HomeMy Public PortalAbout08/17/93 MinutesMINUTES OF
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 17, 1993
Meeting was called to Order at 7:00 p.m.
Roll Call: Commissioners Echlin, DePalatis, Kirkland and
Moreno. Chairman Prouty was absent and was
excused. Acting Chairman Echlin chaired the
meeting.
Affidavit of Posting was read.
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. Approval of Minutes: On motion by Commissioner Kirkland,
seconded by Commissioner DePalatis, the Minutes for
the regular meeting of July 20, 1993 and the Special Meeting
for July 27, 1993, were approved as submitted with the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners DePalatis, Kirkland, Moreno and Acting
Chairman Echlin.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Chairman Prouty.
2. Oral Communication: None.
3. Director's Report: PC Egger informed the Commission that the
Potrero Creek Specific Plan involves a sphere of influence
amendment and annexation proposal to the City of Beaumont. He
explained there is a half section (320 acres) of land between
the existing City limits and the Potrero Creek project which
is presently not in the City. Mr. Egger noted that in the
annexation process for Lockheed Potrero Creek it would have
been logical to include this particular property in the
annexation. Mr. Egger indicated that the City has been in
dialogue with the subject property owner and has now received
an annexation application which will be brought before the
Planning Commission in the near future. Consequently, this
half section of land will now accompany the annexation for
Potrero Creek, making this a complete package as the
annexation proceeds forward.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
4. 92- ANX -2, SP -92 -19 EIR -92 -29 DA -7 and 92 -RZ -29 a proposal to
establish a master planned community with 11,870 dwelling
units and ancillary commercial and recreational uses on 9,117
acres. The subject property is located at the southern
terminus of Highland Springs Avenue in unincorporated
Riverside County. Applicant, Lockheed Corporation.
PC Egger presented the staff report explaining to the
Commission that this project was to be handled in three
separate hearings with tonight's meeting intended to look at
the design of the project, receive any comments from the
Commission, review the preliminary conditions of approval
developed by staff and to provide any feedback that the
Commission may have. He explained that at the final meeting
on this matter, which is projected for September 7, the
Commission will be asked to consider actions on the project in
the form of recommendations to City Council. Mr. Egger
continued by informing the Commission that this document had
been reviewed by staff with particular emphasis on the
development standards, development regulations and its nexus
with the City regulations. He noted that staff at this point
is satisfied from a regulatory perspective and the document is
in an implementable form that the City can live with as
subsequent entitlements are processed should the project be
approved. Staff has provided the Commission with a
preliminary draft list of conditions and discussions are
planned with the applicants to work out the details on these
PC meeting
August 17, 1993
Page 2
conditions. Mr. Egger noted that one of the conditions to be
worked out is pertaining to schools. Staff wants to make sure
the conditions facilitate mitigation of school impact at a
proper level in accordance with adopted City policies relative
to City interaction and services provided by the Beaumont
Unified School District as well as to facilitate mitigation
should the two other districts physically encompass portions
of this property. He informed the Commission that the Banning
School District as well as the San Jacinto Unified School
District have territories which encroach into this property,
although most of the developable portions of the property is
within the Beaumont Unified School District and it is likely
Beaumont Unified School District will be the most efficient
service provider. However, staff still needs to plan for the
contingencies of the other districts involvement with regard
to have conditions related to mitigating school impacts. Mr.
Egger went on informing the Commission that staff is working
with the applicants on some methodologies that would involve
the submittal of more detailed landscape and architectural
programs for the various development phases. Staff feels
confident that these elements can be worked out based on the
conditions that have been established. The primary emphasis
for staff will be to establish an architectural design ethic
and some quality control standards as well as minimum plan
sizes for landscape materials just to ensure that the project
proceeds with a consistent level of quality. Also, staff is
looking at maintenance issues as well as to provide conditions
that will facilitate maintenance by homeowner associations or
other private groups in order to enact a program that will
result in proper maintenance for parkways, medians and other
maintainable items within public rights -of -way. Conditions
are also provided to specify what levels of reports will be
necessary at subsequent development stages such as soils
reports, traffic studies, etc. as well as having a clear
understanding as this project translates to subsequent levels
of entitlements. Mr. Egger indicated that staff also has
developed indemnification provisions relative to both the
entitlement actions as well as the environmental documents
associated with the project, essentially holding the City
harmless from any potential litigation which may result. Mr.
Egger went on explaining that with respect to parks, this is
an area where some work is necessary beyond what has already
been identified in the conditions of approval. He commented
that another major area relates to infrastructure which needs
additional work beyond the specific plan stage in order to
identify and cost -out the infrastructure improvements
necessary, and also put in place appropriate planning and
financial tools to ensure the orderly development of the
infrastructure facilities along with each phase of
development. Mr. Egger stated that the final major element
contained within the conditions was the mitigation monitoring
program which is an addendum derived from the environmental
documents for the project which will be made part of the
conditions of approval to ensure that there is a single source
of reference within the conditions of approval.
Mr. Egger continued, stating that the final EIR on this
project will in fact consist of all of the separate
environmental documents that have been prepared to date,
including the Original Draft EIR, the Supplement, the Response
to Comments from the Supplement, all of the testimony and
records from the public hearings and the mitigation monitoring
Program. This document will contain all the records of the
entire process from beginning to end. Any additional comments
or testimony will be added to part of the conditions of
approval.
The other document to be considered on September 7, 1993 is
the Development Agreement and this document is very much
related to the conditions of approval. Also at this meeting,
the Commission will receive a variety of resolutions and
ordinances that will be considered by the Commission in the
form of a recommendation to City Council. One of the
PC meeting
August 17, 1993
Page 3
documents will be a resolution which results in Certification
of the EIR and Adoption of the mitigating monitoring and a
Statement of Overriding Findings. The Commission will
recommend to Council adoption of the Resolution requesting
that the Local Agency Formation Commission initiate
proceedings to annex the Potrero Creek site into the City of
Beaumont. Other items will be the recommendation of adoption
by City Council of a pre- zoning ordinance to prezone the
property to SPA Specific Plan Area, recommendation of adoption
by City Council to approve the Specific Plan and a
recommendation of adoption by City Council of the Development
Agreement by ordinance.
Mr. Egger then pointed out to the Commission that tonight's
hearing should be left open and continued to the meeting of
September 7, 1993 in order to consider final actions.
Acting Chairman Echlin opened the meeting for public testimony
at 7:22 p.m., inviting proponents /opponents from the
audience to speak.
Mr. John Heitman, representing the San Gorgonio Chapter of the
Sierra Club, who is also a member of the Conservation
Committee, addressed the Commission in opposition of the
project, stating that his remarks tonight might not be based
on the latest documents since he had not received any
documents recently. He further stated he was here tonight
representing Mary Humbolt who spoke at the last meeting and he
then noted that the San Gorgonio Chapter of the Sierra Club
continued to support the "no project alternative" for the
proposed Potrero Creek Planned Community Development project.
