HomeMy Public PortalAbout09/7/93 MinutesMINUTES OF
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 7, 1993
Meeting was called to Order at 7:00 p.m.
Roll Call: Commissioners Echlin, DePalatis and Kirkland.
Commissioner Moreno and Chairman Prouty was absent and
was excused.
Affidavit of Posting was read.
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. Oral Communication: None.
2. Director's Report: None.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
3. 92- ANX -29 SP -92 -1, EIR -92 -2, 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.
Acting Chairman Echlin opened the continued public hearing at
7:05 p.m., asking for the Director's Report.
PC Egger explained to the Commission this was the third
hearing on this project which was first heard on July 209 at
which time the Commission received a detailed presentation
from the applicant's consultant team relative to all of the
design and development details of the project. Mr. Egger
noted that all of the documentation has been completed and
staff is prepared for the Commission to consider a
recommendation in order to pass this item on to City Council.
He further noted that the items before the Commission this
evening relate to the Specific Plan which did go through a
number of changes but is now in a condition that is
satisfactory to staff. The development standards in staff's
opinion would facilitate good quality development as they are
drafted and the project would be implemented through the
City's Specific Plan Area (or SPA) zone. Mr. Egger also noted
that with respect to the Conditions of August 27 as well as
other provisions that concerned the Commission, changes have
been made through discussions with the applicant. Mr. Egger
mentioned that Condition No. 43 (middle of sentence, last
page) now reads "at the time of approval of subsequent
development applications, further environmental
reporting /monitoring programs may be established if additional
mitigation is determined to be necessary through further
environmental review ". Also Conditions No. 22 and 41 remain
the only conditions of issue. Relative to Condition No. 22
the intent of this Condition is to facilitate the
determination of design details and densities recognizing
there will probably be some adjustments to the design of the
project at the detailed design stage. Applicant did suggest
some additional language to be added to this Conditon whereby
they will be permitted to transfer density in order to achieve
the overall maximum density of each village specified in the
Specific Plan. This is consistent with the administrative
section of the Specific Plan as it is presently drafted and
staff would support a modification to this Condition in this
manner. Mr. Egger went on speaking stating that Condition No.
41 is a subsequent Condition to No. 40 and briefly explained
staff's rationale in developing these conditions. Condition
No. 40 would require within one year of approval of the
Specific Plan for the developer to come back and submit a
Special PC minutes
September 7, 1993
Page 2
public facilities financing plan for review by the Planning
Director and ultimately for presentation to the City Council
for approval. The purpose of this task is to provide more
detailed infrastructure planning beyond what was performed in
the Specific Plan and tie down the service issues and identify
what would be logical financing tools to implement the
infrastructure for this project. Staff would also like to see
this project constructed in the relatively near future and
this is the rationale for Condition No. 41. Mr. Egger than
proceeded to read staff's version of Condition No. 41 as
follows:
"Within 4 years of the date of the Specific Plan approval or
within one year following disposition of any litigation
related to the approval of the Specific Plan or certification
of the environmental impact report, whichever is later, the
applicant shall have secured all necessary financing and
complied with statutory requirements necessary to finance the
Phase 1 improvements identified in the Public Facilities
Financing Plan, specifically related to Condition No. 40. In
the event of noncompliance with this condition or
noncompliance with Condition No. 40, an administrative hearing
shall be held before the City Council within 45 days. If upon
hearing relative testimony the City Council determines
noncompliance of said conditions, the City Council may cause
nullification of the Specific Plan approval with appropriate
findings."
Mr. Egger then stated that this condition basically requires
action on the infrastructure financing elements within a 4
year period; however, the applicant does not support this
condition primarily because of the limitations that may exist
by virtue of economic conditions or other factors beyond their
control. The applicant would like to see the time frame
expanded. Mr. Egger then briefly read the rendition for the
condition that was submitted by the applicant, as follows:
"Prior to the issuance of grading permits for Phase lA and not
in any event later than the 10th anniversary of annexation of
the property into the City, the applicant shall have secured
all necessary financing and complied with statutory
requirements necessary to finance and construct the Phase 1
improvements identified in the approved Public Facilities
Financing Plan. In the event of noncompliance with this
condition or noncompliance with Condition No. 40 which is the
Public Facilities Financing Plan portion, the City shall so
notify applicant who shall have 90 days to perform such
condition. If applicant fails to perform such condition
within such 90 day period, an administrative hearing shall be
held before the City Council within 45 days. If upon hearing
relative testimony the City Council determines noncompliance
with said conditions, the City Council may cause nullification
of this Specific Plan approval with the appropriate findings."
