HomeMy Public PortalAbout01/19/93 MinutesBEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
JANUARY 199 1993
Meeting called to Order at 7:02 p.m.
Roll Call: Commissioners Echlin, Israelson, Burch and Chairman
Prouty.
Affidavit of Posting.
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. On motion by Commissioner Burch, seconded by Commissioner
Echlin the Minutes of December 15, 1992 stand approved with
the following correction /addition.
Page 3, Condition No. 3. Addition: Should have mentioned
the developer objected to providing 10 picnic tables and 4
barbeque grills in their Specific Plan document with the
feeling this was creating a financial hardship.
Page 4, 1st paragraph. Correction. PVC should be changed
to VCP pipe.
Motion carried with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Israelson, Burch and Chairman
Prouty.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
2. Oral Communication: None.
3. Director's Report: None.
4. 89 -TM -6 (Tr. 23646) and 89 -ND -9, a second request for a one
(1) year extension for a proposed 50 lot single family
subdivision, located on the north side of Cougar Way about
1800 feet east of its intersection with Beaumont Avenue.
Applicant, Aware Development.
Chairman Prouty opened the public hearing at 7 :07 p.m. asking
if there were any proponents /opponents from the audience
wishing to speak.
Mr. Bill Gable, Civil Engineer, with Gable, Cook & Becklund,
representing the applicant addressed the commission stating
they had requested two revisions of the conditions and have
worked with staff over several months to gain their support in
re- writing two conditions as well as asking for the time
extension. He noted they were happy with the response of the
staff and asked the commission to endorse staff's
recommendation.
Planning Consultant Nicole Criste mentioned to the commission
that there were two conditions to be amended both of which are
engineering conditions.
Mr. Lin Newton, City Engineer, addressed the commission
explaining the first condition requested was to shorten the
frontage on Cougar Way in order to install public
improvements, such as curb, gutter, etc. only on the length
they were building on. Staff thought this was a reasonable
request and recommended this be approved. The second request
was to delete a drainage requirement and to build and install
drainage improvements as required on Marshall Creek which
included the creek itself and two crossing structures on
Cougar Way. Mr. Newton went on explaining that initially
requirements was placed on this project when staff thought the
development was going to be 313 lots; however, at the current
Minutes of PC meeting
January 19, 1993
Page 2
time the applicant is only proposing to build 50 houses and
to impose that condition would make the cost per unit
unreasonable. Consequently, staff requested that Mr. Ware do
two things, one to provide a $2,000, dollar fee and it be placed
in a restricted fund that will be used later for the cost of the
conditions and two, that he provide repairs to the entrance
structure that is presently existing.
Chairman Prouty then asked if this would alleviate Mr. Ware's
obligation in the future pertaining to Marshall Creek or would it
just be delaying it with Mr. Newton stating "it is deferring it ".
Commissioner Israelson noted that the money would basically set
and bear interest until the developer goes ahead with the
remaining potential 263 units at which time it would then finance
the construction of the channel. Mr. Newton noted that there was
also a condition whereby they would escalate this fund annually
starting July 1, 1993 in an effort to keep up with inflation.
Mr. Tom Shelton, Omega Homes, owner of the 35 acres on the other
side of the drainage channel addressed the commission stating that
without the Cougar Crossing being constructed creates some
problems for his development. Mr. Shelton commented that he has
concerns about the adjacent property owners having to bear the
entire cost of this drainage problem. He requested the same
consideration be given to him whereby he would be able to
distribute the cost over a greater number of lots in his project
in a similar manner. Also he noted this should be done not only
for Mr. Ware but for everyone in the vicinity of Marshall Creek
or any other similar channel.
Chairman Prouty then closed the public hearing at 7:14 p.m. asking
for questions /discussion from the commission.
Commissioner Burch noted that the mitigation fees and the
$100,000. dollars were in no way near the million and half to two
million dollars needed from the property owners. He noted the
City is going to have to face trying to come up with the money and
squeezing either developers /property owners or both into coming up
with the money while allowing development.
Commissioner Israelson then asked how the channel as it currently
exists been fairing through the recent deluges we have had with
Mr. Newton stating "not too well ".
Chairman Prouty then re- opened the public hearing at 7 :17 p.m.
pursuant to a request from Mr. Ron Whittier.
Mr. Ron Whittier, noted there had been a considerable amount of
work done by the previous staff with all of the property owners in
drawing up an agreement and the agreement is about 90 percent done
for the channel. He further noted that bids were submitted and
done and it came to about $1700. dollars a lot for the
complete channel which is north of Cougar Way. Mr. Shelton's
property was not included. Staff took the cost in the bids which
was $1700. dollars and came up with $2,000. dollars a lot. This
project is only 50 lots; however, when you divide the total
number of lots, it takes care of the channel. The only reason
this is happening is because there is only 50 sewer permits
available. The $2,000. dollars per lot is right in line with the
bids that came in.
Mr. Gable, addressed the commission noting he wanted to add a
couple of things stating what staff is recommending is that the
construction of the box which is physically underneath the
street be put off and built with the remaining phases of this
tract. An agreement has been done and he thinks all the
owners have signed it and the City is now reviewing it. The
agreement called for $1700. dollars a house to fund the complete
channel. The City Engineer's recommendation for these 50 houses
to be built in the first phase will not be endangered because this
Minutes of PC meeting
January 19, 1993
Page 3
box is not built. He noted that the drainage that will come off
of these 50 lots will not go into the box, but will go into some
catch - basins on Cougar Way - this way they are not increasing
hazards to the box by construction. Mr. Gable noted they are
asking for relief and help.