The Sierra Club is very concerned about the impacts that
11,870 homes would have on the land, air and wildlife habitat
of this region located just to the southeast of Beaumont. He
commented that to be more specific, they feel that the amended
DEIR still does not adequately address the environmental
impact to the area, which covers 85 percent of the project and
the multi- species planning area. Also, this project would
cause loss of land mass connections through the Desert Pass,
the Badlands and the San Jacinto Foothills and generally
disrupt the wildlife corridors in all directions. He further
noted that this land has a high potential for seismic activity
which could devastate a large planned community. The rolling
hills are fragile and easily eroded by heavy runoff especially
if the vegetation is removed and streets, roads and houses are
built. Mr. Heitman further noted that despite tests and soil
removal, they feel toxic chemical waste is still present in
the soil and groundwater. The rocket testing that was done
many years ago caused considerable spills of fuels and
solvents which are likely to show up as hazardous in the
future despite the mitigations. Also, water supply and sewer
capacity is already in short supply as was mentioned on the
front page of last week's Community Advisor newspaper. This
project will be a heavy burden on taxpayers to fund the
increase as needed even if the extra water is available. He
further noted the big increase in auto traffic would generate
probably 18,000 or more autos per day causing traffic
congestion and increased air pollution and hardship to
motorists since most of the increase population will be
commuters with employment in Orange and Los Angeles Counties.
PC Egger commented that there are substantial reports from
expert firms relative to toxic issues on the site and staff
feels these issues are being remediated in a proper manner.
Also, in addition, the conditions of approval will require an
environmental assessment for each phase of development as it
occurs, so there will be further on -site testing before any
site disturbances occur in any particular area.
Acting Chairman Echlin then questioned how much acreage exists
in Southern California for the Stephens Kangaroo Rat and if
the experts have been notified.
PC Meeting
August 17, 1993
Page 4
Mr. Hugh Hewitt, legal counsel for Lockheed responded by
stating there is 2200 acres of the Stephens Kangaroo Rat
habitat on Potrero which is proposed for disturbance and he
then noted they do not believe that this will jeopardize the
survival of the species; however, ultimately this decision
will be one for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and not one
for Lockheed or the City of Beaumont. He went on stating
that this is not a "rat friendly" plan but it is very
significant in terms of preservation of wildlife corridors as
the biological report suggests.
PC Egger then commented that the environmental document
adequately addresses and identifies the issues that exist
relative to the SKR as well as other matters of federal
concern. The environmental document, however, does not
provide all of the answers on the SKR, but does identify the
need to approach the federal agencies and to deal with their
processes and receive the clearances necessary. A similar
situation applies for jurisdictional wetlands, Waters of the
United States, and the need to process separate permits or to
go through separate processes for these particular aspects.
He further noted that the environmental document pursuant to
CEQA can identify the need for those additional processes and
suggest mitigation; however, it does not provide the final
answers nor does it intend to, it simply identifies those
processes which need to be dealt with at the subsequent
stages of development.
Commissioner Kirkland asked about schools, specificially if
there was an agreement drawn up between Lockheed and the
Beaumont Unified School District /Banning, or if it was
something that the City of Beaumont negotiates with Lockheed.
PC Egger responded by stating in some respects it is; however,
ultimately the City would like to see an agreement between the
developer and the school districts that will be providing
service. Also, he commented that with regard to the Beaumont
District, the City Council has enacted a policy to support the
policy of the Beaumont Unified School District and this
provides for very definite levels of mitigation that both
the City and School District have agreed to. He did note that
State law seems to be continually changing on this issue and
consequently a year from now there will be a constitutional
amendment on the ballot which will predicate how school
funding is conducted in the future.
Mr. Egger further commented that staff had just received a
letter from the School District relative to the Supplemental
EIR which sets forth the District's position which is
consistent with the agreement between the District and the
City Council. Mr. Egger also noted he had been in verbal
contact with the Assistant Superintendent of San Jacinto
District earlier this week and expects to receive something
from them that can be transformed into a condition of approval
that all can agree to. He again commented that the Banning
School District encompasses some unincorporated areas outside
the City of Banning, and the San Jacinto District encompasses
areas outside of the City of San Jacinto, and to complicate
things, the School District boundaries in unincorporated areas
may not agree with the sphere of influence of the various
cities, so these are some issues that will need to be worked
out.
Commissioner DePalatis questioned Condition No. B, asking if
everything was to be required for each project or if there was
some discretionary method to decide what would be needed for
each project and what would not be needed. PC Egger responded
by stating the wording on Condition No. 8 can be modified to
some degree to allow some discretion because obviously not
every planning area will have a wildlife /wetland corridor
associated with it, or other special concerns which would
require specific documentation.
PC meeting
August 17, 1993
Page 5
Commissioner DePalatis then noted that Condition No. 27 and 28
address the architectural and landscape design
manuals to be provided and asked if the Commission could be
involved in some sort of review in the earlier stages to
provide comments. He also questioned Condition No. 29
concerning the method in which density transfers could occur
on the properties and wanted to know if there was some
provision that would preclude the transfer of density from one
phase to another which could possibly occur in the future.
PC Egger responded to Commissioner DePalatis' questions by
stating that, in order for staff to feel comfortable for
density transfers to occur, staff would at least have to have
some fairly decent designs on each of the areas in question
illustrating what was going to be remaining in that area and
how the transfer would occur.
Commissioner DePalatis noted he was not opposed to the project
transferring densities, but feels it should be looked at in
great detail. He also wanted to know how the City would keep
track of this process since over the years it would be easy
for details to get lost. He then noted there
should be some kind of mechanism to make sure the City is
keeping track of how density transfers occur. Further, he
would like to receive agenda materials more in advance of the
meeting.
Commissioner Moreno questioned if there had been any dialogue
discussed with the fire and police departments and their
response time.
PC Egger informed the Commission that these agencies have been
involved in the design review and in the environmental process
and feels there will be no difference in service than the
remainder of the City. Also what will be helpful is a 6 acre
civic center within the specific plan which has been designed
for community purposes. Mr. Egger also felt that the project
will generate sufficient revenues to the City for fire and
police in the same manner as other developments presently
does, thereby facilitating provision of these services to the
new residents.
Commissioner Kirkland asked if there had been any major
discussions with the Riverside County Flood Control District
as far as drainage concerned.
PC Egger explained that there
had been some preliminary
hydrology design based upon a
system of natural channels
within the project, with
some minor modifications,
specifically fortification of banks along the stream beds.
There are no plans to provide concrete line channels in this
project as everything will focus
on a natural drainage. With
the setbacks from the drainage areas, these channels are
adequately sized with the
proper fortification and
installation of drop structures
with natural rocks, making it
possible to accommodate the
flow volumes that will be
generated.
Mr. Doug Snyder, from Hunsaker and Associates, the engineer
for the project, addressed the Commission stating there would
be a series of drop structures along the open space channel to
keep it in a natural flow, and, with respect to the golf
course; there would be a couple of retention basins which will
be a lake area that will keep the water in its natural state.
Eventually the streets will have a storm drainage system.
Also, they have met with Riverside County Flood Control and
are in agreement that there should not be a problem. Mr.
