AGENDA
168
Chair:
|
Jay
Brown |
|
Nancy
Isakson |
Mathew
Ottone |
Cosme
Padilla |
|
Steve
Pessagno |
Don
Rochester |
Aurelio
Salazar, Jr |
Juan
Sanchez |
Keith
Vandevere |
|
ITEM |
PROJECT NAME |
PLANNER |
FILE NO. |
RECOMMENDED ACTION |
TIME SCHEDULED |
|
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE |
|||||
|
I |
Roll Call |
|
|||
|
II |
Public Comments |
|
|||
|
III |
Approval of the Minutes: April 9, and April 30, 2008 |
|
|||
|
IV |
Agenda Additions, Deletions
and Corrections |
|
|||
|
V |
Commissioner Comments,
Requests & Referrals |
|
|||
|
VI |
Action Items |
||||
|
1 |
REED PATRICIA A/MICHAEL |
NEGRETE |
PLN070131 |
CONTINUE TO JULY 9, 2008 HEARING |
|
|
2 |
QUENGA |
PLN070192 |
ADOPT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WITH MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN AND APPROVE PROJECT |
|
|
|
3 |
KELLY |
PLN060112 |
ADOPT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WITH MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN AND APPROVE PROJECT |
|
|
|
4 |
KELLY |
PLN060014 |
ADOPT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WITH MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN AND APPROVE PROJECT |
|
|
|
5 |
SIDOR |
PLN080106 |
ADOPT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WITH MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN AND APPROVE PROJECT |
|
|
|
VII |
Action/Information Items |
||||
|
6 |
GENERAL
PLAN UPDATE 2005 |
HOLM |
PLN070525 |
CONSIDER
THE 2007 GENERAL PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PROCESS UPDATE |
|
|
VIII |
OTHER MATTERS: GREATER |
||||
|
IX |
DEPARTMENT REPORT |
||||
|
X |
ADJOURNMENT |
||||
The Recommendation
Action section indicates the staff recommendation at the time the agenda was
prepared. That recommendation does not
limit the Planning commission’s alternative actions on any matter before it.
If requested, the agenda
shall be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a
disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990 (42 USC Sec. 12132). And the federal rules and regulations adopted in
implementation thereof. For information
regarding how, to whom and when a request for disability-related modification
or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services may be made by a person
with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to
participate in the public meeting or if you have any questions about any of the
items listed on this agenda please call the Monterey County Planning and
Building Inspection Department at (831) 755-5025.
Action
Items
1. 9:00AM Project Name: REED PATRICIA A & MICHAEL
File Number: PLN070131
Situs Location:
Planning Area:
Project
Planner: NEGRETE
Environmental
Status: TBD
Project
Description: CONTINUED
FROM
Recommended
Action: CONTINUE TO JULY 9, 2008 HEARING
2. 9:00AM Project Name: PEREZ DIONISIO A & JOSEFINA (J
File Number: PLN070192
Situs Location:
Planning Area:
Project
Planner: QUENGA
Environmental
Status: MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED
Project
Description: STANDARD
SUBDIVISION VESTING TENTATIVE MAP TO ALLOW DIVISION OF A 1.036 ACRE PARCEL INTO
15 PARCELS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 2,300 SQUARE FEET TO 3,299 SQUARE FEET EACH, RESPECTIVELY. THE PROJECT INCLUDES THE DEMOLITION OF EXISTING
STRUCTURES, THE CONSTRUCTION OF 15 SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND SITE IMPROVEMENT
PLANS. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT
Recommended
Action: ADOPT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN AND APPROVE PROJECT
3. 9:00AM Project Name: OSEGUERA JOSE F ET AL
File Number: PLN060112
Situs Location:
Planning Area: GREATER
Project
Planner: KELLY
Environmental
Status: MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED
Project
Description: COMBINED
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT INCLUDING: (1) STANDARD SUBDIVISION OF A 4.8 ACRE PARCEL
INTO 12 COMMERCIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 16,600-18.400 SQUARE FEET WITH A
PRIVATE ACCESS DRIVEWAY SERVING THE LOTS FROM
Recommended Action: ADOPT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
AND APPROVE PROJECT
4. 9:00AM Project Name: KENNEDY MICHAEL E & PAULA L TR
File Number: PLN060014
Situs Location:
Planning Area: SOUTH
Project
Planner: KELLY
Environmental
Status: MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED
Project
Description: CONTINUED
FROM
Recommended
Action: ADOPT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN AND APPROVE PROJECT
5. 10:00AM Project Name: CARMEL VALLEY BICYCLE TRAIL
File Number: PLN080106
Situs Location:
Planning Area:
Project
Planner: SIDOR
Environmental
Status: MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED
Project
Description: CONTINUED
FROM
Recommended
Action: ADOPT MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN AND APPROVE PROJECT
6. 10:30AM Project Name: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2005