Chairman Prouty then closed the public hearing at 7:21 p.m.
turning the matter over to the commission for discussion.
Commissioner Israelson commented that this is a very expensive
improvement for drainage that needs to be built, but there are
several different property owners /developers involved and they are
all at different stages of actually proceeding with development.
Commissioner Israelson does agree somewhat with Mr. Gable's
contention that since they are ready to proceed with 50 houses,
and they are only 1 out of 4 different developers/ property owners
in the affected area, it would not be reasonable to ask them to
construct the entire drainage system at this time.
Commissioner Echlin wanted to know if it could be worded in such
a way that when it is built all the developers will pay their fair
share of the cost per lot per acre with Mr. Newton noting this was
the way they tried to structure it.
Mr. Newton further noted that as the developments come in they
would update the cost of the work and assess it in that manner.
Feels what they have done is a good start in accumulating the
funds.
Commissioner Israelson wanted to know if there is a point in the
development scheme where there would be enough money dedicated to
start construction on this drainage channel?
Mr. Newton responded by stating it would be dictated when the
developers start building along the creek itself with
Commissioner Israelson asking if it would be held up by the 4th
or 5th developer affected and not be able to do anything until all
the developers were ready. He also wanted to know if there was
any sort of an alternative plan that staff is aware of which would
allow some of the effects of torrential rains like we have had to
be mitigated without full - fledged construction of the entire
channel that is eventually envisioned to take form.
Mr. Newton commented that the way they approach the conditions
they are recommending is that they realize there is an erosion
problem at the head of the structure that is existing which
is a 72 inch CNP pipe. They are requiring in the condition that
the developer improve and make repairs to that entrance and
improve it where the flows will go in more efficiently than they
do now and eliminate the erosion problems we are having.
Commission Israelson noted that this is an alternative to the full
fledged concrete box that we are hearing about with Mr. Newton
answering in the affirmative. Commissioner Israelson noted that
building the concrete box is less than double of what the $2,000.
dollar deposit is going to be and noted this might be the way to
go and at least build that part of it and have a permanent
structure that would allow the water to flow through more evenly
and more readily.
On motion by Commission Burch that 89 -TM-6, (Tr. 23646) and 89-
ND-9, a second request for a one year extension for a proposed 50
lot single family subdivision and the subsequent revisions in the
conditions of approval be denied, seconded by Chairman Prouty.
Motion carried with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Israelson, Burch and Chairman Prouty.
NOES: Commissioner Echlin.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
Minutes of PC Meeting
January 19, 1993
Page 4
5. Second and final hearing for the Planning Commission to
address the General Plan Update pertaining to areas within the
municipal boundary and Sphere of Influence for the City of
Beaumont.
Chairman Prouty opened the public hearing at 7:28 p.m.
requesting the staff report for this project.
Ms. Andi Adams, Consulting Planner for the Beaumont General
Plan, presented the staff report explaining that the public
review period for the Environmental Impact Report and the
General Plan ended last Thursday and Friday respectively and
six comments were received on the EIR. She explained that the
commission was given a report that disposed of the issues
raised at the December 15th hearing as well as any comments
received by the time of publication of tonight's report and
followed by a Supplemental Report (see attached). She went
onto explain the six comments on the EIR which did not
result in any significant comments that could not be disposed
of by adequate responses. They (consultants) have prepared
for the commission a Resolution recommending the General Plan
to the Council with appropriate revisions pursuant to the
report. Also, there is a Resolution recommending
certification of the Environmental Impact Report in making
the appropriate legal findings. She noted that in order to
move ahead on the schedule established jointly by the
Commission and Council to the February Council hearing, it
is necessary that the commission act tonight.
Mr. Bryan Speegle, addressed the commission presenting the
staff reports noting the reports are composed of Attachment 1,
Attachment 2a, 2b and Attachment 3. He explained that
Attachment 1 is a response to the testimony and written
comments received prior to mail out of the staff report.
Attachment 2 is composed of two draft resolutions.
Attachment 2a is the Resolution approval of the General Plan
including a written report as required by the Government Code
from the Planning Commission to the City Council. Attachment
2b is the proposed Resolution on the draft environmental
subsequent environment report and Attachment 3 are copies of
the comments received prior to mail out of the staff report.
Further, he noted that the Supplemental Report addresses
comments received after the staff report. (see attachment).
In addition, they received comments in the form of a letter to
Robert Bounds from Robertson Development Corporation which he
will respond to verbally. He noted that copies of the General
Plan were distributed to the State Housing, Community
Development Department, the State Geologist, the Riverside
County Local Formation Commission and adjacent cities. He
stated they did not receive comments by the 15th from any of
these agencies. The only comments received since the 15th are
from the State Housing Committee Development Divisions, and
the County Road Department. He commented that the comments
from State HCD and the County Road Department in his opinion
are technical and can be resolved with some technical
information back to them. Mr. Speegle stated he would like to
summarize very briefly Attachment 1 to the staff report which
is the response to the testimony and comments received prior
to distribution of the staff report, summarize the
Supplemental Staff Report which is also in response to
comments and then briefly summarize their response to the
Robertson Development Corporation. His presentation for
Attachment 1 is as follows:
At the public hearing of December 15th, there was testimony
from Mr. Preston Gibson representing Noble Creek Specific Plan
proposal and he had three general concerns. One was
incorporation of the Draft EIR for the Noble Creek Specific
Plan and they (consultants) prepared a response and felt that
information had been incorporated into the Draft EIR and
General Plan where appropriate. The second concern and
question was "are developers in areas classified 1.2 low
Minutes of PC Meeting
January 19, 1993
Page 5
low density residential specific plan required by the open
space component policies to dedicate 25% of their land for
open space and recreation uses." In general the answer is
"no" but the policy does require that 25% of the total area be
devoted to public and quasi - public facilities including open
space, recreation facilities, regional or city wide important
highways, sewer, water, flood control facilities, school,
civic uses, library and other major public facilities. Mr.