Mr. Egger stated that essentially the difference between the
two renditions is a time frame of 4 years versus 10 years and
that the other major difference relates to procedures involved
in conducting hearings and development of the necessary
findings to determine whether the conditions are being
complied with. Also, the revised language would trigger the
requirement prior to the issuance of grading permits for Phase
IA since infrastructure financing would have to be in place.
Mr. Egger noted that staff does not have any problems with the
terminology that has been utilized in the applicant's
rendition, the various procedural steps that are identified,
nor the fact that grading permits would be a trigger inside
the 10 year time frame; however, what is really of issue is
the time associated with getting started on the project.
Mr. Egger went on talking about the other items that are
before the Commission, including the environmental
documentation, and that Mr. Doug Wood, the Environmental
Consultant on the project, is present in the audience and will
Special PC minutes
September 7, 1993
Page 3
provide a synopsis of comments and responses that were
generated subsequent to the publication of the Commission's
packet. Also for the Commission's consideration is the
complete environmental package including appropriate findings
and a mitigation monitoring program. Another entitlement
action that is before the Commission is the Developmental
Agreement which is not 100 percent completed but it
essentially encompasses the major elements and staff feels the
basic structure of the development agreement is in a condition
which can be forwarded on to City Council. Mr. Egger
explained that within the Development Agreement is an Exhibit
F, consisting basically of the conditions of approval preceded
with the statement indicating that this project will be
subject to the fee regulations that are in effect at the time
subsequent entitlements are processed for this project.
Mr. Egger further noted that staff is satisfied with this
project in that it is a well designed project, it is
consistent with the General Plan and the general objectives
of the community, i� provides a high level of environmental
impact mitigation and will be a positive and beneficial
attribute to the City of Beaumont. Mir. Egger subsequently
recommended certification of the EIR and approval of the
various applications comprising the proposed project.
Acting Chairman Echlin opened the public hearing at 7:24
p.m., asking for proponents /opponents from the audience
wishing to speak.
Mr. Douglas Wood, a Principal with the Firm of Douglas Wood
Associates, addressed the Commission stating that he is here
tonight to provide an overview of the responses to the
comments that were received on the Supplemental Draft EIR.
He noted they did receive a late comment from State Lands
Commission dated September 2, 1993 (just received today)
whereby they recommend that specific development involving
this project site should be reviewed by the State Lands
Commission to ensure that development is consistent with the
State's interest. He noted there was a total of 12
comments /responses. Mr. Wood further noted that these
comments would be incorporated into the Final EIR document.
Commissioner DePalatis raised the question as to a potential
high school site, with PC Egger commenting that Lockheed does
recognize the Beaumont Unified School District may need a site
south of the freeway at some point in the future and he
further noted this would be resolved in the subsequent school
agreement, pursuant to the conditions of approval.
Pursuant to Commissioner Kirkland's question concerning the
Stephens Kangaroo Rat (SKR) and if it is a separate subspecies
than that of the Pacific Kangaroo Rat (PKR), Mr. Wood
commented that there had been a long list of experts that had
stated unequivocably that the SKR is different than the
Pacific Kangaroo Rat.
A discussion ensued as to historic consideration of the site
as a reservoir. PC Egger noted that this project as it is
presently designed facilitates some rather generous wildlife
corridors through the drainage and canyon areas on the
property, that obviously with all of the site underwater,
wildlife migration on the site would be curtailed to a great
degree.
Groundwater was subsequently discussed by the Commission with
Mr. Wood noting that the Draft EIR goes into great detail as
far as the remediation program that is underway. The draft
EIR has indicated that in response to the consent order and
the remediation program resulting from the consent order, that
if the water is not used for potable purposes which it is not
going to be, the level of potential carcinogen exposure is
incredibly remote. According to the toxic engineers if you do
not drink the water or use it for direct contact, then the
site would be safe for habitation once the remediation plan is
fully implemented.
Special PC minutes
September 7, 1993
Page 4
PC Egger commented that staff had provided a condition whereby
an environmental assessment would be performed on every parcel
prior to any development as well as also follow up with
additional review on a site by site basis to ensure that the site
is suitable for habitation.