File Number: PLN070525
Situs Location: COUNTY-WIDE
Planning Area: County-Wide
Project
Planner: HOLM
Environmental
Status: ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT PREPARED
Project
Description: CONTINUED
FROM
Recommended
Action: CONSIDER THE
2007 GENERAL PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PROCESS.
Planning Commission
January 9, 2008
Transcript of
testimony related to General Plan Process, Agenda Item D.5.
Note: picking it up
where it gets into the discussion regarding alternatives and commencing to the
end of the item.
Commissioner Isakson: …Are the Planning Commission recommendations as they were sent to the Board of Supervisors being considered as an alternative and identified as such within the scoping for the EIR?
Carl Holm: You mean taking the Planning Commission recommendations as a separate plan? No. I do not believe that is the case at this point. However, what we have is we have obviously the Board’s direction of November 6 and we have GPU4 and so we have a couple ends there and anything in between could be considered that the Planning Commission recommendation would fall within that analysis.
Commissioner Isakson: The reason I ask is that I’ve been told by someone that should know that it was included and yet I didn’t think it was included, either, I mean, this is somebody within our staff. And, so, if it’s not specifically included, can it be included? And I ask that question because that’s an alternative that this Commission voted 10 – 0 on to send forward. I think it would be important for the Commission, when it comes back, to be able to see that having been analyzed as an alternative as well as the changes that have been recommended by the Board and then GPU4.
Chairman Rochester: Commissioner Sanchez.
Commissioner Sanchez: I may be asking the same question as Commissioner Isakson, because I was kind of in the dark. I guess I’m starting out the new year in the dark because I, it was my understanding after the SC submitted its recommendation, that it was a package deal, that if anything was taken out or added to it, that the whole thing would unravel and, of course, the first meeting in November, the Board of Supervisors, in their wisdom, decided to add to it, so I think I’m getting to the same point as Commissioner Isakson is, was asking. When we get the draft EIR, or whatever comes out of the new General Plan is because when it comes time to recommend approval or, I guess, not to approve it to the Board, my judgment will be clouded by, I suffered a lot of blood and sweat over that package deal. I’d like to know what was added to it or the impact of the additions to it was, because I’d like to know what the impact of those new recommendations that were added to it are on the General Plan and the EIR because, in all honesty, its going to cloud my judgment. So as I said or maybe I’m saying the same thing as Commissioner Isakson.
Commissioner Brown: Mr. Chair.
Chairman Rochester: Who’s going? Commissioner Brown.
Commissioner Brown: Yeah. I find myself agreeing with the previous Commissioners on this issue. It’s not as though we are causing the General Plan to go one way or another. All we’re doing is looking for an evaluation of the possibilities and I know that there are all these sensitive negotiations going on, but this should not affect that at all. I mean we are just looking for the data to be included in the EIR and the draft EIR. I’m concerned that if it is just treated as a Response to Comment, then it won’t be fully vetted out. I think it needs to be treated with the same degree of detail as GPU4, GPU5, whatever. It’s got to be done so that if, for whatever reason through the negotiation process, it’s found to include all or some of the Planning Commission recommendations, that it can be done by virtue of the fact that it has been looked at in the EIR process, so it has to be done thoroughly just like the rest of the options, but I don’t see any reason why this can’t be done this way. It’s not as though we are telling the Board that this is the way it’s got to be; we’re just saying keep your options open.