Gibson's third concern was that the entire Noble Creek
Specific Plan be included in the General Plan and a
similar comment was raised by Landmark Land in their letter
after the June 1992 study session on the General Plan. While
portions of the specific plans are within the City's Sphere of
Influence or within the City boundaries, there are portions
of the Oak Valley Specific Plan and Noble Creek Specific Plan
which are located outside the Sphere of Influence. At this
time we do not recommend those portions be incorporated
within the Sphere of Influence. The reason being, is that
these areas were specifically considered by the Local Agency
Formation Commission when it established the Sphere of
Influence boundary and they declined to include these areas
within the Sphere of Influence. From a planning standpoint,
they (consultants) think these areas should be within the
Sphere of Influence, but feel the road to accomplishing this
is through a concurrent amendment of the General Plan,
concurrent with adoption of the specific plan and then go
through the annexation process to amend the Sphere of
Influence individually, so the people who are concerned with
the City's Sphere of Influence boundary can see the specific
plan details and the documentation that goes along with it.
They (consultants) are recommending that those areas not be
included at this time but are concurrent with the general plan
amendments that go along with the specific plans to accomplish
this.
He stated that Mr. Nejedly submitted oral comments and written
comments proposing a senior citizen age restricted project on
his parcel and parcels that he has been involved in. They
(consultants) thought his proposal would be very good for the
City and recommended approval of this proposal with the
addition to the Land Use Element of a policy restricting that
designation to an age restricted project. They are
(consultants) recommending that the policy allow him to
propose an age restricted project at the high density category
with an approval of a specific plan and that if it is not an
age restricted project, or is only a partially age restricted
project, the City reserves the right to approve the project
of 4.5 units or less per gross acre.
Mr. Speegle noted that Mr. George Witter submitted written
proposals which came in two parts. The first proposal was
that his property and relevant adjacent properties located
northerly of 1st Street which are currently designated 3.2
(business park) in the Land Use Element be designated for
residential land use. They (consultants) support this
proposal but propose that it be designated 1.1 rural density
residential with a Specific Plan Overlay and that the major
pipeline easements remain designated 5.1 recreation and not
be used for residential uses. Also, that residential uses
be set back from those pipeline easements. The second
point raised by Mr. Witter was pertaianing to the property
south of lst Street designated 1.1 which is in fact 400 acres
and is currently included in the 1982 General Plan as a
similar category. They (consultants) recommend that it be
retained in the 1.1 rural density category, but that the
Specific Plan Overlay be added which would allow landowners
through the specific plan process to seek approval of higher
densities; however, if those specific plans are not proposed,
the properties be developed at rural densities. The Beaumont
Minutes of PC meeting
January 19, 1993
Page 6
School District also submitted written comments and their
comments were quite thorough and they recommended the addition
of a school facility component to the proposed public services
and facilities element. They (consultants) did not recommend
that the school district's proposal be added to the public
services facilities element but rather the City negotiate
with the school district, come up with an agreement and then
add it to the public services and facilities element.
However, since the staff report was mailed out they learned
negotiations had commenced and a draft agreement has been
prepared between the school district and the City. They
(consultants) now feel they would change their recommendation
and recommend that the Beaumont Unified School District's
proposal be added to the public services and facilities
element which was included and was attached to the previous
staff report.
Mr. Speegle went on discussing the Supplemental Staff Report
which addresses written comments from Mr. Kenneth T. Howe,
Major Projects, Inc., on behalf of Inland Commercial Investors
regarding a 22.6 acre site at the southeasterly corner of
Beaumont Avenue and Brookside. Also written comments from Mr.
Richard Douglass, Planning Manager for Landmark, Land Company
of California regarding Oak Valley Specific Plan.
He commented that Mr. Howe is requesting reclassification from
1.2 low density residential to 1.3 medium density residential
and proposes a buffer density to the adjacent multi - family
residential development to the south. Their (consultants)
response is that their direction indicated that the commercial
uses that have been contemplated in the past in other
development proposals for the property were not economically
feasible and no further high density residential development
was necessary or desired in this area. For these reasons they
currently propose designation of low density residential which
would permit a conventional residential subdivision with
minimum lot sizes of about 7200 square feet to 7400 square
feet depending on the layout. The requested change to the
medium density residential would permit plan unit
developments with minimum lot sizes of 4000 square feet down
to 3800 square feet depending on the design of the project as
well as conventional subdivisions. They (consultants)
recommended as stated in the Supplemental Staff Report that
the Planning Commission consider the request but they noted
that no development plan has been submitted nor does it appear
from Mr. Howe's letter that a proposal is eminent. Therefore,
they feel it may be premature to reclassify the site. Mr.