Snyder explained that what happens in a 100 year storm is that
the water passes through and just keeps on going. The area
where there will be about a 5 percent increase from natural
flow would be draining to the golf course and the lake, the
rest will continue on as it always has. He also noted there
will be setbacks along the major drainage corridors for the
development.
PC meeting
August 17, 1993
Page 6
PC Egger then noted that the primary implementing element of
this project will be in the form of a subdivision map which
comes before the Planning Commission along with appropriate
engineering details relative to plans for water, sewer,
storm drains, etc.
Commissioner DePalatis offered a motion to continue this
project to the Special meeting of September 7, 1993. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Kirkland. motion carried
unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners DePalatis, Kirkland, Moreno and Acting
Chairman Echlin.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Chairman Prouty.
At this time the meeting recessed at 7:52 p.m., reconvening at
8:03 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
5. DA -1 and 93- ND -11, a request to approve a development
agreement for Tentative Tract Nos. 23646 and 25272, ICI, Inc.
and Orangewood. The proposed development agreement includes
provisions to formalize landowner and City obligations which
relate to Tentative Tract Nos. 23646 and 25272 and Community
Facilities District 93 -1. The adoption of a Negative
Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) is also proposed including findings consistent with
Section 15153 of the CEQA Guidelines. Applicant, IC.I, Inc.,
and Orangewood.
(See Motion and Action under Item 10)
6. DA -2 and 93- ND -129 a request to approve a development
agreement for Specific Plan No. SP -88 -3, Hovchild. The
proposed development agreement includes provisions to
formalize landowner and City obligations which relate to SP-
88 -3 and Community Facilities District 93 -1. The adoption of
a Negative Declaration pursuant to the Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) is also proposed including findings consistent with
Section 15153 of the CEQA Guidelines. Applicant, Hovchild.
(See Motion and Action under Item 10)
7. DA -3 and 93- ND -13, a request to approve a development
agreement for Specific Plan No. SP -93 -3, Seneca Springs. The
proposed development agreement amendment includes provisions
to formalize landowner and City obligations which relate to
SP- 93 -3 and Community Facilities District 93 -1. The adoption
of a Negative Declaration pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is also proposed including
findings consistent with Section 15153 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Applicant, Loma Linda University.
(See Motion and Action under Item 10)
B. DA -4 and 93- ND -14, a request to approve a development
agreement for General Plan Entitlements, Heartland. The
proposed development agreement includes provisions to
formalize applicant and City obligations which relate to
General Plan Entitlements and Community Facilities District
93 -1. The adoption of a Negative Declaration pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is also proposed
including findings consistent with Section 15153 of the CEQA
Guidelines. Applicant, Heartland California Beaumont, LTD.
(See Motion and Action under Item 10)
9. DA -5 and 92 -ND -5, a request to approve a development agreement
to SP -92 -2, Rolling Hills Ranch. The proposed development
agreement includes provisions to formalize landowner and City
obligations which relate to SP -92 -2 and Community Facilities
PC Meeting
August 17, 1993
Page 7
District 93 -1. The adoption of Negative Declaration pursuant
to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is also
proposed including findings consistent with Section 15153 of
CEQA Guidelines. Applicant, High 60 Associates.
(See Motion and Action under Item 10)
10. DA -6 and 93- ND -15, a request to approve a development
agreement to SP -BB -2, Three Rings Ranch. The proposed
development agreement includes provisions to formalize
landowner and City obligations which relate to SP -BB -2 and
Community Facilities District 93 -1. The adoption of Negative
Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) is also proposed including findings consistent with
Section 15153 of CEQA Guidelines. Applicant, Coscan /Stewart
Partnership.
00 motion by Commissioner DePalatis, seconded by Commissioner
Kirkland, Items 5 through 10 were continued to the Special
Meeting of September 7, 1993 with the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Commissioners DePalatis, Kirkland, Moreno and Acting
Chairman Echlin.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Chairman Prouty.
11. SP -93 -39 EIR -93 -3 and 93 -RZ -6, a request for certification of
an Environmental Impact Report, approval of a Specific Plan,
and a proposed zone change from Planned Unit Development (PUD)
to Specific Plan Area. The project proposes to develop a
maximum of 1,150 dwelling units on 224.9 acres within the
overall 295.1 acre Specific Plan area. A variety of family -
oriented and retirement oriented housing is proposed. The
project is located south of Highway 60 entirely within the
incorporated limits of the City of Beaumont. It is bounded by
First Street on the north, Highland Springs Avenue on the
east, and Manzanita Park Road on the west and is identified as
the Seneca Springs Specific Plan. Applicant, Loma Linda
University Development.
Ms. Nicole Criste, of the Consulting firm of Terra Nova, Palm
Springs, presented the staff report outlining the project
description, the land use, environmental issues, parks and
recreation. (See attached new set of amended Conditions of
Approval distributed to the Commission). She commented that
the amendments that have been made to the conditions of
approval are primarily word changes and interpretation
changes. She then explained that Condition No. 6 was
eliminated in its original form from the document
and was replaced by a condition which will ensure that the
developer will either participate in a landscape and lighting
district, or community services district so that median
islands, street lights, public parks and similar facilities
will be maintained and so financing for the maintenance
will be available in the future. Also, there have been
two other conditions, 35 and 59, that have been deleted.
She commented that in addition, Mr. Egger requested that,
because of the development of reclaimed water through the
City, that if possible, landscaping should be irrigated with
reclaimed water in order to take advantage of the facility
which is planned for the future. Ms. Criste noted that for
Conditions 19 through 24, the language had been changed to be
more specific about the master plan for grading, drainage,
water and sewer. On Condition No. 36 the revision clarifies
the role of Riverside County Flood Control and their
involvement in some of the facilities in the project.
Pursuant to Commissioner Kirkland's question with respect to
the deletion of Condition No. 35, Ms. Criste explained that
this condition was deleted because the condition was
duplicated and was also dealt with in Condition No. 34. She
PC meeting
August 17, 1993
Page 8
went on speaking stating that in Conditon No. 65 the text is
significantly changed but the intent remains the same. It
deals with the ability of the developer to connect to the
sewer system at such time as they are ready to do so and the
language was changed to show specifically what the
participation is relative to the CFO that is in place for the
sewer plant.
Mr. Derrill Yaeger, representing Loma Linda University,
addressed the Commission noting that the University is engaged
in the CFO process with the City and has agreed to encumber
its land to help solve some of the infrastructure problems in
the City. He further noted that the most significant change
made was to provide more park areas in the project. He
commented they have provided a great deal of park area, in
fact more than is required and are not requesting any park
credit for any of the additional landscaped areas that have
been put into their plan.
Mr. Frank Greco, with the Planning Firm of P & B Planning
Consultants, addressed the Commission briefly, going over the
project. He noted that Highland Springs Avenue is the primary
existing access for the I -10 freeway. Also, there will be
another access point which is a partial diamond right now at
Pennsylvania and in the staff report there is an implication
that this project might be required to build or complete this
access and he wanted to make it clear that this is not the
case; however, they will be contributing their fair share to
construction of the interchange. They will be providing
on -site for the inclusion of an expanded and widened
Pennsylvania Avenue in order for it to make connection off -
site down through a loop that will tie to Potrero Creek. He
pointed to First Street (on the map) noting the dirt section
and commented it will be upgraded by this project as well as
providing a slight diversion of Mlanzanita Park Road.