Commissioner Diehl: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Rochester: Commissioner Diehl
Commissioner Diehl: It’s an interesting discussion, I think. As you can tell, those of us on the Subcommittee got kind of involved in this yet again, and so we’re still having trouble letting go. I understand the suggestion and I think there is a great deal of merit to it and there was one big gaping hole in our recommendation keeping it from being one package without change and that was the discussion of what would happen in the area of Rancho San Juan and we, in our recommendations, left that open because we were aware that we, as the Planning Commission, didn’t have all of the facts in front of us and there there were some more considerations than we knew about. So given that that is going to make it a little bit difficult to tell where the differences between the Board’s recommendation and the Planning Commission’s recommendation lie, I think that perhaps staff is in a good position to help us understand that all of the things we've put forward need to be evaluated. So we don’t want to get into the situation that Commissioner Brown describes where some suggestion that’s been put forward through this process in the Planning Commission level was left out because it wasn’t included in the Board’s subsequent recommendation. It would be helpful if we could ask for a holistic review of those recommendations, understanding that our package did have that opening, which may be a negotiated settlement and there may be some changes necessary to the overall package in response to that need at that time and I know I understand that, and I believe the other people on the subcommittee understand that absolutely, and I suspect the rest of the Commissioners do as well, but that is a little bit of a wild card with the description of our recommendations as a stand alone package.
Commissioner Padilla: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Rochester: Commissioner Padilla.
Commissioner Padilla: Ok, I think I’ve lost it somewhere. How did it come back to what we are discussing right now? How does it relate? I’m sorry, I’m hearing all this discussion, but yet I’ve lost you somewhere, so what are we discussing here? Are we still discussing the same thing or are we on something else? Where are we at right now?
Carl Holm: Mr. Chairman, I can take a stab at that.
Chairman Rochester: Yeah, we went from LUACs to whatever, so go ahead.
Commissioner Brown: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Rochester: Commissioner Brown.
Commissioner Brown: If we don’t ask for specificity of the Planning Commission recommendations, and then we finally get to that point of trying to make a decision on the General Plan, it sounds like we de facto will not be able to include some of those Planning Commission recommendations because they haven’t been adequately analyzed if it’s done qualitatively instead of quantitatively, so, if what you’re saying is, do it qualitatively, but that then leaves the option out because its only done that way, then I say no. Make it quantitative, just like the other options.
Commissioner Brown: Mr. Chair, if I may. Let me just give an example of something that is controversial, and I’m speaking for or against, but the Level of Service in affordable housing areas. The Planning Commission recommended perhaps something under a “D” in some of the affordable housing areas. Now, to me, that is something that would have to be evaluated in the EIR, I guess. I mean and that’s a quantitative study, and if we just overlook that and don’t really pay a lot of attention, scientific attention, and put some numbers on it, then maybe we couldn’t make that recommendation because it hasn’t been analyzed.
Commissioner Isakson: Mr. Chair, I’d like to…
Chairman Rochester: I think
Deputy County Counsel Wendy Strimling: No. I’ll defer to Commissioner Isakson then I would like to say something.
Commissioner Isakson: Thank you. I’d like to clarify…maybe this would help clarify. I think what some of us were asking is that the Planning Commission recommendations be considered as an alternative in the EIR that’s moving forward with the General Plan. Certainly it would be analyzed at the same level as any of the other alternatives. I mean I think that’s what you’re saying, but that the other alternatives are not being analyzed at the same level as the project GPU that’s going forward. Is that correct? Is that what you’re saying?
Commissioner Isakson: Then I think, Mr. Chairman, I think I’m with Mr. Brown. We absolutely, my suggestion is, that I absolutely would want the Planning Commission recommendations to be analyzed at the same level as the other alternatives within the General Plan EIR.