Speegle further noted that if a landowner presents a
development plan and a concurrent amendment, it could be
processed amending the Land Use Element; however, at this time
the General Plan has sufficient medium and high density
residential to meet the City's housing needs.
In addition to Mr. Howe's letter, Mr. Douglass also submitted
a letter which was a follow -up letter submitted after the June
workshop and this letter was responded to in the December 15th
staff report. Mr. Douglass proposed that the Oak Valley
Specific Plan area be designated 1.3 medium density
residential rather than 1.2 low density residential because of
the range of densities in the Oak Valley Specific Plan. Their
response to Mr. Douglass' letter submitted after the June
hearing was that the Specific Plan Overlay allows an overall
gross density of 4.5 units per acre through the approval of a
specific plan and up to 30 units per acre on a net basis.
Mr. Douglass also wanted the definitions of gross and net be
added to the Land Use Element to clarify what is meant by
these terms. They (consultants) have suggested that an
introduction be added to the Land Use Element residential and
non - residential categories which would both define and discuss
Minutes of PC Meeting
January 19, 1993
Page 7
the difference between gross acres and gross density, net
acres and net density. General Plans deal with gross acres
which is the total acres of a project rather than net acres.
Zoning deals with net acres which specifies minimum lot sizes
and densities for net areas. General Plans generally deal
with the total amount of property because it has not been
determined at the General Plan level what the net density
would be. Gross density would be defined as the gross or
total acres of the site multiplied by the density permitted by
the residential category and each residential category has a
range of densities that are permitted. They (consultants)
also proposed a definition of floor area ratio which is the
density standard for the non - residential and is similar to the
gross density definition.
Mr. Speegle then went to the chalk board and demonstrated what
the gross density would look like using the calculation of
1000 acres of property. He stated that using the 1000 acres
of property would allow the developer to develop in the
rural density and would give him a range of zero to 2.3
units per acre but they encourage the development of the
specific plan. The specific plan would allow the developer
to propose up to 4.5 dwelling units per gross acre. This
would allow up to 4500 dwelling units on the property maximum.
At least 500 acres has to go to open space or major public
facilities. If you deduct the 500 acres from the 1000 you
have 500 acres that can be subdivided; however, before you can
subdivide, the developer has to provide local parks, highways,
etc., and those have to be deducted from the 500 acres. In
some cases another 200 acres will be lost providing for
schools, parks, etc., within the residential development and
this then would leave 300 acres that could be subdivided under
this scenario. If you have a good designer and do not have a
lot of public facilities you might be able to squeeze 500
acres out of the project.
Mr. Speegle further explained that Mr. Douglass also
recommends that the Master Plan of Arterial Highways reflect
the Oak Malley Specific Plan which was the consultants'
intent. They (consultants) would like to make it absolutely
clear that the commission's action include any revisions
required to incorporate the Circulation Element Map. Also in
addition, the standards for developing streets are intended as
general quidelines which will be defined through the specific
plan and development process. The standards may be altered
through these processes as long as the resulting highway can
accommodate the projected traffic volumns at the level of
service standards specified in the General Plan. He stated
Mr. Douglass also requested that the Oak Valley Specific Plan
EIR be incorporated by referenced as well as the General Plan
Introduction and Draft EIR where appropriate and commented
that they concur that these should be accomplished. He
commented that Mr. Douglass also requests Item 2d, that
portion of the Oak Valley Specific Plan outside the City's
Sphere of Influence be included in a "future Sphere of
Influence" area. They (consultants) concur that the Specific
Plan should not have been divided by the Sphere of Influence
boundary. However, this was the decision of the Local Agency
Formation Commission and until LAFCO amends this boundary, the
Specific Plan should not be included even as a future area.
Mr. Speegle went on noting that regarding Item 2E, Mr.
Douglass recommends that exhibits be internally consistent
especially regarding Noise Element Exhibit 15. The
consultants agree with this and concur that it should be
included in the commission's action.
Mr. Speegle then noted that he would like to briefly summarize
a letter dated January 14, 1993, after the mail out of the
specific plan and give responses from Mr. Joseph D.
DiCristina, representing Robertson Development Corporation.
Minutes of PC Meeting
January 19, 1993
Page 8
He stated that Mr. DiCristina asked to explain in further
detail the projects which would crate intrastructrure and
balances or deteriorate service capabilities which will be
recommended for modification. Mr. Speegle noted that this is a
policy conained in the growth management portion of the General
Plan including the Land Use Element and the Public Services
Facilities Element and it requires developers of large
projects such as specific plans be conditioned to prepare
annual monitoring reports stating projected development and the
infrastructure required to met that development. By use of
an analysis process fee it would be determined if the
infrastructure was adequate to meet the growth. Those projects
that create or result in an imbalance of deterioration service
capabilities would then be either deferred or modified.
Modified means the conditions would be placed or programs would
be adopted or fees would be established to erase that
infrastructure imbalance. As to what level would these
conditions be applied - the conditions requiring the annual
monitoring report are going to have to be applied at the
highest possible level before the projects get too far down
the element path; however, we have the reserve area policies
which require certain findings before these developments can be
approved. The City is going to address this through a
Comprehensive Fee System that will pay or finance all required
services. Mr. Speegle wanted to state for the record that
delays or modifications would not occur beyond the tentative
tract level because these are non - discretionary levels -
infrastructure must be addressed before tentative tract maps
are approved.
