HomeMy Public PortalAbout09/06/1988 PABEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
SEPTEMBER 6, 1988
The Planning Commission met in
Meeting on Tuesday, September
Chambers with Acting Chairperson
a Regular Planning Commission
6, 1988, in the City Council
Remy presiding.
Meeting was called to Order at 7:30 P.M.
On Roll Call, the following commissioners were present:
Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries and Acting Chairperson
Remy. Chairperson Burton was excused.
Affidavit of Posting was read.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. Minutes for the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of
August 16, 1988, were approved as submitted.
2. Oral Communication: None.
3. Director's Report: CDD Koules noted. that City Attorney
Ryskamp might want to address the letter that was
distributed to the commission by Mr. Thomas' attorney (see
attached letter). Mr. Ryskamp explained the City's position
in that it was not until after the meeting of 3/22/88 on
4/19/88 *, that items missing from the project were received
by the City - in which case the City has a year from this
date in which to take action. Also, the City never received
a copy of the actual Notice from Mr. Thomas giving 60 days
in which to act and that the Notice itself was not dated.
lie noted that a new law states that it is not enough for the
year to run, there also has to be a public notice as well as
a 7 day notice prior to the public notice.
PUBLIC HEARING:
4. 87 -DP -1 and 87 -TM -3, a proposed development on 160 acres
consisting of 366 detached single family units, 224 multi-
family units and 21 acres of commercial uses. The
residential construction is proposed to be developed in 9
phases and the commercial development at a future time;
located on the south side of Highway 60, and south of
Western Knolls Drive, at the westerly City limits.
Applicant, John Thomas, Beaumont Associates.
CDD Koules presented the staff report commenting that he had
a real concern regarding the environmental impact not being
done. Also, commenting that the City Engineer should
thoroughly review the project and that the City Engineer
stated that he cannot review the project without having the
access problem addressed.
Acting Chairperson Remy then opened the public hearing at
7:55 P.M., asking for proponents /opponents from the
audience wishing to speak.
Gre or Weiler, Law Firm of Palmieri, T ler, Wiener, Wilhelm
& Waldron, 4000 MacArther Blvd., Newport Beach, a dressed
the commission commenting:
a) has worked closely with the City for 8 years and has
been working on their development application since
1985;
b) submitted a letter dated September 6, 1988 to City Clerk
*This date should read April 29, 1988
Minutes of PC Meeting
September 6, 1988
Page 2
with full reservations of rights for the record;
c) time period was running from July 1987;
d) planning director assured them they would have their
environmental evaluation a week after the Meeting of
March 22, 1988 - all issues have been addressed;
e) notice to City was sent June of this year and unless set
for public hearing, Mr. Thomas is going to notify the
public that the project will be deemed approved;
f) notice given to the City June 17th and hand delivered to
the planning director;
g) participation tonight is to continue to work with the
City even though the project has been deemed approved
they are here to ask that you concede to their position
in order to avoid a law suit;
h) no facts in the record before you tonight that says we
don't have access to this project;
i) no facts in the record to support a denial.
John Thomas Owner of the property, representing seaumont
Associates, addressed the commission commenting:
a) taken many years to get before the commission;
b) showed a slide of the open space, what is included and
how the project will look;
c) presented a binder to each of the commissioners
outlining his project and documentation in its entirety
(collected binders at end of meeting);
d) city engineer gave a letter stating he could be supplied
with sewer and the city manager said the same thing;
e) was told that 200 sewer hook -ups would be reserved;
f) met with Caltrans many times and complied with
everything they were told to do;
g) feels the City did not follow through with their
commitments.
CDD Koules asked to respond to Mr. Thomas' comments and
explained that on June 24, 1987 the tentative map was filed
and the application was filed July 16th on the development
plan - the idea being that a development plan was the same
as a specific plan. Further, the General Plan designates
this property as PUD and underneath says Specific Plan
required." This was mentioned to Mr. Thomas and he thought
it had been added to the map at a later time. Mr. Koules
went on to read what the state law says about a Specific
Plan. He showed the Environmental Drafts pertaining to
Three Rings Ranch and Potrero Creek, noting that these are
the types of documentation that the City is requiring.