Chairman Rochester:
Deputy County Counsel Wendy Strimling: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a couple procedural points. One is just under CEQA we’re using the word alternative and that may be being used in the lay sense rather than in CEQA sense. CEQA sense is alternatives have to be the environmentally superior alternative and I think what Mr. Holm is saying is that under CEQA you do have to analyze the impacts of the alternative, but in lesser detail. I think there may be another meaning of the word “alternative” that’s being used here, which is simply sort of an alternative project if you will because I don’t know that the Planning...I wouldn’t know and I wouldn’t be able to say whether the Planning Commission’s recommendations are the environmentally superior to the Board’s current recommendations or not, so then you might be looking almost at sort of alternative project descriptions, if you will, so as to whether it can be done, I mean, anything can be done. It takes time; it takes money, so if you are saying we have a project…here’s our project description A, and then we have another project description that is A plus B, then that takes more time and that takes more money to do that analysis. And then, I guess, I want to make one more procedural point, which is under Planning and Zoning Law, the Planning Commission obviously serves in a recommending capacity to the Board. Now the Board hasn’t made any final decisions. Obviously, it doesn’t have the environmental review yet. All it has done, in essence, is created that preliminary project description pending environmental review but you’ve given your advice to the Board and now the Board has told staff go forward and prepare the EIR so while the discussion is interesting and may be of value sort of where we are procedurally is that the Board now has given staff the go ahead to start to prepare the EIR…
Commissioner Isakson: Mr. Chair.
Deputy County Counsel Wendy Strimling: …and I do think, though, staff did want to know about the LUAC and the advisory committees, Ag Advisory as well as Housing Advisory because that, in terms of where we are in the process, I believe that staff wants to know because if you did want a referral to any of those committees before the Planning Commission hearings starts, I believe staff was looking to try to figure out if that would occur prior to the Planning Commission hearing starting because, if you recall in the last round, we got to Planning Commission and then there was referral to the LUACs. There was a referral to the Housing Advisory Commission and, I also believe, also the Ag Advisory Committee so to sort of get that input earlier on, if that’s what the Planning Commission wanted in regard…sort of in the nature of getting ready for the Planning Commission’s formal hearings.
Chairman Rochester: I would caution the Commission not to stray too far from what the staff is recommending here.
Commissioner Vandevere: Mr. Chair.
Chairman Rochester: Commissioner Vandevere.
Commissioner Vandevere: Yes. I was not on the subcommittee and did not sweat blood and tears over this deal, so I don’t have a statement to make about the process per se, but I do want to note that I mean we are…when whatever plan comes back to this Commission, obviously we have the ability to make whatever recommendations we want. The problem will, if there is a problem, will occur at the Board level if the Board adopts changes that change the plan sufficiently from what’s been analyzed in the CEQA documents then clearly, in order to do that, they would have to do additional CEQA review. But that’s not, in no way prevents us from telling them what we think. We can recommend anything regardless of whether it’s been analyzed. Now having that analysis would certainly help us to understand whether what we were recommending was a good idea or not, so I can certainly appreciate the value of having as broad an analysis of alternatives as possible and certainly support that, but I just want to be clear that we’re not actually constrained from what we can make in our recommendations when that time comes. My question is, having been through this a number of rounds, of different drafts of the plan, is that this latest…the GPU5 was released on December 21st and I haven’t received a copy of it yet. I’m wondering when the Planning Commission can expect to receive copies of the latest draft of the General Plan.
Commissioner Vandevere: Thank you.
Commissioner Isakson: Mr. Chair, if I may. Not to belabor the issue or not, and I apologize if I got us astray here, but I know I have been thinking about this for some time and I thought it was an appropriate day since we were talking about the process because it’s not just being part of the subcommittee, that we worked hard and everybody in this community has worked hard on trying to get something together and I think it was a controversial recommendation and I do understand that we just recommend to the Board of Supervisors and they changed that recommendation. But again, since we are at the point to where the scoping for the EIR is being developed, or has been developed, I thought it would be also a good time while we are talking about process to see, because I did have somebody within our legal staff tell me that it was part of the scoping and if its not part of the scoping then I’d like to have it be part of the EIR and considered as an alternative, whatever level that may be. But I think it would help us when it comes back to us as Commissioner Sanchez said so that we can look at what our recommendations were and evaluate them along with all the other alternatives being considered.
