HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-06-08 MINUTES �AK F PLANNING COMMISSION
O ,ni
MINUTES
_ P
F Regular Meeting November 6, 2008 — 5:30 p.m.
Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Johnson, McGinnis, Stanley, Blockley, Tragish
Absent: Commissioners Andrews, Tkac
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS:
Ms. Pam Pruitt chose not to speak.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR:
4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items
4.1a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission Pre-Meeting of September 29, 2008
and Regular Planning Commissioner meeting of October 2, 2008.
Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve the
Non-Public Hearing Items on the Consent Calendar.
Motion carried by group vote.
4.2 Public Hearing Items
4.2a Approval of Comprehensive Sign Plan (Revised) 07-0804 (Castle & Cooke
Commercial by McIntosh &Associates)
4.2b Approval of Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6352(McIntosh &Associates)
4.2c Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 11874(Higher Ground Engineering)
The public hearing is opened, no one from the public requested removal of any item from
the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Tragish advised that with regard to 4.2(a) he
represents the General Contractor of the project and there is an appearance of a conflict.
Therefore, he recused himself from any vote on item 4.2(a).
Commissioner Blockley recused from voting on 4.2(a)to avoid any conflict of interest.
Staff advised that in this case there is not a quorum for 4.2(a) and therefore it should be
moved to the next Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Stanley, to approve the
Public Hearing Items on the Consent Calendar, except for item 4.2(a) which will be moved
to the next Planning Commission meeting.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Johnson, McGinnis, Stanley, Blockley, Tragish
ABSENT: Commissioners Andrews, Tkac
RECUSE: Commissioners Blockley(4.2a only), Tragish (4.2a only)
Minutes of Planning Commission-November 6, 2008 Page 2
5. PUBLIC HEARING— EIR Adequacy Hearinq
5.1 Rio Bravo Ranch GPA/ZC 06-1722(McIntosh &Associates)
'The public hearing is opened to receive comments regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Staff
report given. Bruce Grove with RBF presented the project.
It was noted, for the record that Commissioner Tkac arrived at 5:38 during the beginning of the EIR
presentation by Mr. Grove.
Gordon Nipp, from the Sierra Club, indicated they will submit written comments. He pointed out
concerns with farmland conversion mitigation and specifically mitigation measure 5.2-1, which
gives the developer a number of options. Mr. Nipp stated that they think it should be strengthened
in that if the developer chooses Option D, the developer would be allowed to place a new
Williamson Act, or Farmland Security Zone Land Use Contract, on other farmland. Mr. Nipp
explained that the mitigation land then will only be mitigation for a relatively short period of time for
Williamson Act Contract that lasts 10 years. Further, Mr. Nipp pointed out that it can be terminated
and is routinely terminated. Therefore, this option would not preserved farmland in perpetuity. He
also pointed out that the other options would presumably preserve farmland in perpetuity. Mr. Nipp
stated that they think Option D is insufficient to serve as CEQA mitigation, and should be deleted
from the mitigation measure Option D. Mr. Nipp went on to state that they are supported in this
contention by the California Department of Conservation, pointing out that the California
Department of Conservation's letter dated April 9, 2008, with regard to the Kern County Northwest
Communities' project, states, "The Department does not consider enrolling existing farmland into a
new Williamson Act, or Farmland Security Zone Contract, as adequate mitigation for the
conversion of agricultural land unless that land is also protected by newly created permanent
easements." He stated that the California Department Conservation does not view Option D
adequate for CEQA compliance.
Mr. Nipp pointed out that this Option D would put this developer at a distinct advantage over
several other previously approved projects such as the West Ming project and Rosedale Ranch,
who agreed to fund permanent conservation easement as mitigation for loss of farmland to urban
uses.
Mr. Nipp then pointed out the Draft EIR underestimates greenhouse gas emissions by not including
underlying assumptions and without including other substantiation. He stated that in the written
comments he will specifically analyze potentials significant thresholds for greenhouse gas
emission, noting that even under the most liberal such threshold, 42,000 tons/year that San
,Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District is considering as a threshold for this project exceeds
that threshold. Mr. Nipp stated that the impact of this project on global warming should be
considered significant and mitigation measures to offset the impact should be required. He further
pointed out the EIR for the approximately 750 unit Northwest Communities' Project that County
recently approved, considers those projects cumulatively significant. Therefore, how could this
project, which is six times larger than the Northwest Communities' Project be insignificant. Mr.
Nipp suggested a number of mitigation measure that should be required, including green building
measures.
