Item Number: 9.
MEETING DATE: 11/17/2021
DEPARTMENT: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY
DEPT HEAD/DIRECTOR: Michael Chambless, Interim Director
AGENDA ITEM PREPARER: Taven M. Kinison Brown
SBC DEPT FILE NUMBER:
SUBJECT:
PLN210052 (Reconsideration of Ag. Mitigation for the Promontory at Ridgemark, formerly “The Bluffs”)
APPLICANT: Scott L. Stringer for Bates Stringer Hollister II LLC. OWNER: Century Communities (formerly Roy and Rita Lompa). LOCATION: South of Ridgemark Drive @ South Ridgemark Drive, adjacent to the Ridgemark community. APN: 025-420-005 and 025-420-019. REQUEST: A reconsideration of Agricultural Conservation Mitigation Measure MM AG-1 applied to the project in Planning Commission Resolution 2018-02 Bluffs Promontory EIR Certification, and in Planning Commission Resolution 2018-03 Bluffs Promontory Subdivision Approval and Conditions. The mitigation measure imposes a requirement of replacement or in-lieu fee on a 1:1 basis for each acre of Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) Important Farmland (Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland). GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Residential Mixed (RM). ZONING DISTRICT: Single Family Residential (R1). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The County of San Benito completed an Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number SCH 2016101022) consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). PLANNER: Taven M. Kinison Brown (tkinisonbrown@cosb.us)
AGENDA SECTION:
PUBLIC HEARING
BACKGROUND/SUMMARY:
PLN210052; Request to Reconsider Agricultural Mitigation Measure AG-1 applied to the Promontory/Bluffs Project Approved by the Planning Commission in April of 2018.
BUDGETED:
SBC BUDGET LINE ITEM NUMBER:
CURRENT FY COST:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the record (EIR, Reports, Resolutions, Minutes), the applicant’s extensive materials, open the public hearing, receive a presentation from staff, testimony from the applicant, receive comments from the public, if any, and then provide direction to staff.
- Should the Planning Commission wish to make changes as requested by the Developer, then the item may be continued to the regular meeting of December 15, 2021and staff can be prepared with the appropriate documentation reflecting the Commission’s intent to approve the removal of MM AG-1.
- Or, if after testimony received November 17, the Planning Commission does not agree with the developer that the Environmental Impact Report needs to be revised with an “Addendum,” or that Mitigation Measure AG-1 should be stricken, and that a new Planning Commission resolution be drafted, then staff can return on December 15, 2021, with a resolution reflecting the Commission’s intent to deny the request.
ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL:
|