Commissioner Diehl: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Rochester: I think Mr. Holm was thinking of a response to that.
Carl Holm: Well, I’m kind of hearing a couple different things. As far as the scoping, and there is a Notice of Preparation that we received comments on, that all the comments received through that noticing period will be addressed in the EIR. That’s a little bit different than the alternatives so I’m not…
Chairman Rochester: Commissioner Diehl.
Commissioner Diehl: Yes. I believe that I’m confident we’ll get the information we need out of this review thinking about the spectrum of things that are going to be considered. So I think I’m convinced that we’ll get what we need and I think staff has heard our concerns and will help us be sure that we get what we need. But I wanted to go back and just revisit the discussion of the advisory committees’ involvement and suggest this, that, while I don’t support a formal review process of the Advisory committees at this point, or prior to the adoption of a further General Plan, I would like to suggest that staff supply each of the advisory committees mentioned here, the LUACs, the Ag Advisory Committee, and the Housing Advisory Committee, with the documentation necessary so that they can (change of tape) their move to do so during the public hearings on the next round of the General Plan. I don’t wish to disinvite their input, because I value it highly; however, I don’t think that we’re in the position of being able to respond effectively to substantive comments that are going to change things to a great extent, so rather than hold out false hope, get people to do a lot of things that are not actually productive, I’d like to propose that we couch it in the form of making sure they get the information they need, inviting them to participate in the process as it goes forward at the same level as everyone else and we’re trying to do that next review, and then making sure that we have that process after the General Plan’s adopted that will actually formally incorporate the ability of land use advisory committees to review the plan that we adopt.
Commissioner Brown: Mr. Chair.
Commissioner Errea: There’s a motion there somewhere. I’d be very happy to second it. I believe the motion, I guess, if you boil it down, is we’ll do a formal review from the LUACs after the General Plan is adopted. Prior to that we will invite them to participate as any other member of the public.
Commissioner Padilla: Do we need public input yet on this?
Commissioner Diehl: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Rochester: Commissioner Diehl.
Commissioner Diehl: Again, I think Commissioner Padilla is correct and we have not had an opportunity to hear from the public yet. If and when we get to a motion, I would simply say that, as a question of process at this time, I would not support a formal review process. I would support the informal review process that I’ve outlined.
Chairman Rochester: Anybody else before we go to the public?
Commissioner Brown: Um…
Chairman Rochester: Commissioner Brown.
Commissioner Brown: I’m sorry. I would just like to ask staff that has…given the discussion that we’ve had about the need for quantifying the Planning Commission recommendations in the EIR, has anything that we’ve said changed what you think will be your process? Have we said anything that might make the process any different than what you had planned?
Secretary Mike Novo: I’ll go ahead and take that one, and the answer is pretty much “yes.”
Commissioner Brown: Yes?
Secretary Mike Novo: What we are going to do is go back to the General Plan team. We have legal team plus our planners and some of the other departments and we’ll go back and talk about how to analyze this as an alternative in the EIR.
Commissioner Brown: Thank you.
Secretary Mike Novo: I’m not going to make any commitments to you today, but we will discuss it and we appreciate all your input. We think it’s very good input.
Chairman Rochester: Thank you.
Chairman Rochester: All right. Do we have any public input at this time? Comment on this agenda item? Ok, seeing none, bring it back to the Board or the Commission.
Commissioner Diehl: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Rochester: Yes, Ma’am.
Commissioner Diehl: I would like to go ahead at this time and move, formally, that we not create an additional process for the advisory committees at this point. At the same time, I want to reiterate that I support the direction in our previous recommendation about after the adoption of the General Plan.
Commissioner Brown: Second.
Commissioner Errea: Second.
Chairman Rochester: Mr. Holm.
Chairman Rochester: Yes.
Commissioner Diehl: Mr. Chairman, it did in my…that was the reason for that particular phrasing.
Chairman Rochester: Who seconded that motion?
Commissioner Errea: It was a tie, but I think Commissioner Brown got it.
Chairman Rochester: Commissioner Brown. Do we have any
further comment? All those in favor? “Aye”; opposed? [silence]; so moved.