Mr. Speegle noted that Mr. DiCristina's second comment was to
explain what width of public streets would require slumpstone
walls. There is a general policy in the neighborhood
enhancement which recommends that slumpstone walls be
constructed along public streets. Mr. Speegle noted that his
interpretation of the policy is that slumpstone walls would
be required along arterial highways - they would not be
required along collectors or local residential streets. Mr.
DiCristina's third comment was regarding deferring development
until adequate project mitigations can be developed with Mr.
Speegle noting that mitigation measures are determined before
the approval of the tentative tract map and their findings in
the General Plan. Mr. Speegle commented that Mr. DiCristina
also wanted them to elaborate upon what are the various
sources for the funding of the proposed development monitoring
program. He (Mr. Speegle) noted that as far as financing the
General Plan he recommends a Comprehensive Fee Program for
covering all required development services and felt that the
City is also moving along this path. He noted that Mr.
DiCristina also wanted him to elaborate on the modification of
projects which create infrastructure balances. Mr. Speegle
noted this might include fee programs, or mitigation measures
to improve public services such as intersection levels of
service. Mr. DiCristina's next comment was pertaining to
the Riverside County Fire Department who has developed a
mitigation agreement for fire services. Mr. Speegle suggested
this agreement be considered for inclusive in the General
Plan's Mitigation Agreement. Mr. DiCristina's next comment
was that of Silverado Trail, which is a major collector street
for Rolling Hills Ranch and wanted it shown on the Circulation
Element Map. Mr. Speegle stated they recommend that collectors
streets not be shown in the Master Plan of Arterial Highways
unless they serve a regional use - that is they connect or
provide access to two or more pieces of property and he felt
that Silverado Trail in this case is limited to Rolling Hills
Ranch. If not, then it should be considered for inclusion on
the circulation map. The next comment Mr. DiCristina had was
that he asked that Rolling Hills Ranch Specific Plan be denoted
on the Land Use Element Map. They (consultants) do not concur
since none of the specific plans are specifically noted on the
map. Mr. DiCristina's next comment was the Lift Station which
Minutes of PC Meeting
January 19, 1993
Page 9
is proposed for the southwest corner of Rolling Hills Ranch
and should be depicted on the sewer service map and they
(consultants) support this designation. Mr. DiCristina's
final comment is concerning the Master Plan of Arterial
Highways. Mr. DiCristina's map denotes a collectors street
passing through the north side of Rolling Hills Ranch and no
where on their plans have they shown such a street;
consequently, they request that portion of the street
passing through Rolling Hills Ranch be removed. Mr. Speegle
went on stating that the proposed street was proposed as a
frontage road for SR 60 and feels the City should incorporate
frontage roads wherever possible on freeways. He noted they
do not feel it is necessary or required that collector streets
of any sort, be shown on the General Plan and they
(consultants) concur with this deletion.
Mr. 5peegle noted that the above referenced comments have been
submitted to date as well as the consultant's proposed
responses. He informed the commission that they incorporate
within their approval the recommendations the consultants have
made in the staff report, the Supplemental Staff Report and
their responses to the Robertson Development Corporation
proposal wherever those would result in modification to the
plan, with the exception of their recommendation of the school
district's proposal. He stated they now recommend that this
section proposed be added to the Public Services and
Facilities Element. In conclusion, they (consultants)
recommend that the City Planning Commission report to the City
Council their recommendation, that the General Plan be
approved with these changes identified in the staff reports of
December 15th and January 19th as amended in the Supplemental
Staff Report and in his (Speegle's) presentation today. The
Government Code requires that the commission submit a written
report to City Council and they (consultants) would then
propose the Resolution be the written report with the
attachments identifying changes that have been submitted, as
well as those submitted tonight and they be include within an
attachment to the Resolution.
Ms. Andi Adams, noted that since the Draft EIR period was
completed last Thursday, they were about half -way through
responding to the 6 comments presented and these comments will
be forwarded on to City Council in the form of a report and
she will also make a special point to forward copies to the
Planning Commission under an FYI item. She wanted to add as a
footnote to Mr. Speegle's presentation on the flexibility of
the General Plan that it was an important tool for the
Commission to use in carrying out many of the mitigation
measures. With a territory the size of Beaumont and with the
unknowns to be dealt with, the type of community you want
to end up with, it is essential that you maintain the
flexibility to trade -off lot size for resources. In order to
achieve goals you will need to be able to gage at the specific
plan and map level as to whether you are satisfied with the
lot sizes. The general plan will offer no obstacles in
arranging your development in the way that best suits the
environmental resources you want to protect, the amenities you
want to include in the community and the degree of yield you
want achieve from the land to support bonds and the
infrastructure financing. She stated that the CEQA
Resolution contains all the mitigation measures as well as the
document called the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
They (consultants) feel it is very important in the Overriding
Considerations Update to give the Commission a chance for the
first time to adopt a Growth Management Planning Reserve Area
Criteria which was responded to at the last meeting. Her
recommendation to the Commission was to receive public
testimony, allow them (consultants) to answer any questions
that the Commission believes appropriate, then at the
conclusion of the testimony, close the public hearing, adopt
the CEQA Resolution, and adopt the General Plan making
recommendation to the City Council.
Minutes of PC Meeting
January 19, 1993
Page 10
Chairman Prouty called a recess at 8:15 p.m., reconvening
at 8 :26 p.m.