Mr. Wood further commented that if you pump contaminated water
out of the ground and then use it for potable use, there would be
a higher risk; however, the remediation program is in the process
of pumping this water up, clearing out whatever toxics or
pollutants in the water and re- introducing the clean water to the
ground. Once this process is completed and if this water is not
used for potable purposes, the site itself would be safe for
habitation. Mr. Wood also stated that soil contamination is also
part of the remediation program which they are correcting.
Pursuant to further Commission questions about contaminated
soil, PC Egger again reiterated that the City would require the
certification of any site's specific area prior to any development
on it.
Mr. Bill Sullivan, Corporate Counsel with Lockheed Corporation,
addressed the Commission, commenting he had been involved with
this site since 1976 and had been involved with the environmental
aspects of the site for approximately 10 years. He noted that an
investigation was conducted pursuant to the direction of the then
Development of Health Services. An administrative consent order
was signed in 1989 with the Department of Toxic Substances Control
which lead to investigation to two problem areas, one of which is
the burnpit, the soil subterranean and the groundwater. The soil
under the burnpit contained the greatest amount of solvent
contaminant. The idea is to extract the soil gas vapor that is a
contaminant in the soil (not in the groundwater), treat it, then
extract the groundwater, treat it, and reinject it back into the
ground so that it moves to a subterranean portion of the riparian
area. The water will be reinjected into the ground with nitrates
still in it and if you wanted to drink it you would have to treat
it for nitrates. The regulatory agency, however, allowed the
water to be put back in the ground because the nitrates will feed
the vegetation in the riparian areas so that there will be more
foliage for more species. Ultimately, there is going to be a pump
and treat system for the groundwater. Due to a problem that arose
last winter whereby the groundwater rose 40 feet and inundated the
soil gas vapor extraction wells, they are now in the process of
talking with the Regulatory Agencies to see what modifications to
the plan can be made to satisfy that agency and also to properly
do the cleanup.
Ms. Joan Taylor, Conservation Chairman of the San Gorgonio Chapter
of the Sierra Club, addressed the Commission stating her testimony
is being submitted on behalf of the San Gorgonio Chapter and is
meant to augment their written and verbal comments already made
regarding the Potrero Creek project. She noted—that the Sierra
Club has strong objections to the adverse impact of the project
itself, to the severe inadequacies of both the Draft EIR and the
Supplemental Draft EIR, as well as the deficiency of the Beaumont
General Plan. She then read for the record their objections to
the project. The highlights from her written objections were:
1) Prepare and maintain inventory of wildlire ano vegetiaciun
resources - not done before adopting the General Plan;
2) The General Plan does not properly address endangered
species issues;
3) There is a lack of consistency between land use and natural
resources in conservation elements;
4) The land use element does not adequately identify significant
open space areas and protect them with appropriate open space
land use designations;
5) The annexation would result in premature conversion of
significant open space including endangered species habitat.
Special PC minutes
September 7, 1993
Page S
Mr. Ken Hodent 19625 Highway 79. Gilman Hot Springs, addressed the
Commission, asking if 5 or 10 years down the line when the
project changes hands, could the present plan change whereby homes
would be built in view of Gilman Hot Springs.
PC Egger, in answer to Mr. Hoden's question, stated that the only
way that area could be translated into developed areas in the
future would be to amend the specific plan or to approve a new
specific plan. Also from a purely physical perspective, the
terrain in that area is so rugged that it is highly unlikely that
it could ever be developed economically.
Acting Chairman Echlin closed the public hearing at 8:02 p.m.
asking if the applicant would like to respond to any of the
comments or statements made.
Mr. Tom Muller, with the Law Firm of DIMelveny and Ayers,
representing Lockheed, addressed the Commission questioning
Condition No. 41 regarding the time frame. He felt that a time
limitation on a development agreement within which the developer
has to get started is itself a bit unusual. To their knowledge no
other developer in the City of Beaumont is exposed to this kind of
condition. He noted the applicant's suggestion to establish the
number at 10 years as the time frame in order to give them
something of a safe leeway because the consequence of not meeting
this condition is that the project an be annulled by the City,
and of course Lockheed has already spent a considerable amount of
money.