Mr. Greco continued by informing the Commission they have
added a recreational vehicle storage area and directly
adjacent and to the east is a commercial area in order to
support the project and surrounding projects as well. To the
south will be a large community park surrounded by two types
of residential housing consisting of 8,000 and 6,000 sq. ft.
lots. He stated there had been a question raised as to
the drainage on this project and what impact it might have
on the Hovchild project. He wanted to inform the Commission
that there will be a master Hydrology Plan.
He also wanted to make it clear for the record that they will
be complying with all appropriate laws pertaining to utility
lines and as how you approach development near those lines.
Pursuant to Commissioner Kirkland's question pertaining to
phasing, Mr. Greco from memory stated that the first phase
involves construction of some of the 6,000 sq. ft. units and
some of the 8,000 sq. ft. units. In the second phase there
will be a portion of the retirement community, with the
townhouses in the third phase. He then referred the
Commission to Chapter 3, Page 28, Figure 12 of the Specific
Plan, also commenting that the commercial section will be
built in Phase 4, which is the last phase.
Commissioner DePalatis then asked about the realignment of
Pennsylvania Avenue, the reason for the realignment, some odd
shaped lots and what will happen to the cemetery.
Mr. Greco then explained that at the time the City was going
through a General Plan Amendment and as a part of that General
Plan Amendment, the American Avenue access was deleted and a
decision was made to upgrade the existing Pennsylvania
interchange, so they are recognizing the fact that as the
project develops Pennsylvania would then be constructed
and provide that length down to Potrero Creek. Mr. Greco
further explained that as far as the shape of the property, is
PC meeting
August 17, 1993
Page 9
concerned they would have preferred to have a straight line
but had to go with the curb lineal and since the project is
designed to cause the least amount of impact to anyone. He
noted they envision the senior community as being gated;
however, if this is an issue they can look at another
approach. Mr. Greco stated they envision the recreational
area as well as the drainage channels as being maintained by
the homeowner's association since it is part of the project.
PC Egger informed the Commission that, in conjunction with the
CFO, the City will initiate a City wide transportation model
which will outline all the circulation improvements that are
necessary to accommodate build -out of the General Plan.
There will be identification of responsibility for the various
improvements required to implement the General Plan as well as
the methodology to establish series of fees and participation
in improvements that are necessary for any given project. At
this time, however, it has been indicated to the developer
that this project is to participate on a fair share basis with
improvement needs that exist via the interchange.
Pursuant to questions by the Commission, Mr. Greco stated that
they anticipate a period of time between 5 and 10 years for
complete build -out. Also they are putting sidewalks
throughout the residential neighborhood.
Ms. Nicole Criste further noted that the overall project has a
very good mix of residential products and the minimum sizes
for the lots are called out for each planning area of the
Specific Plan.
Mr. Greco then handed out an Errata Sheet for the record to
each of the Commissioners stating that due to a graphic that
was put in the General Plan at the last moment, it off -set
their page numbers, thus, the reason for the Errata Sheet in
order for the Commission to understand and see the adjustments
to the numbers (see attached).
Mr. Derrill Yaeger again addressed the Commission, commenting
about the change to Pennsylvania Avenue. He noted this
change delayed their project 5 or 6 months and cost a
substantial sum of money and this was done in accordance with
the newly adopted plan of circulation for the City of
Beaumont. He then spoke about their schedule, stating that
the market being what it is, there is a real motivation to
proceed with their plan as soon as market conditions allow.
He noted that density was another issue and that due to the
joint meeting by the Planning Commission and City Council
their plan was changed which reduced the density from 1197
units to 1150 units. He then mentioned security and stated he
believed there is going to be a new CHP headquarters located
300 feet to the north of the project and feels this will
provide a great deal of security. He went on speaking,
commenting about 3 of the conditions proposed by staff and on
behalf of the University he asked that they be noted for the
record. He felt that Condition No. 11 is placing the burden
on the developer rather than upon the actual law breaker
(subcontractor) is unfair. Condition No. 15 states that the
University will be responsible for holding the City harmless
in the event any litigation is brought against the City. He
noted he was not sure if the University would agree to this
condition. The final one, Condition No. 69, which is in
regard to the school mitigation matter, might be contrary to
the law. It is believed however, that it is not going to be a
problem since when the Specific Plan is approved and the CFO
is in place it is his intention to go to the school district
and start negotiations for the transfer to them of the site
they want. The site has been designed to accommodate both a
20 acre site which would be for a junior high or a 10 acre
site which would be for an elementary school site.
Acting Chairman Echlin opened the public hearing at 8:50 p.m.,
asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to
speak.
PC Meeting
August 17, 1993
Page 10
Ms. Pat Lauder, Oak Tree, Sun Lakes, addressed the Commission,
stating she was not speaking against the development; however,
there were some issues and considerations she wanted brought
to the Commission's attention, specifically the two pipelines
that go the full length of this development. She stated that
this developer had not yet contacted Four Corners or Santa Fe
Pipelines to ask for a copy of their maps showing the location
of the pipelines, since she had spoken to the pipeline
companies on this date and they didn't even know this
development was being planned. She then requested that the
location of the hazardous fuel pipelines be shown on all maps
and included in the Seneca Springs Project. She further
requested proper setbacks of all residents along the pipelines
of 50 feet which is federally regulated; that notification of
Four Corners Pipeline and Santa Fe Pipeline Companies be
conducted before the plan is finalized and adopted and that
all residents of Seneca Springs be made aware of the specific
location of the pipelines before the purchase of a home.
Ms. Nicole Criste, in response to Ms. Lauder's statements,
noted that there are considerable mitigations in the EIR to
cover these issues. The exact location of the pipelines will
be particularly germane when the tentative maps are processed
and has to be taken care of in the surveying of the property.
The setback requirements which are mandated by federal law are
covered in the conditions, which have blanket conditions
regarding observing all state and federal laws regarding
pipelines. Also, she received a verbal request from Santa Fe
Pipeline this afternoon and they will be submitting a request
in writing to City staff that they be notified and participate
in future review that affects their particular pipeline.
There is a 100 ft. greenbelt easement that runs along the
south side of the retirement community, which provides a
setback as well.
Mr. Don Lauder, in support of his wife Pat, addressed the
Commission noting also there are restrictions in planting
trees in and around pipelines.
Mr. Douglas Wood, Principal of the fire of Douglas Wood and
Associates, who prepared the Draft EIR for the project,
addressed the Commission and stated for the record that there
is an accurate depiction of the location of the pipelines
within the Draft EIR on Figure 34 which is IV -109. They have
listed the pertinent regulations that have been set forth by
the gas company and the Four Corners Pipeline organizations
that need to be followed. In addition, on Page IV -114 he
referred to the Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 which address some
of the concerns that Mrs. Lauder has brought forth which are
valid concerns. Mitigation Measure 1, which is ultimately
converted into the conditions of approval, would again apply
to the project. It states that the development plans will be
provided to the organizations that maintain these pipelines so
that they are made aware of any development plans that are
occurring on the site and that the applicant is required to
comply with the guidelines of these organizations. These
mitigation measures becomes conditions of approval, so in
terms of the documentation that has been prepared, this
represents their attempt to respond to these concerns. They
are in the record and have been circulated to the public.