Also, there cannot be a negative declaration on this project
since it has a too significant impact. He acknowledged that
there may have been some slippage, but this project started
off on the wrong foot - no one bothered to read the general
plan and say that a specific plan should be submitted.
Attornev Greqory Weiler, commented:
a) was never purported to be a specific plan by Mr. Thomas;
b) have satisfied the City's code - and if not tell them
what is needed;
c) if starting over today, would submit a specific plan and
would do a complete environmental review;
d) environmental issued are behind -`done all the
preliminary studies and the project has been approved,
this is the position and cannot be changed.
A. C. Nejedly, 6141 Riverside Ave., Riverside, addressed the
commission commenting:
Minutes of PC Meeting
September 6, 1988
Page 3
a) not speaking in favor of or against;
b) concerned about the access of this project;
c) not in favor of what appears to be the access to the
freeway at the location presented;
d) would like to hear from Caltrans.
Ralph Wheeler, California Dept. of Transportation, addressed
the commission commenting.
a) lot of inquiry by Mr. Thomas as to access to Route 60;
b) 1953 the California Transportation Commission adopted
the Route 60 as a freeway;
c) freeway agreement with the County at this time that a
slip -ramp type of interchange would be located in an
approximate location as seen on Mr. Thomas' plans;
d) Federal Highway Administration has some requirements
dated 10/30/86 pertaining to locations of interchanges
and Caltrans also has a process that was approved and
adopted 11/85 for new public road connections;
e) technically the State owns access through Route 60;
f) south side of Route 60 there are two 14' openings that
are private access openings;
g) read paragraph from Federal Highway Administration dated
10/30/86 (see attached) pertaining to spacing of
interchanges;
j) according to FHWA this location is still a rural area
which will require a 2 mile spacing and the spacing
would be based on the centerline structure crossing at
the 60 and 10 Interchange. A 2 mile spacing from that
point back on Route 60 would put an interchange about a
mile west of the western most point of the John Thomas
property;
k) it is possible to get an interchange by a process which
the City can enter into that is a Project Development
Process where the City processes certain reports
usually takes about 24 months;
1) interchange would have to be approved by the California
Transportation Commission as well as the Federal Highway
Administration;
m) at this time Caltrans has no funding;
n) there is no priority to build an interchange at this
location nor is there one within a 10 year plan
o) only way to get an interchange at this location would be
for the local agency (County or City) to come up with
the funding to build the interchange and make the
required improvements along this portion of Route 60;
p) a way for the City to build the access at 60 would be
for all the property owners in the area to put forth
their fair share through an assessment district;
q) John Thomas' project does not have access to Route 60,
there is only two 14' openings which are private
driveways.
John Thomas, asked to address the commission pertaining to
Mr. Koules' comments and noted:
a) you have to incorporate recorded information when you
prepare a map;
b) in 1985 Caltrans was going to allow access, signals,
left- hand - turns; however, as they began to study the
issue they began to re -think and additional
recommendations and letters came forth stating that the
City should act as a public agency or a lead agency;
c) should do a project study and in the study a funding
mechanism should be determined;
d) pointed to Valerie Beeler's letter dated 10/13/87,
whereby Beaumont Associates agreed to fund the study
Minutes of PC Meeting
September 6, 1988
Page 4
after planning commission approval and to work with the
City and the City to act as a Lead Agency with Caltrans;
e) has complied with all requests and information and now
new rules are in effect - reason for legal measure;
f) one week from the meeting in March 1988, he was to be
informed as to whether he would need a full blown EIR or
additional work - six months later he finds out the City
would like to have it;
g) does not intend to start over.
Commissioner Schuelke then asked if any new conditions had
been placed on this project with CDD Koules commenting that
the conditions of approval have not been written because the
city engineer cannot write the conditions due to the
access problems.
Ralph Wheeler, speaking from the audience commented that
once the City and the County agreed to the type of
Circulation Plan required in the area, they would present to
Caltrans a feasibility study based on what
rocess, suggesting
required to begin the project now in p rove a break -in
California Trnasportation Commission app
access which allows an interchange to be constructed. This
would require a commitment from the City and County to the
project as well as funding.
Attorney Gregory Weiler, asked to clarify for the
reco d is
that Mr. Wheeler said that access for this project
available.
