Loading...
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