Ms. Lauder, speaking
believe this material
setback from the pipe
not generally known.
mortgage you have to
pipeline.
from the audience, stated she did not
was in the guidelines since the 50 foot
line, which is a federal regulation, is
Also, if you were to try and get an FHA
be something like 226 yards from the
Mr. Jeff Lodder, Executive Vice President for Hovchild, Inc.
addressed the Commission stating he thought Seneca Springs had
a fine plan and, pursuant to his letter to the City concerning
Seneca Springs, he noted that when the project (Seneca Springs
and Hovchild) are being implemented, that there is good
communication, good engineering and good design coordination
PC meeting
August 17, 1993
Page 11
so that the facilities do not impact Loma Linda's Facility nor
Hovchild's project.
Mr. Butch Strickland, 5609 Rivera Avenue, Banning, Vice
President of the Association for Sun Lakes, addressed the
Commission explaining that all projects being considered are
within the Bridge and Thoroughfare District and although it
might not be in the record, he wanted the Commission to
consider the fact there will be an assessment fee for the
developer on each of these projects. He noted that Sun Lakes'
homeowners are paying for the Underpass with a special
assessment tax each year.
Acting Chairman Echlin then closed the public hearing at 9:06
p.m., turning the matter back to the Commission.
Ms. Nicole Criste commented that all conditions had been
worked out with the exception of 3 conditions. Further, she
commented Condition No. 11 is important since it should be the
developer's responsibility to see that the subcontractor
complies since the developer is in a position to maintain the
property in its proper form. Condition No. 15 is becoming an
increasingly common condition and noted that she plagiarized
the wording of this condition from Riverside County's version
which provides the City with an extra level of protection in
regards to a potential lawsuit. Condition No. 69 has been
modified in order to have continued cooperation between the
developer and the school district.
Commissioner Kirkland questioned as to whose responsibility it
would be for clean -up or damage costs in the event of a
construction error pertaining to the pipelines. Ms. Criste
responded by stating that if the pipeline is not in the public
right -of -way the City has no responsibility. The City
has independent agreements for all of the pipelines that run
through the City and the owner of the pipeline is ultimately
responsible if someone breaks into it. However, if a
pipeline were to be located in a street which does occur in
other parts of Beaumont, this changes the issue.
Ms. Criste went on commenting that staff's opinion on
Conditions 11 and 15 are that they should remain as they are;
however, staff will make an alteration to the language of
Condition No. 69 if Mr. Yaeger proposes this.
Mr. Yaeger noted that within the next week they will try and
work something out with staff an these conditions.
PC Egger commented that the City Council executed a
cooperative agreement with the school district and if there
are any modifications of the policy, it should be left for the
City Council to deal with since that is where the policy
emanated.
Commissioner DePalatis offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Moreno, recommending approval by City Council of
this project subject to the amended conditions of approval,
deleting Condition No. 11. Motion carried unanimously with
the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners DePalatis, Kirkland, Moreno and Acting
Chairman Echlin.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Chairman Prouty.
There being no further items on the agenda, the meeting
adjourned at 9:19 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cherry aylo
PC Secretary
attachments
6390 Oak Tree
Banning, California 92220
August 17, 1993
Beaumont. City Planning Commission
Beaumont City Hall
Beaumont, California
Re: Seneca Springs Development Project
Dear Sirs:
As a member of the community who is vitally interested in the safety and
environment integrity of the Seneca Springs Project. I would like to request
that the following items be given your most urgent attention and
incorporated into the overall Seneca Springs Plan:
1. The proper inclusion of the location of the hazardous fuels pipelines
on all maps of the Seneca Springs proposed project.
2. A proper set -back of all residences to 50 feet from pipeline
easement, as per Federal Pipeline Regulations.
3. Notification of Four Corners Pipeline and Santa Fe Pipeline
Companies before the Seneca Springs Land Use and
Development Plan is finalized and approved.
4.That all laws regarding management of land adjoining hazardous
fuels pipelines are duly noted and followed.
What all prospective residents of Seneca Springs be made aware of
the specific pipeline locations before purchase of a home, as per
the State real estate.disclosure laws.
Respgctf ully,
Patricia A. La deli r�
' T & B Planning Consultants
�i Santa Ana • San Diego
3242 HALLADAY, SUITE 100 SANTA ANA, CA 92705 17141662 -1774 FAX M (714)662 -2708
JN 382.002
MEMORANDUM
To: City of Beaumont
From: T &B PLANNING CONSULTANTS, INC.
RE: SENECA SPRINGS SPECIFIC PLAN No. 91 -01 ERRATA SHEET
Date: August 17, 1993
This errata sheet has been prepared for the purpose of notifying the City Planning Staff,
Planning Commission and City Council that the following items within the Seneca Springs
Specific Plan are in need of minor revision. Any additional typos or corrections will be
revised accordingly at the City's request.
1. Page v - 13. Loading Space /Outdoor Storage and Equipment Area. Align page
number 111-165" with "page" column.
2. Page vii - Page numbers for Figures 9 - 34 are incorrect.
for these figures should read as follows:
Figure 9 - Page 111-20
Figure 10 - Page 111-23
Figure 11 - Page III -24
Figure 12 - Page 111-28
Figure 13 - Page III -31
Figure 14 - Page 111-35
Figure 15A -T - Pages III -38 to III -79
Figure 16 - Page III -81
Figure 17 - Page 111-83
Figure 18 - Page III -84
Figure 19 - Page III -85
Figure 20 - Page 111-86
Figure 21 - Page III -88
Figure 22 - Page 111-90
Figure 23 - Page III -91
Figure 24 - Page III -92
Figure 25 - Page III -93
Figure 26 - Page III -95
Figure 27 - Page III -96
Figure 28 - Page III -87
The correct page numbers
S
i!
i
SENECA SPRINGS SPECIFIC PLAN No. 91 -01 ERRATA SHEET
August 17, 1993
' Page 2
Figure 29 - Page III -99
Figure 30 - Page III-100
Figure 31 - Page III -102
Figure 32 - Page III -103
Figure 33 - Page III -104
Figure 34 - Page III -105
3. Figure 8A - Major Arterial Highway cross section. Footnote should read: * Width
varies, minimum 4'.
4. Figure 8B - Secondary Arterial Highway cross section. Footnote should read: * Width
varies, minimum 4'.
5. Figure 8B - Local Street cross section. Footnote should read: See Figure 25.
11 �
City of Beaumont Seneca Springs Specific Plan
SENECA SPRINGS SPECIFIC PLAN
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
AMENDED &/16/93
*If a condition has been changed, the condition number is shown in bold face
The term "developer" is used below to refer to both the existing developer known as Loma
Linda University Development Corporation, and any future developers of all or subdivided
portions of the project site.
