hearing. Staff notes that the Zoning Ordinance requires the Board to determine, independent from the decision of the Planning Commission, whether the application should be approved, approved with stated conditions, or disapproved. A copy of the Planning Commission’s action is attached as Attachment A.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
If the Board is unable to make the required findings for granting UCUP No. 3528, a motion to uphold the appeal and overturn the Planning Commission’s decision, stating which findings cannot be made and the reasoning for the inability to make those findings, would be appropriate.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Pursuant to the County’s Master Schedule of Fees, the Applicant has paid $15,359 in land use processing fees to the County for the processing of the Conditional Use Permit Application request.
DISCUSSION:
The project consists of construction of an Interstate Freeway Interchange Commercial Development on a 10.10-acre parcel in the AE-40 (Exclusive Agricultural, 40-acre minimum parcel size) Zone District. The subject parcel has no structural improvements other than two water wells that were installed recently. The proposed Interstate Freeway Interchange Commercial Development would consist of a restaurant, market, automobile fueling station, truck fueling station, laundry and shower facility, and Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) sales. Also proposed are a photovoltaic solar power generation system to provide electricity to the proposed development and a 149-foot-tall marquee sign. Site development includes a paved parking area with 94 parking spaces for standard automobiles and 60 parking spaces for trucks and busses accessible from Paul Negra Road via four paved driveways.
The subject parcel is located at the northwest quadrant of I-5 and Nees Avenue, which is southeasterly adjacent to the border between the County of Fresno and the County of Merced. Additionally, the subject parcel is located within a predominately agricultural area with limited development. Further, the City of Firebaugh is located approximately 17 miles east of the subject parcel, the California Aqueduct is located approximately one quarter-mile to the northeast, and an existing Freeway Commercial Development identified as "Firebaugh Travel Plaza" is northwesterly adjacent to the subject parcel, within the County of Merced. The Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 24, 2017, and attached as Attachment B provides additional project information.
In order for the Board to approve UCUP No. 3528, the following findings must be made:
1. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use and all yards, spaces, walls and fences, parking, loading, landscaping and other features required by this Division, to adjust said use with land and uses in the neighborhood.
2. That the site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to carry the quantity and kind of traffic generated by the proposed use.
3. That the proposed use will have no adverse impact on abutting property and surrounding neighborhood or permitted use thereof.
4. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan.
Prior to the August 24, 2017 Planning Commission Hearing, staff received late correspondence regarding the item. This letter, received on August 18, 2017, from Beveridge and Diamond, representing the Appellant, consisted of 22 pages presenting opposition to the environmental document prepared for the project with a 106-page attachment. It was distributed to the Commission prior to the hearing via e-mail and copies provided the day of the hearing. This letter was provided as part of Advance Agenda Material to the Board on September 20, 2017. After reviewing the correspondence, staff concluded that the environmental document prepared for UCUP No. 3528 adequately addressed the project’s environmental impacts.
A copy of a technical memorandum prepared by Peters Engineering, the Applicant’s traffic engineer dated August 23, 2017, was also distributed to the Commission the day of the hearing. This memorandum provided a response to the traffic-related critiques of the August 18, 2017, Beveridge and Diamond letter. Additional copies of this memorandum were provided to the public with the Planning Commission staff report at the hearing and a copy of this letter was also distributed as part of Advance Agenda Material to the Board on September 20, 2017.
At the August 24, 2017 Planning Commission hearing, the Commission considered public testimony from the Applicant’s representative, as well as one speaker representing the Appellant (a neighboring property owner operating a service station and restaurant complex immediately to the north in Merced County) who presented testimony in opposition to the proposal.
The speaker representing the Appellant testified that the Commission was provided incomplete environmental analysis for the project and that the County should be required to prepare a revised Initial Study. To support his statements, the speaker indicated that the project’s use of water is undervalued with a figure provided by the applicant of approximately 26,000 gallons daily usage whereas experts retained by his firm estimated a daily usage of 43,000 gallons. The speaker also stated that the project’s traffic impacts were not evaluated. Concerns were also expressed that United States Fish and Wildlife Service indicated that special status species may occur on the project site.
The representative of the Applicant testified that the only opposition to the project is from Grand Petroleum, a competitor and all the issues raised will be subject to review and completion to the satisfaction of state and federal agencies. Also, the representative testified that in regards to the Endangered Species Act, initial surveys have not revealed any sensitive biological species on the project site. If approved, the project would establish a 10.5 million dollar state-of-the-art facility that will employ 37 full-time employees.
A representative of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) was also present at the hearing and provided testimony stating that the agency did not have any concerns with the traffic analysis undertaken for the project. (Staff would like to note that Caltrans followed their comments with an August 31, 2017, letter expressing satisfaction with the Applicant’s Traffic Impact Study, and that document was included in the September 20, 2017 Advance Agenda Material.)
After receiving staff’s presentation and considering public testimony from the Applicant’s representatives and representatives of the Appellant, the Planning Commission unanimously approved a motion (7 to 0, with two Commissioners absent) to approve the project and its associated Mitigated Negative Declaration.
An appeal was filed on September 1, 2017. The appeal document stated that information submitted by the Applicant in support of the Project was incomplete or inaccurate resulting in an Initial Study and accompanying Mitigated Negative Declaration not supported by substantial evidence on the record. The appeal also stated that the County and the Planning Commission reviewed and relied upon information not made available to the Public during the Public Comment Period.
If the Board is able to make the required findings for granting approval of UCUP No. 3528, a motion to deny the appeal and approve the project would be appropriate stating in its motion to approve that the Board is adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for Initial Study No. 7104. The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for Initial Study No. 7104 is attached as Attachment C to this Agenda Item.
In addition, staff recommends inclusion of an additional Condition of Approval requiring the following:
• The Applicant shall enter into an agreement indemnifying the County for all legal costs associated with its approval of Initial Study No. 7104 and Unclassified Conditional Use Permit No. 3528.
If the Board is unable to make the required findings for granting UCUP No. 3528, a motion to uphold the appeal and deny the project, overturning the Planning Commission’s decision would be appropriate.
ATTACHMENTS INCLUDED AND/OR ON FILE:
Exhibits A - C
On file with Clerk - Advance Agenda Material
CAO ANALYST:
John Hays