Commissioner Echlin asked if an extension could be added to this
condition with PC Egger commenting he felt it would be possible
to create a process whereby, if it was determined that substantial
progress was being made relative to further planning, facilitating
an extension under such circumstances could be structured to that
effect.
Mr. Hugh Hewitt, of the Law Firm of Hewitt & Maguire then noted
that if the 10 year time frame becomes a 5 year time frame it
makes it less likely to lend against the land or even float bonds
against the land. The more time you give the public financing
mechanism or the privet= sector to fund it the more feasible
financing becomes.
PC Egger noted that a specific time frame was not settled on;
however, there are three elements called for in the conditions
that have to be prepared and submitted to the City which are:
1) the Architectural Design Manual, 2) Landscape Design Manual,
and 3) Public Facilities Financing Plan. The first two do not
have a time frame however, number three has to be completed within
one year of the approval of the specific plan.
Mr. Hewitt, then offered as a compromise the time frame of 8 years
going to 15 years upon completion of the above three documents.
PC Egger stated that if it were left at 4 years as indicated by
staff and upon accomplishment of the three elements, then
facilitating a 10 year time frame could be done if this be the
Commission's desire. Mr. Egger noted that he felt that 15 years
is excessive on the time frame since these three elements could
easily be completed in one year.
Mr. Muller, commenting on Condition No. 40, stated they intend to
cooperate in developing the required manuals in place but wanted
it understood that this is all subject to the City's consent and
he feels the straight 10 year time frame really satisfies all of
their goals and is equitable.
Commissioner DePalatis then proposed leaving Condition No. 41 as
the applicant has worded it with the 10 year time frame but adding
to Condition Nos. 27 and 28, the wording "prior to submittal of
the first tentative subdivision map and within a one year time
frame" striking "in conjunction with ".
PC Egger then noted to be legally correct it should say "prior
to the submittal of the tentative subdivision map or within one
Special PC minutes
September 79 1993
Page 6
year of approval of the specific plan,. whichever occurs
first."
Commissioner DePalatis offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Kirkland, recommending approval of this project
to City Council in the form of four actions as follows:
1) Adopt the Proposed Resolution to:
A. Certify the Environmental Impact Report with the
appropriate Findings and Adopt the Statement of
Overriding Considerations;
B. Adopt the mitigation monitoring Program; and
C. Approve the Potrero Creek Specific Plan subject to the
amended Conditions of Approval with the following
correction /deletion to Conditions No. 27 and 28.
127 Delete: In conjunction with the submittal of
the first implementing tentative subdivision
map,
Add: Prior to the submittal of the initial
tentative subdivision map or within one year of
approval of the Specific Plan, whichever occurs
first, a complete architectural design .
028 Delete: In conjunction with submittal of the
initial tentative subdivision map,
Add: Prior to the submittal of the initial
tentative subdivision map or within one year of
approval of the Specific Plan, whichever occurs
first, a complete architectural design . . .
2) Adopt the Proposed Ordinance to Pre -Zone the subject
property to SPA (Specific Plan Area).
3) Adopt the Proposed Ordinance to approve the Development
Agreement with Lockheed Corporation.
4) Adopt the Proposed Resolution to request that the Local
Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) initiate proceedings
to annex the 9,117 acre Potrero Creek Site to the City of
Beaumont.
Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioner
Echlin.
NOES:
None.
ABSTAIN:
None.
ABSENT:
Commissioner
4. 93 -DA -1 and 93- ND -11,
5. 93 -DA -2 and 93- ND -12,
B. 93 -DA -3 and 93- ND -13,
7. 93 -DA -4 and 93- ND -14,
B. 93 -DA -5 and 92 -ND -5,
9. 93 -DA -6 and 93- ND -15,
DePalatis, Kirkland and Acting Chairman
Moreno and Chairman Prouty.
ICI, Inc. Applicant.
Hovchild, Inc. Applicant.
Loma Linda University, Applicant.
Heartland California Beaumont LTD,
Applicant.
High 60 Associates, Applicant.
Coscan /Stewart Partnership, Applicant.
In response to staff's recommendation, Commissioner Kirkland
offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner DePalatis, to
continue the above Items 4 through 9 to the Planning
Commission meeting of September 21, 1993. Motion carried with
the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners DePalatis, Kirkland and Chairman
Echlin.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Moreno and Chairman Prouty.
Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Resper�tfully submitted,
Cherry y
PC Sec etary