Chairman Prouty opened the public hearing at 8:26 p.m., for
those in the audience wishing to speak.
Mr. Ronald P. Whittier, 7111 Bel Air Dr., Corona, addressed
the commission stating he was the owner of 23 acres on the
southeast corner of Brookside and Beaumont Avenue. He noted
that Mr. Howe had sent a letter to the consultants requesting
that the General Plan designation for their property be
changed from 1.2 Low Density Residential to 1.3 Medium Density
Residential. Mr. Whittier went on explaining the history of
his project and stating they had probably already spent
$300,000 dollars and were still at ground level. He asked
that the commission make a recommendation to City Council
that the General Plan designation be for 8 units to the acre
on this type of acreage.
Commissioner Burch noted that the City Council in 1991 adopted
a Resolution whereby the homeowners be a part of the process
in the developing of this area that Mr. Whittier is
representing. He then asked Mr. Whittier if he had any of
this documentation with him?
Mr. Ron Whittier, responded in the affirmative stating at the
time he presented a letter to the group and asked them if they
wanted a shopping center and an R -1 project and their response
was that at that time they did not think they wanted
commercial.
Commissioner Burch again commented that they could not
recommend approval of a density or a zone change due to the
Resolution adopted by Council in 1991.
Mr. Ron Whittier, noted they would like to have something
that is fair, just and right - just asking for a well
planned design project.
Commissioner Israelson suggested to Mr. Whittier that he
negotiate in good faith with the other homeowners involved
and get their prior approval and submit a specific plan with a
proposed general plan amendment to the Commission.
Mr. Ron Whittier, commented that this was fine; however,
previously there were many changes of homeowners and it seemed
every time he worked with somebody they either became a
commissioner or a city council person or left town. Mr.
Whittier feels he needs some direction from the Commission and
City Council and if they would like to see a well planned
project, he will then meet with the homeowners. He further
commented that if there is 8 units per acre as opposed to 4.5
he could then do a clustering type project with open space.
Mr. John Woods, Supt. of Beaumont School District, addressed
the commission stating they were proposing that a school's
component be included in the General Plan. He commented
that when built -out as proposed in the General Plan there
will be a severe impact on students that need public school
facilities.
Commissioner Burch commented that staff and the consultants
have noted that inclusion of a proposed school's component be
added to the General Plan and asked Mr. Woods if he agreed,
with Mr. Woods answering in the affirmative.
Mr. Woods, then noted that what he had heard tonight is that
the consultants were proposing that it be adopted as submitted
with Mr. Speegle answering and explaining that Policy 5
would be an exception and at the appropriate time they would
like to modify Policy No. 5.
Minutes of PC Meeting
January 19, 1993
Page 11
Mr. Woods, commented that they were working on a cooperative
agreement with a City representative.
Mr. Speegle, noted it would be premature to adopt Policy No. 5
until such time as the agreement is signed with Mr. Woods'
concurring.
Mr. Richard Douglass, representing Landmark Land Company,
10410 Roberts Rd., Calimesa, addressed the commission stating
that the consultants had already adequately addressed their
letter however, they wanted to present it again tonight just
as a part of the administrative record.
Mr. R.C. Nejedly, 6141 Riverside Avenue, Suite 39 Riverside,
addressed the commission stating he is one of the owners of
the property on Western Knolls Road and concurs with the
Supplemental Staff Report which would allow them to go ahead
with their planning.
Ms. Muriel Schmidt, 1280 Euclid Avenue, Beaumont, owner of
Beaumont RV on Highway 60, addressed the commission stating
she was concerned with the change in zoning from the
commercial they now have to neighborhood commercial and
wanted to know what effect this would have if they should
decide to sell their property.
Planning Consultant Nicole Criste, informed Ms. Schmidt that
if a new owner takes over her business it would be considered
a grandfathered use. She felt that the zoning that is
currently in place for the property will not need to be
changed in any considerable amount in order to meet the
general plan designation.
Mr. Speegle, noted in this situation there are some other
factors - first, our State Route 60 is an express way with
some access and the surrounding areas are undeveloped even
though planned for residential uses, which may be some time
in the future. It is true that zoning must be consistent
with the General Plan but the General Plan and zoning may be
different. In certain justifible situations the City may
want to consider this a justifible situation, that is to say
this is an appropriate use where you have some access to SR 60
and there is no surrounding development. At the time that
SR 60 is converted to a freeway, there will be no local access
except by grade separated interchange, then the use becomes
less appropriate when you have residential around it and the
freeway has less access to the property. At this time the
site would be considered for transition to neighborhood
commercial use. However, at this time it would continue as a
grandfathered use in any case.
Mr. Tom Shelton, 11622 Seacrest, Garden Grove, representing
Omega Homes, addressed the commission stating he did not
believe the City would be happy to have only one kind of a
wall on the arterial highways. His recommendation is that the
wording instead of "slumpstone wall" it be "decorative wall"
and this way it leaves some latitude for the builder to
provide something better. He further stated he objects to the
low densities indicated in the Plan and considers these
reductions relatively extreme. He noted that if land value is
based on yield in units, this would reduce your land value by
about 50 percent. Any building that is existing and gets
burned or destroyed gets paid for their structure loss but
then they can only put back 15 units under the new law. He
felt that maximum density would now be 16 dwelling units to
the acre.