General
1. Project development shall adhere to the Specific Plan, except where superceded by these
conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures specified in the EIR. In addition,
the project shall adhere to all applicable City of Beaumont ordinances, as well as all
applicable Riverside County, State and Federal regulations.
2. Additional environmental analysis and documentation shall be conducted for each
tract, plot plan, Specific Plan amendment or any other development permits required to
implement the Specific Plan. At a minimum, the environmental analysis and
documentation shall utilize the evaluation of impacts addressed in the Specific Plan
EIR. Environmental impacts associated with development plans for each planning
area shall be assessed and may require additional mitigation to the proposed project.
3. In the event that, during or following grading of the project site, economic or other
conditions prevent the developer from continuing with the project within a reasonable
amount of time, the developer is obligated to contact the City Planning Department. The
City shall identify necessary activities that the developer must implement to protect
public safety and minimize /prevent environmental degradation, particularly due to
wind and water erosion. The developer shall pay for any necessary activities.
4. In the event the project is abandoned or construction activities are halted for an
extended period of time without notification of the City Planning Department by the
developer, the City shall have the authority to secure the site and require and/or initiate
any activities necessary to protect public safety and minimize /prevent environmental
degradation. The developer shall be financially responsible for any necessary
activities.
b. Prior to approval of grading permits, the developer shall provide the City with a
grading bond or letter of credit. This bond will be utilized only in the event the project is
abandoned or the developer stops work for an extended period of time without
conferring with the City Planning Department. The bond will be used by the City to
initiate activities necessary to protect public safety and minimize/prevent
environmental degradation. A similar bond will be required of all future subdivision
developers. Following project construction and landscaping, the bond will be returned.
7
a;
i
A
1
W
City of Beaumont
Y'L
�r.
Seneca Springs Specific Plan
6. Prior to the recordation of a final subdivision map, the developer shall be responsible
for the establishment of or participation in a landscaping and lighting district or
community services district to assure the maintenance of all parkways, medians,
street lights and public parks within the pmgject.
Specific Plan of Land Use Co; ditions
General
7. The project developer shall submit architectural and landscaping plans to the City of
Beaumont to be processed prior to approval of each tentative tract map. These plans
must include development plans for each project component, providing elevations,
perspectives, and site plans with building footprints (to scale). The plans shall
demonstrate their compliance with the Specific Plan for the density, lot size, living
area, setbacks, height and other design criteria. The development must provide a
functional and aesthetically pleasing design which satisfies basic community
standards for development. Once approved, these plans shall be incorporated into the
Specific Plan and shall be attached to all subdivision maps within the project
boundaries. The City recommends incorporation of the following design elements into
the plans, if not already part of the Specific Plan design guidelines:
• Buildings should be appropriate in mass and scale to the site on which they are
placed.
• Building mass is probably the most prominent design feature of a project. The
design of the townhouse development should avoid long, unbroken building faces
and make offsets an integral part of the design.
• Interesting building massing can be achieved without superficial design elements
through use of the following features:
a. Two story structures can be combined with one-story structures or elements.
b. Structures can employ projected balconies, recessed porches, entries and
enclosures.
• The pitch and form of roofs are a very visible community feature. A range of roof
forms and roof pitch can add an appealing visual impact to the community /street-
scape. There is no one design desired, however flat roofs are strongly discouraged.
• All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of surrounding roadways
either with a wall similar in design to the project architecture or a planting space
adequate in size for proper screening.
• All parking structures, either freestanding or attached garages, shall incorporate
the same design elements as the dwelling units.
• The roofing materials used for all residential communities shall be of a fire
retardant material. Wooden roofs are not allowable.
Oommercial /Office
• Architecture should respond to the public street and shall contain significant
elements relating to the human scale.
• Use of attractive roof forms is highly encouraged.
• Buildings with facades parallel to the street are highly encouraged. Long
inarticulated facades and roof forms shall be avoided.
• Use of attractive, durable, high quality, weather resistant materials shall be
S
S
y.
F
2
City of Beaumont Seneca Springs Specific Plan
required for all visible and/or weather exposed surfaces on the building exterior.
• Integrally colored inorganic materials, such as brick, concrete, stone, copper, core
ten steel and anodized aluminum are encouraged.
• Use of reflective glass should be prohibited except where used on a minimal basis as
an accent.,
• All parking required for employees, clients, customers or any others related to an
enterprise shall be provided on site.
• Loading docks, staging areas and transformers shall be screened from public
streets.
• Trash enclosures, rubbish bins, transformers, processing equipment and any other
unsightly apparatus shall be situated away form the street and should be
architecturally screened.
S. Final development densities for each Planning Area shall be determined through the
appropriate development application up to the maximum density identified based upon
but not limited to, the following:
• Adequate availability of services
• Adequate access and circulation
• Sensitivity to landforms
9. A Specific Plan Amendment and Change of Zone applications shall be filed for any use
proposed on the project site which is not permitted or conditionally permitted in the
Specific Plan and its associated Zoning Ordinance. Any such Specific Plan
Amendment and Zone Change shall be meet the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
10. Areas designated as open space easements that will be conveyed within parcel
boundaries to individual property purchasers shall be deed restricted so as to create
open space easements and prohibit grading, construction or other development activity
in such open space.
11. The developer shall be held responsible for ensuring that all construction
subcontractors properly dispose of all their wastes in County landfills or with a
licensed recycling company. If any dumping of construction waste occurs, the
developer shall be fined and held responsible for the costs associated with clean up,
proper disposal and any necessary revegetation.
12. Construction areas shall be fenced off to the greatest extent feasible to prevent the
creation of an attractive nuisance.
13. Common areas identified in the Specific Plan and subsequent tract maps shall be
owned and maintained as follows:
a. A permanent Homeowners' organization shall be established for the
townhome development, to assume ownership and maintenance
responsibility for all common recreation, open space and landscaped
areas. The organization may be public or private. Merger with an area -
wide or regional organization shall satisfy this condition provided that
D
F
:y.
l:
City of Beaumont
Seneca Springs Specific Plan
such organization is legally and financially capable of assuming the
responsibilities for ownership and maintenance. If the organization is a
private association then neighborhood associations shall be established for
each residential development, where required, and such associations may
assume ownership and maintenance responsibility for neighborhood
common areas.
b. A permanent Homeowners' organization shall be established for the
"Seniors Only" portion of the project area, to assume ownership and
maintenance responsibility for all common recreation, open space,
roadways and associated facilities, and landscaped areas. The
organization may be public or private. Merger with an area -wide or
regional organization shall satisfy this condition provided that such
organization is legally and financially capable of assuming the
responsibilities for ownership and maintenance. If the organization is a
private association then neighborhood associations shall be established for
each residential development, where required, and such associations may
assume ownership and maintenance responsibility for neighborhood
common areas.
c. Unless otherwise provided for in these standards, common areas shall
be conveyed to the maintenance organization as implementing development
is approved or any subdivision is recorded.
d. The maintenance organization shall be established prior to or
concurrent with the recordation of the tract map for that phase of
development which applies, or issuance of any building permits for any
approved development permit (use permit, plot plan, etc.).