There was lengthy discussion with Acting Chairperson Remy
asking Mr. Thomas about the forty -five hundred feet loved
Mr. Thomas noted that at the time the zone was app
there was a set of development standards that went with the
zone PRMF and he complied with the development standards at
that time. Commissioner Fries questioned quality housing on
small lots and also submittal of the map. Mr. Thomas noted
that it took 2 years to complete the development plans that
was submitted in June 1987. Commissioner Bruner commented
that if this plan was approved how would you have access
with Mr. Thomas commenting that even if the City and State
both say "no way" the other access would be to go down 4th
Street. Commissioner Bruner further asked Mr. Thomas what
he would do if this was approved tonight - if he had any
definite plans for access to Highway 60. Mr. Thomas stated
"no" but he would work with the City in trying to resolve
their issue regarding the sewer. Acting Chairperson Remy
noted they could not approve something that does not have an
access to it. Mr. Thomaas commented that the ability to get
access is there on recorded documentation but getting the
Dublic access needs a project study and unless there is an
approval he could never commit himself to do anything that
would cost additional money since he could not rely on the
City. Commissioner Schuelke then asked Mr. Thomas if there
was a commitment in writing from City staff stating that
they would reserve 200 sewer hook -ups with Mr. Thomas
stating it was a verbal commitment from Irish Mitchell, Bob
Bounds, Hubert Webb and himself. Mr. Thomas also noted that
the reports from the County of Riverside regarding toxicity
and gas concentration were "clean bills of health." Mr.
Thomas noted there is a meeting scheduled!in the near future
to try and attempt to get all the developers together to see
what they will do in regards to a funding mechanism for an
interchange.
There being no opponents wishing to speak, Acting
Chairperson Remy then closed the public hearing at 9:55
Minutes of
September
Page 5
PC Meeting
6, 1988
P.M., turning the matter back to the commission.
There was lengthy discussion by the commission with the
feeling that the City would have to become the "lead agency"
and put together a plan outlining the accesses for the
properties in this area. Commissioner Schuelke noted that
the city engineer should get together with staff and
developers and have the City initiate and work with Caltrans
and put together a proper plan for access to all the areas
on Iiighway 60 - cannot build the plan until the access roads
are provided.
John Thomas, commented that if his project was approved he
would be willing to work with the City and the other
developers in trying to fund the sewer plan and Beaumont
Cherry Valley Water District but will not do a complete EIR.
Attorney Ryskamp explained the proper procedure for CEQA and
commented that projects are not approved without complying
with CEQA.
CDD Koules noted that Mr. Thomas submitted an Expanded
Initial Study to help determine if an EIR would be required.
Attorney Weiler, commented that they would have done an EIR
but not now so the City is going to have to "bite the
bullet" and approve this project without a full blown EIR
which leaves only one alternative - a negative declaration.
If this doesn't happen he feels he doesn't have a choice but
to go to court. '
Commissioner Bruner suggested that the project be continued
and let staff and Mr. Thomas work together with Commissioner
Schuelke stating she felt that they should direct the city
engineer to propose conditions of approval.
Commissioner Schuelke then made a motion to continue this
application 87 -DP -1 and 87 -TM -3 to a date as soon as
possible after the city engineer proposes some conditions of
approval adequate for the project, that staff also put
CDD Koules explained that meetings had been held with
various developers trying to find out who is willing to
participate on sewer capacity with Mr. Bounds asking for
letters of commitment from the developers so there could be
monies committed to expand the sewer treatment plant.
John Thomas, commented that they do have a "will serve"
letter from Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District but hadn't
exercised it because oncedjannexed you have to put up money.
Attorney Ryskamp noted that unless the project is
conditioned and he has to provide the public improvements,
elm
fit-
he can build the project without the freeway access being in
place. Mr. Ryskamp outlined the following alternatives for
e k'`.t
the commission:
a) you can deny the project because there is not adequate
information and make findings relevant to the project
which is probably the most desirable for the City;
b) you can approve the project but you will violate CEQA;
c) some kind of cooperation that will allow steps taken to
get the project fully planned properly.
Attorney Weiler, commented that they would be willing to
submit to any reasonable conditions to address concerns for
access and sewer.
