Loading...
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