Ms. Adams, responded by stating they did not seek to increase
nor did they seek to reduce the intensity in answer to the
last two speakers. What is shown on those properties in this
General Plan is what is in the 1982 General Plan. Where the
Minutes of PC meeting
January 19, 1993
Page 12
density is changed was mostly the southerly portion of the
City.
Mr. Speegle, noted that it was their understanding that Mr.
Shelton's property was not designated high density residential
and further, it is their understanding from staff that 16
units is about what is approved by the City at least recently
in terms of high density residential.
Ms. Adams, then explained there are some differences in how
the calculations are done for gross versus net density. It
has been modernized in this General Plan over what was in the
1982 General Plan and therefore the 16 dwelling units an acre
will really result in the same types of uses that has been
approved before. She stated they made a very careful study
of what had been approved before and what seemed to be going
well in the City and what was reasonable keeping in mind
the housing element requirements; that enough sites be
available in the City for affordable housing. It is not
difficult to have a 16 dwelling units gross acre project, net
to 24 to the acre depending on how you build it.
Mr. Speegle, commented that the Specific Plan Overlay allows
projects to net up to 30 units to the acre which is an option
under the Specific Plan Overlay.
Mr. Shelton, stated he was referring to a handout that he
received from the City manager's Office some time ago and one
of the objectives decreases future high density residential
projects from 32 units per acre to 16 units per acre. He
then asked "did you say my site was unaffected by the change "?
Ms. Adamss responded with "that is our understanding ".
Mr. Shelton, stated that his property was designated on the
draft plan he received to be 1.4 and his understanding is that
this would be 16 units to the acre.
Mr. Speegle, stated they were informed by City staff that the
policy on high density residential projects was that even
though it was designated under the old plan to be 32 units per
acre, they would only approve 16 units per acre on new
projects with ms. Adams noting that net densities can go up to
30 units an acre under this specific plan option.
Commissioner Burch, noted that he thought some of the
confusion was that when talking about 50 percent reduction in
density, they were also talking about twice the acreage.
Mr. Jeff Lodder, 23121 Plaza Pointe Dr.. 1101, Laguna Hills,
respresenting Hovchild, Inc., addressed the commission noting
that his project had been approved for a maximum density of
4.3 dwelling units per acre and this falls into the category
of 1.3 medium density versus category 1.2. He asked that for
the record he would like for Mr. Speegle to address the
specific overlay again.
Mr. Speegle, explained that the option through the approval of
the Specific Plan by City Council, densities up to 4.5
dwellinc� units per acre (which the project would be consistent
at 4.3), plus the Growth management Element component,
includes the Hovchild property within a Growth management
area which assigns 2455 units, one more unit than is included
in the Specific Plan.
Mr. Lodders then asked that during the discussion earlier a
statement was made about the land use designation of 5.1 that
would allow public walkways and asked if this could be
commented on since the Hovchild project has a 5.1 designation
and is incorporating into their golf course.
Minutes of PC meeting
January 19, 1993
Page 13
Mr. Speegle - stated it was used as an example in the case of
Mr. Whittier's property as the types of uses that would be
consistent with the 5.1 designation. If you turn to Page 2-
9 in the Land Use Element it also lists other uses including
ballfields, golf courses, picnic grounds, nature trails. His
intent in using this example was the power line and pipeline
easement which is not to be used for residential.
Mr. Lodder, then asked what is exactly going to be the issue
on Policy No. 5 and we recommended it be eliminated since
it is actually a condition of approval.
Mr. Speegle, stated he thought it would be premature to lock
in the wording of the condition of approval at the General
Plan level. He (Speegle) commented that Mr. Woods had
stated that his proposal should be included except for Policy
No. 5 and Policy 5 should either be deleted or amended to
refer to the approval of an agreement by the City Council and
the Beaumont School District. Mr. Speegel felt whatever comes
out of the agreement should be the implementing measure and
not lock in any specific measure at this time. Further he
(Speegle) also thinks Policy 5 should either be deleted or
modified just to say that an agreement is required.
Ms. Adams - questioned in what way does the Reserve area
criteria address the issue of the suggested Policy No. 5? She
commented that the Reserve area criteria addresses the school
facilities provision whereby there be some type of long term
availably of schools and some type of assurance to the City.
In view of the fact there are state law requirements, it
would be unfortunate to tie into a particular approach.
Mr. Speegle, noted that he agrees with this and as the
Planning Commission notes that for the benefit of the audience
all of the areas that are not currently included within the
city boundaries and have not received development approvals
have additional overlay of "R" for Reserve. The Reserve area
and their criteria in the Land Use Element in the form of
findings, most of which focus upon public services and require
a mitigation program of conditions of approval prior to the
approval of the last resort of a tentative tract map. In
general this concept is already included in the Land Use
Element in the Reserve area criteria. He would still support
the adoption with the deletion of Policy 5.
Mr Lodder, noted he would go along with the adoption minus
Policy No. 5 which is stated for the record. Mr. Ladder then
noted that in the EIR on Page 158, third paragraph it talks
about " devitrification" and he thought it should say
"denitrification ". Also he stated that in the General Plan on
Page 26 there is reference made to "H" Housing Group which
is stated as 59. Normally the "H" Housing Group starts at 55
(restricted housing). He then asked if there was a copy he
could have pertaining to the mitigation agreement that is
currently being discussed between the School District and the
City.
