PDF Return
D.7
To: Board of Supervisors
From: John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department
Date: December  13, 2016
The Seal of Contra Costa County, CA
Contra
Costa
County
Subject: Appeal of County Planning Commission Approvals of County Files LP13-2095 & LP15-2040 (Diablo MX Ranch Motocross Park)

APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE

Action of Board On:   12/13/2016
APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:See Addendum

VOTE OF SUPERVISORS

AYE:
John Gioia, District I Supervisor
Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor
Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor
Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor
Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor
Contact: Gary Kupp (925) 674-7799
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED:     December  13, 2016
David Twa,
 
BY: , Deputy

 

RECOMMENDATION(S):

1. DETERMINE that the Diablo MX Ranch Motocross Park project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 (existing facilities) and 15304 (minor alterations to land) and DIRECT the Department of Conservation and Development to file a CEQA Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk.   
  

2. DENY the appeal by the Law Offices of David W. Trotter, representing project opponents, of the County Planning Commission’s July 26, 2016 decision to approve a land use permit for the Diablo MX Ranch Motocross Park.  

RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D)
  
3. APPROVE a land use permit for the Diablo MX Ranch Motocross Park (County File #LP15-2040), including the permit’s growth management performance standards, findings, and conditions of approval (Exhibit #1).  
  
4. APPROVE the revised Diablo MX Ranch Motocross Park site plan received on October 8, 2015.  
  
5. DETERMINE that the Board’s approval of the Diablo MX Ranch Motocross Park land use permit satisfies the compliance review requirements of Motocross Park Use Permit #LP95-2020, and DENY the appeal by the Law Offices of David W. Trotter, representing project opponents, of the County Planning Commission’s May 12, 2015 compliance review decision on Motocross Park Use Permit #LP95-2020. (County File #LP13-2095.)

FISCAL IMPACT:

None. The applicants/owners are required to pay any additional costs above the initial application deposit associated with processing the applications.

BACKGROUND:

The Land Use Permit for the operation of the motorcycle park was approved by the County on November 2, 1998. The park operated prior to 1998 under a permit approved by the County on June 13, 1974. The property was purchased on March 28, 2014 by the current owners, James and Dorothy Schmidt and John and Lori Ramirez. The property owners intend to operate the park as a family business open to customers, as allowed by the current land use entitlement.  
  
The applicants propose to modify County File #LP95-2020 for the continued operation of an off-road recreational motorcycle facility and seek approval of (1) a revised site plan to show the relocation of the central oval racetrack to an area on the property consistent with the location approved by LP95-2020, (2) to modify the conditions of approval for LP95-2020, and (3) a grading permit for 15,000 cubic yards of dirt for the relocation of the oval track and for abatement of non-permitted motorcycle tracks constructed by the original property owners.   
  
On November 15, 2016, the Board of Supervisors opened the public hearing on the appeals of the County Planning Commission's decisions to approve Compliance Review #LP13-2095 and County File #LP15-2040. During the hearing, the Board received testimony from the appellants, applicants, and the general public. After hearing public testimony, the Board closed the public hearing and continued the item for deliberation. The Board directed staff to make various revisions and clarifications to the proposed conditions of approval for the Diablo MX Ranch land use permit.  
  
Accordingly, staff is recommending revisions and clarifications to the conditions of approval (Exhibit #1). Staff has provided a comparison of the recommended conditions showing how they have changed since the November 15, 2016 Board hearing (Exhibit #2). A slide comparing the proposed operating hours to those currently in effect is shown in Exhibit #3.  
  
The following is a list of key recommended changes to the conditions:  

  • Expansion of the notification radius to 1/2 mile for compliance reviews.
  • Requirements for sound studies and possible corrective actions to accompany compliance reviews.
  • Change the schedule for compliance reviews from years 1, 2, 3, 8, and every five years thereafter to years 1, 3, 5, 8, 12, 17, and every five years thereafter, to provide a more gradual increase to a five-year recurrence interval and to eliminate possible overlapping of the first three reviews.
  • Incentives to expand use by using electric vehicles, including demonstration events and exceptions to limits on the number of riders.
  • Various additional reductions in operating hours to more conservatively incorporate the assumptions of the sound study and to reduce impacts to neighbors.
  • Clarification that no riding of any kind, even for personal use, is allowed outside permitted operating hours.
  • Notification requirements for racing and night-time events.
  • New and modified limitations on number of riders.
  • Two new conditions that were recommended by the Flood Control District (see COAs #43 & #44).
  • Clarification that retail sales, including food and drink sales, are not permitted.
November 15, 2016 Board Order  
  
A link to the November 15, 2016 board order and attachments is provided below. These materials are hereby incorporated by reference.  
  
Link to November 15, 2016 Board Order: http://64.166.146.245/agenda_publish.cfm?id=&mt=ALL&get_month=11&get_year=2016&dsp=ag&seq=836  
  
It was noted at the November 15, 2016 hearing, that on page 10 of the board order in the second-to-last sentence under Section (5) it reads that two "quite" days are provided. This is a typographical error that should read "quiet" days. Revised COA #8 correctly reflects this requirement.  
  
New Material Submitted by the Project Opponents on December 7, 2016  
  
On December 7, 2016, the project appellants submitted two letters. Due to the late arival of these documents, they have not been reviewed, but are attached as Exhibits 4 & 5.  

CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:

The applicants/owners will not be able to obtain a land use permit modification.

CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT:

None. This Board Order is for an appeal of an application to modify the conditions of approval of an existing land use permit and will not affect children’s programs in the County.

CLERK'S ADDENDUM

By unanimous vote, the Board accepted additional new material on conditions of approval into the record. The Board also requested the notification list on any future matters regarding this property be enlarged from 300 feet of the property line to 500 feet.

CLOSED the public hearing; ADOPTED staff recommendations, incorporating the new proposed Conditions of Approval presented today (attached), using option 14d with minor modifications made today; and DIRECTED staff to incorporate language to require that the permit compliance review shall be completed within 365 days, with the applicant submitting the application and materials 45 days in advance. 

AgendaQuick©2005 - 2024 Destiny Software Inc., All Rights Reserved