14. It is anticipated that maintenance associations, if formed, will be established as
follows:
The master property owners association shall be charged with the
unqualified right to assess their own individual owners for reasonable
maintenance and management costs which shall be established and
continuously maintained. The property owners association shall be
responsible for private roads, parking, open space areas, signage, land-
scaping, irrigation, common areas and other facilities as necessary.
15. The developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Beaumont or its
agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City
of Beaumont or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an
approval of the City of Beaumont, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative
body concerning Specific Plan SP -93 -3. The City of Beaumont -Will promptly notify the
developer of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Beaumont and
will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the developer of
any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the
developer shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless
the City of Beaumont.
10
City of Beaumont
Seneca Springs Specific Plan
16. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this
approval, the applicant shall first obtain clearance from the City of Beaumont
Planning Department verifying that all pertinent conditions of Specific Plan approval
have been satisfied for the phase of development in question.
17. All commercial, recreational, and institutional uses within the project shall provide
for 100 percent of their parking requirements, per the City's Parking Standards, as off -
street, on -site parking.
18. All landscaping provided by the developer within the project site shall be designed so as
to conserve water resources. At a minimum, the developer shall be required to provide
front yard landscaping for all single family dwellings, landscape all common areas
within multiple family or townhome development, and all common area landscaping
within the commercial development area. All landscaping shall be irrigated with
water conserving devices. Landscaping and irrigation plans for each phase of
development shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planning Department and the
City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits.To the degree feasible,
reclaimed water shall be ised.
IufiwU ucb= Development
18. Prior to the approval of a tentative subdivision map, the developer shall provide the City
with a current "will serve" letter from the Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District,
assuring the City of the District's ability to serve the project site with water facilities.
20. Prior to the approval of a final subdivision map, the developer shall provide
documentation to the satisfaction of the City detailing the plans for development of
water and sewer facilities, including elevated storage tank locations. This
documentation shall include, but not be limited to, any permits, easements or deeds
required by other agencies and land owners, showing that the developer has legal,
binding agreements to site and construct said infrastructure. Of particular concern is
the siting of an elevated storage tank on the east side of Highland Springs Road.
21. Concurrent with submittal of a tentative subdivision map, the developer shall provide a
Master Drainage Plan to be approved by the City Engineer.
22. Concurrent with the submittal of a tentative subdivision map, the developer shall obtain
approval from the City Engineer for a Master Grading Plan. All future grading plans
shall be submitted to the City engineer for review and approval. The City engineer may
mandate revisions to grading plans to comply with the Master Grading Plan.
23. Concurrent with the submittal of a tentative subdivision map, the developer shall obtain
approval from the City Engineer and the Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District for
Master Water and Sanitary Sewer Plans. All future water and sewer plans shall be
submitted to the City Engineer and/or the Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District for
review and approval.
11
ty
�Y
City of Beaumont Seneca Springs Specific Plan
24. The developer shall be responsible for the establishment and construction of all parks
and mini -parks within the project site. Upon completion of construction of these
facilities, the developer shall convey the public parks to the City of Beaumont or the
Beaumont Cherry Valley Parks and Recreation District for ownership and
maintenance.
25. The developer shall be responsible for the establishment and construction of all open
space/drainage easements and utility easements on the site. Upon completion of these
easements, the developer shall convey them to the City of Beaumont for ownership and
maintenance.
26. In order to avoid the potential for a public hazard caused by the dead -end landscaped
easement located along the southern boundary of the Specific Plan area, the developer
shall design said easement to extend northerly near the eastern boundary to the local
street which accesses Manzanita Park Road in the southerly quarter of the project,
thereby creating a "loop" for the proposed easement area.
27. Prior to the approval of any Tentative Tract Map, the developer shall obtain approval
from the City Engineer fr- all interior and exterior circulation systems, including, but
not limited to, street cross sections, curb, gutter and sidewalk design.
28. Any private streets within the project development which comprise less than 56 feet of
right -of -way shall allow for parking on only one side of such street. The developer and
Homeowners' Association shall be responsible for enforcing and maintaining the
parking standard, so as to avoid a threat to public safety. Enforcement methods shall
include one or more of the following measures: Erecting "no Parking signs; "red -
curbing" one side of the street, and providing appropriate parking restrictions in the
CC &R's.
Environmental Impact Report Conditions
General
29. The developer shall conform with and implement all mitigation measures included
within the Draft Environmental Impact Report and Response to Comments (herinafter
referred to as the Final EIR), and the Mitigation Monitoring Program, hereby
incorporated into these Conditions of Approval by this reference.
Iand Use
30. Residential development areas shall be adequately buffered from differing uses, as
outlined in the Specific Plan.
31. Any soil disturbed within designated open space areas, including cuts and fills
associated with the drainage plan, shall be revegetated using a hydromulch mix that
provides soil stabilization and near -term cover, while reintroducing native shrubs.
Revegetation should also utilize the mature plant species which are presently found on
areas of the site marked for grading and development.
12
City of Beaumont
Seneca Springs Specific Plan
32. Natural features shall be protected to the greatest extent feasible in the siting of
individual lots and building pads.
33. Lighting plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review for all planning
areas of the site. In addition, only low pressure sodium street lights shall be used for
project streets and private driveways. Decorative lighting of structural or landscaping
elements shall be carefully designed and other lighting shall be limited to that
required for safety or security. Recreational lights, such as the tennis courts, shall be
placed on timers and shall be designed such that illumination is confined to court
areas.
Hydrology
34. Concurrent with the submittal of any tentative subdivision map, the project applicant
shall submit a detailed hydrology analysis and drainage plan, which shall be
reviewed and approved by all appropriate agencies. The Plan must include more
detailed analysis of the site's hydrology, routing and flows.Agencies responsible for
review of the drainage plans include, but are not limited to Riverside County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District, the City Engineer and the Army Corps of
Engineers, and the California Department of Fish and Game.
35. Deleted in its entirety.
36. Any flood control facilities to be maintained by the Riverside County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District shall be built to their specifications. The District will then
agree to assume maintenance responsibilities for these facilities. The developer shall
meet all requirements of Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District for any facilities It is to maintain.
87. The developer shall conform to all the requirements of the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) prior to the issuance of any grading permit.
Sods and Geotechnical Hazards
38. The developer shall implement all recommendations contained in the Geotechnical
Investigation in any and all grading plans.
39. Any graded area left inactive for a period of 60 days shall be immediately re- vegetated,
at the developer's expense, unless building permits are obtained. If building permits
have been obtained, chemical soil stabilizers shall be utilized on the site until
construction begins.
40. All building applications submitted for the project shall, at a minimum, conform with
the most recent editions of the Uniform Building Code and the seismic design
parameters of the Structural Engineers Association of California.