John Thomas, commented that if his project was approved he
would be willing to work with the City and the other
developers in trying to fund the sewer plan and Beaumont
Cherry Valley Water District but will not do a complete EIR.
Attorney Ryskamp explained the proper procedure for CEQA and
commented that projects are not approved without complying
with CEQA.
CDD Koules noted that Mr. Thomas submitted an Expanded
Initial Study to help determine if an EIR would be required.
Attorney Weiler, commented that they would have done an EIR
but not now so the City is going to have to "bite the
bullet" and approve this project without a full blown EIR
which leaves only one alternative - a negative declaration.
If this doesn't happen he feels he doesn't have a choice but
to go to court. '
Commissioner Bruner suggested that the project be continued
and let staff and Mr. Thomas work together with Commissioner
Schuelke stating she felt that they should direct the city
engineer to propose conditions of approval.
Commissioner Schuelke then made a motion to continue this
application 87 -DP -1 and 87 -TM -3 to a date as soon as
possible after the city engineer proposes some conditions of
approval adequate for the project, that staff also put
Minutes of PC Meeting
September 6, 1988
Page 6
together their conditions of approval - that they address
the issue of density and the environmental issue as to what
they recommend and which items that need to be mitigated,
and for something to get started with or without this
project on initiating something for the accesses as well as
a plan for the funding mechanism and information pertaining
to the sewer.
Attorney Ryskamp noted that the motion needed a date for the
continuance and an agreement from the developer was needed
so whatever action is taken at the continued meeting it will
be deemed to have taken place this evening without
prejudicing either the City's or-Mr. Thomas' rights and to
proceed relative to the issues that has been raised and
discussed concerning the notice and the Permit Streamlining
Act. If acquiesence is not possible he strongly recommends
against a continuance.
CDD Koules explained that the plan for a funding mechanism
could be a very long drawn out effort because the adjacent
property owners have to get together with Commissioner
Schuelke commenting with or without this project she would
like to direct staff to look into the funding mechanism to
be ready for the developments in the future.
John Thomas, noted that based on a good economy he would say
that total build out would probably take around 5 years.
Attorney Weiler, commented that what he is hearing tonight
i that the commission cannot make a decision because they
are unable between a negative declaration or an EIR. Could
go to court and have a hearing within 45 days and have a
judge tell the commission to approve and to hell with CEQA.
CDD Koules commented that usually the applicant hires an
environmental analyst to look at the site and then the
analyst makes a determination whether it should be a focused
EIR or a full EIR. He doesn't feel that a negative
declaration can be filed on this project. A .44" %
,p_ J vn T
Commissioner Schuelke commented that she would add to her
motion that the applicant be directed to consult with an
environmental agency to prepare an EIR.
Attorney Ryskamp noted that the Notice of Preparation is a b�+�
crucial first step in getting CEQA moving asking when could
a notice be sent out with CDD Koules commenting three or
four working days.
Commissioner Schuelke also wanted clarification as to the
reference made about the 200 sewer hook -ups that were
committed.
Attorney Ryskamp re- stated the motion to read as follows:
This project to be continued to October 4, 1988 in
order to gain the status of the conditions of approval,
after having directed the City Engineer to prepare said
conditions, and staff within the next 4 days to
prepare a Notice of Preparation initiating the EIR
process.
Motion seconded by Commissioner Bruner.
Attorney Ryskamp prior to the vote asked the
applicant /attorney if they were willing to stipulate this
meeting be continued and that it will not affect the City's
Minutes of PC Meeting
September 6, 1988
Page 7
rights nor their rights and any action taken at the
continued meeting be deemed to have been taken place this
evening for purposes of the Permit Streamlining Act.
Mr. Weiler, Attorney for Mr. Thomas commented that he didn't
Find continuing the hearing since any time periods from now
until the new hearing is irrelevant - his legal position is
such that it is already approved.
Attorney Rsykamp stated that failure to take action today
means you are waiving the right to contest this issue prior
to the continued date with Mr. Weiler noting "up to and
including October 3, 1988" and would follow up with a letter
to this effect.
Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries and Acting
Chairperson Remy,
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Chairperson Burton.
ABSTAIN: None.
There being no further business before the commission, the
meeting adjourned at 11:04 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
C�rry ylor