Loading...
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