Kelly Lucas stated he lives in the Rio Bravo area. He expressed his concern for cumulative traffic
in the area. He inquired as to the cumulative traffic that they can expect to see along State Route
178 and in the area. He stated that currently along Miramonte Drive the traffic on Hwy 178 would
traditionally be coming from either Kernville/Lake Isabella area and so very little traffic from the Rio
Bravo Ranch. He pointed out that the first pick up of traffic is at Miramonte Drive which would
include the Rio Bravo Golf Course, the Tuscany, and other developments. He showed that as you
go west you start picking up the Alfred Harrell Highway, Tuscany, Cattle King Estates and City in
the Hills, all the way to Morning Drive. Mr. Lucas stated that assuming there are around 10 to 12
trips a day, per home, that would calculate to about 25,000. He stated that his concern is in
looking at the Rio Bravo Ranch, it is not looked at myopically and he stated that the
Commissioners and the Planning Department was only looking at a couple of tracts within the area
and not the cumulative impact. Therefore, on the projected line, what that represents are some 60
Minutes of Planning Commission-November 6, 2008 Page 3
different developments representing projected housing units shown on the Y-axis to the left of
around 18,950. He concluded by stating that the EIR should take into account, not only the traffic
that would be generated by the Rio Bravo Ranch, but by the developments to the east of it and
make sure that the infrastructure is adequate to support these developments.
The public hearing is closed.
Commissioner Blockley referenced 2.3.2 in the Summary of Project Alternatives in the Executive
Summary, pointing out that the second to last sentence is missing a word. It currently reads, "This
alternative would meet the majority of the proposed project objectives. However, environmental
categories such as agriculture, air quality, traffic, circulation, noise, and biological resources'
impacts would be increased in comparison to the proposed project." He asked for clarification on
the missing word.
Commissioner Tragish inquired about building on or near the Kern River, pointing out that the focus
of the Kern River Plan Element is the preservation and maintenance of the channel. He explained
that the EIR references this Kern River Element, however his concern is that along the river there
are all kinds of conditions and covenants that run with the land and he does not know how that
impacts the development along this project. Specifically, he inquired if commercial is prohibited
along the river, and if so, how does it impact this EIR. Commissioner Tragish also pointed out that
part of the project provides for an application for LM residential, which means it will be a higher
density and he inquired how this impacts with the Kern River Plan Element or other covenants.
Commissioner Tragish commented on the urban decay study pointing out that he is not sure that
the current analysis takes into consideration the current economic situation facing the City and how
or if the impacts are used in the calculations. He pointed out that there is a significant amount of
commercial development in Kern County which is being impacted by the economy. Commissioner
Tragish clarified that he would like to know whether the calculations take into account the current
economic situation.
Commissioner Tragish commented that with regard to Dr. Nipp's comments, Dr. Nipp has never
agreed with any Air Quality Reports since he's been on the Commission and he wished that they
would get together before the meeting to compare their notes. Commissioner Tragish stated that
they will review it and revisit when the application comes back.
Commissioner Johnson advised that the Commission is just receiving public comments and
questions asked will be answered in the response to comments.
Commissioner Stanley moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to refer comments to staff for
preparation of a Final EIR.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Johnson, McGinnis, Stanley, Blockley, Tragish, Tkac
.ABSENT: Commissioner Andrews
6. PUBLIC HEARING—TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP/ VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
6.1 Tentative Parcel Map 11874 (Higher Ground Engineering)
Heard on Consent Calendar.
6.2 Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6352 (McIntosh &Associates)
Heard on Consent Calendar.
Minutes of Planning Commission-November 6, 2008 Page 4
7. REVISED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6736(McIntosh &Associates)
The public hearing is closed, staff report given.
Commissioner Tragish commented that he did meet with Mr. Roger McIntosh and Mr. Jim Nichol and
their Public Relation person, with regard to item 5.1 on the agenda.
No discussion from the Commissioners.
Commissioner Stanley moved, seconded by Commissioner Tragish, to approve and adopt the Negative
Declaration and approving the Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6736, with findings and conditions
set forth in the attached Resolution, and incorporating the Planning Director's memorandum, dated
November 3, 2008.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Johnson, McGinnis, Stanley, Blockley, Tragish, Tkac
ABSENT: Commissioner Andrews
8. COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
9. COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commissioner Tkac apologized for being late. He also stated that he has a conflict on Agenda Item 6.2,
and reiterated that he did not vote on that item.
10. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 6:11 p.m.
Robin Gessner, Recording Secretary
C .
JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary
Planning Director
December 4, 2008