Mr. Woods, stated he would be more than glad to provide Mr.
Lodder with a copy of the agreement.
Mr. Ken Howe, 27692 Horseshoe Bend, San Juan Capistranto,
addressed the commission stating he was here this evening
representing Inland Investment and the property located at the
southeast corner of Brookside and Beaumont Avenue. He then
asked that the door be left open so that the 7200 square foot
lots is the bottom of the designation as opposed to the top.
Also, that Mr. Speegle's recommendation be reconsidered on the
General Plan designation from 1.2 to 1.3 and to encourage
design opportunity.
Minutes of PC meeting
January 19, 1993
Page 14
Mr. Pat Player, Urban Environs, 300 E. State St., Redlands.
representing George Witter, addressed the commission stating
that the 80 acres of property off of 1st Street was purchased
by Mr. George Witter about 50 years ago and since then had
been used as agricultural production of one kind or another.
He noted that half of the property is in the city limits and
the other half is outside the city limits. Mr. Meyer went on
stating that the northerly half of the 80 acres, the portion
that is inside the city limits was being reclassified to
business park 3.2 and the lower half outside the city limits
was going to be 1.1 designation. This allowed Mr. Witter to
be in an unusual position of having his property cut in half
from the land use standpoint and this would be a dramatic
change from one side of the street to the other. He noted
they are requesting that the northerly portion of the property
be placed into a residential designation of 1.2, feeling this
area could easily handle the R -1 kind of designation or 4
units per acre. He further noted that on this night staff
indicated their recommendation was to go along with their
request for residential and place a specific plan designation
on it. However, if they utilize the specific plan format on
this property they could get up to 4 units to the acre which
is their desire, but they would have to give half the land for
open space or it be set aside for open space. He (Meyer) then
asked Mr. Speegle if this was correct with Mr. Speegle
responding with "and all other public facilities."
Mr. Meyer, went on speaking stating that in effect if they
utilized the specific plan format to get 4 units per acre and
they give 40 acres for open space they would end
up with 8 units per acre on the balance of the land which is
not what they had in mind. Mr. Meyer feels this would be
forcing them into a product that is more of a condominium
townhouse kind of product and although they are in favor of
the designation of the entire property into residential, their
preference would be a 1.2 designation which would be more
consistent with the residential throughout the rest of the
area.
Chairman Prouty then asked if anyone else in the audience
wished to speak and there being none, he closed the public
hearing at 9:21 p.m. turning the matter over to the
commission for discussion.
Commissioner Israelson asked if it had been resolved as to
what is going to be done with Policy 5 of the Beaumont Unified
School District with Commissioner Burch noting he thought this
was between the City Council and the School District.
Commissioner Echlin noted they can approve the whole package
pending approval of the agreement required on Policy No. 5,
with Commissioner Israelson noting they would be making a
recommendation only to the City Council, but it should be
brought to their attention that Policy 5 is contingent upon
something that may or may not occur.
Planning Consultant Nicole Criste commented that the
consultants have recommended that Policy No. 5 be eliminated
or modified as part of the commission's recommendation to
Council.
Ms. Adams, noted that one of the things the City is going to
find is that the solution will overtake the General Plan. The
solution will be self- evident before the General Plan goes to
City Council on February 8th.
Commissioner Israelson asked Mr. Woods if he would be able to
conclude the negotiations relatively soon with Mr. Woods
stating he thought the timing will occur soon but feels it
should be noted that in the previous recommendation from the
Commission they indicated there was a contingent factor in
Minutes of PC Meeting
January 19, 1993
Page 15
the approval of the General Plan and the School District
feels this is a key item that has to be addressed.
Commissioner Israelson noted that he felt the way they were
leaning at the moment (because it is not an accomplished fact)
is that we will not recommend Policy 5 be implemented as it
currently stands, however, the City Council will be well aware
of the language as proposed and they will be able to add it
back in when it goes up for final approval, assuming that the
Unified School District and the City have reached an
agreement.
Mr Speegle, commented that by virtue of it being presented to
the Commission and having been discussed, he feels the City
Council can go ahead and approve it with the proposal as it
is, or as modified or deleted without referring it back to the
Planning Commission.
Ms. Adams, noted that in the eve
District wanted to change it at
not have to come back to the
raise an issue of referral back
a forty -five day consideration.
resolved at the Council meeting.
nt the City Council and School
the Council meeting, it does
Commission; however, it does
to the Planning Commission for
She feels the problem will be
Commissioner Israelson wanted to know if recommending deletion
was the cleanest way to go with Ms. Adams stating "yes"
however, indicate to Council that the Commission did consider
it and they do understand the issues and would like to allow
the Resolution to take place without referral back to the
Commission.
Commissioner Israelson stated "and allow it to be incorporated
in the final General Plan without being returned to us for
consideration and public hearing."
On motion by Commissioner Burch that the Commission concurs
with the recommendation and amendments as presented by staff
for the General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report
and recommends both for approval by City Council with
particular attention paid to the proposed school's component
Policy No. 5, and also hereby recommends to City Council that
Policy No. 5 be deleted, seconded by Chairman Prouty.
Ms. Adams, noted that in considering the Environmental Impact
Report, the Commission would be recommending approval of the
findings as drafted and presented to the commission.
Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Burch, Israelson and Chairman
Prouty.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
There being no further items for discussion, the meeting adjourned
at 9:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
erry Tay
PC Se reta
attachments