41. As provided under the Uniform Building Code Chapter 70 (1988 Edition), the building
official shall require inspection and testing of grading activities by an approved
testing agency. Upon completion of the rough grading work, the testing agency monitor
shall submit, at a minimum, an "as -graded grading plan" report, as described in
Chapter 70, Section 7015 (a) of the Uniform Building Code (1988).
13
-i;
tiF
,y
F`
s'
f '
City of Beaumont
Seneca Springs Specific Plan
Biological Resources
42. Streambed Alteration Permit(s) or clearance therefrom, shall be obtained from the
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) per Section 1600 of the CDFG Code.
The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers shall be consulted to determine the need for dredge
and fill permits as required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The developer
shall supply the City with copies of these permits, or clearance from the agencies, as
appropriate, prior to the issuance of grading permits.
Cultural and Paleontological Resources
43. The developer shall, prior to the approval of any grading permit, provide the City with a
report outlining the proper investigation, excavation and ultimate disposal of
Archaeological Site LL -1, as referred to in the Environmental Impact Report. All
mitigation measures provided in the EIR shall be implemented in the collection of
artifacts at the site.
44. At any time during grading of any phase of the project, in the event a buried cultural
resource are found, all work shall cease until a qualified professional can evaluate the
findings and make recommendations to the developer and the City as to how work
shall proceed.
45. The developer shall ensure that a paleontological monitor is on -site during any
grading activity in the San Timoteo Formation sediments, and any older alluvium
found at the site. The intensity of monitoring shall be the responsibility of the
paleontologist.
TrafficlCirculation
46. All traffic mitigation measures listed in the Final EIR shall be implemented. Details of
the final roadway improvements will be refined by the developer, and presented to the
Planning Department an(' the City Engineer for approval.
47. Final design of access points to the project and within the internal circulation system
will be subject to the review and approval of the City Planning Department, Beaumont
Police Department and Riverside County Fire Department.
48. Prior to the approval of any Tentative Tract Map for each phase of development, the
developer shall submit detailed roadway improvement plans for review and approval
by the City Engineer. All costs involved in developing the roadway system shall be at
the developer's expense.
49. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a comprehensive Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) program shall be developed for each phase of commercial
development involving 100 or more employees. Said TDM program shall satisfy the
requirements of the City and the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
50. The developer shall confer with the Transit District prior to the approval of each phase
of development to ensure the adequate distribution and location of bus turnouts, and bus
stops.
14
City of Beaumont
4.
�i
Seneca Springs Specific Plan
51. The developer shall confer with CalTrans regarding the location of a Park -and Ride
lot near the project site.The developer shall pay his fair share of development fees
incurred to establish the Park- and -Aide facility.
Noise
52. All construction equipment shall be fitted with well maintained functional mufflers to
limit noise emissions. To the greatest extent feasible, earth moving and haul rotes
shall be located away from nearby existing residences.
53. Construction traffic routes shall be directed away from residential development
wherever possible. Said routes shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to the
issuance of grading permits.
54. The design, selection and placement of the mechanical equipment for the various
buildings within the development shall include consideration of the potential noise
impacts on nearby residences. Appropriate sound attenuating measures such as
silencers and/or barriers shall be provided, where necessary, on outdoor equipment.
Air Quality
55. All construction/demolition control measures shall be adhered to by the developer,
contractor and construction crew. These measures include, but are not limited to, those
listed below.
• Water site and equipment morning and evening.
• Spread soil binders on unpaved areas, and parking areas.
• Operate street- sweepers on paved roads adjacent to site.
• Reestablish ground cover on construction site through seeding and watering.
• Clean the access roads and public roadways of soil, if necessary.
• Implement rapid cleaning up of debris from streets after major storm events.
• Wash off trucks leaving site.
• Trucks shall maintain two -feet of freeboard, (i.e. the distance between the top of the
load and the top of the truck's sides.
• Properly tune and maintain construction equipment.
• Use low sulfur fuel for construction equipment.
• Provide rideshare incentives for construction personnel.
• Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference.
• Minimize obstruction of through - traffic lanes.
• Provide a flag person to ensure safety at construction sites.
• Schedule operations affecting roadways for off -peak traffic hours.
56. Developer /contractor equipment and construction water sources shall be maintained
on -site. Construction activities shall be discontinued during first and second stage
smog alerts.
57. The developer shall support the preservation of clean air through the installation of
emission controls and/or filtration devices in all processes -or activities associated
with the project, which have the potential to degrade air quality. Where necessary, the
developer shall secure permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District
to assure compliance with applicable state and federal emission regulations.
15
0
s
City of Beaumont
Seneca Springs Specific Plan
Water Resources
58. The developer shall utilize drought tolerant landscaping and efficient irrigation
systems in all landscaping plans submitted for each phase of the project.
59. Deleted in its entirety
60. The developer shall work closely with the City Engineer and the Beaumont Cherry
Valley Water District to ensure the development of water infrastructure to the project
site, including the development of wells and the construction of elevated tank sites.
61. Prior to the approval of the master subdivision map, the developer shall demonstrate, to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Planning Department, that sufficient water
storage will be available to meet peak daily demand and fire flow storage
requirements.
Public Services and Utilities
62. Efficient irrigation systems that minimize runoff and evaporation, and maximize
effective watering of plant roots, shall be utilized to the greatest extent feasible. Drip
irrigation and low moisture detectors are encouraged.
63. The use of low -flush toilets and water - conserving shower heads and faucets shall be
required in conformance with Section 17921.3 of the Health and Safety Code; Title 20,
California Administrative Code Section 1601 (b); and applicable sections of Title 24 of
the State Code.
64. All water facility plans and sewage collection plans shall be subject to review by the
City Engineer and the Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District.
65. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for any phase of development, the developer
shall secure rights for sewer treatment capacity either through participation in CFD-
93-1, or through payment of connection fees.
66. The project developer shall develop a comprehensive recycling program for the
development, with the assistance of the City Planning Department. This program
shall include recycling provisions for both residences and commercial
establishments, and shall follow the recommendations listed in the Final EIR, and
meet the requirements of local and state law.
67. The developer shall, prior to the recordation of a subdivision map, comply with the
requirements of the Southern California Gas Company, ensuring that natural gas
facilities shall be sufficient to meet the needs of the project at buildout.
68. Riverside County Fire Department shall review all development plans to ensure that
all fire prevention measu es have been implemented.
69. The developer shall mitigate project- impacts to schools in accordance with the
mitigation measures set forth in the Final EIR. In addition, pursuant to the letter dated
August 5, 1993, submitted by the School District's architectural and design consultant
16
City of Beaumont Seneca Springs Specific Plan
and attached to these Conditions of Approval, the developer shall work closely with the
School District to ensure that the site provided for a school within the project area meets
the standards of the District.
70. Passive solar heating techniques will be employed whenever possible within the
project. Passive solar systems do not utilize sophisticated hardware. Passive systems
involve orientating buildings properly, planting trees to take advantage of the sun,
seeing that roof overhangs are adequate, making sure that walls are properly
insulated.
71. The developer shall adhere to the requirements of, and obtain clearances from, the
following agencies:
• Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District
• Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
• Riverside County Fire Department
• City of Beaumont Police Department
17