Several members of the Planning Commission expressed concern Tuesday about the discussion of the Belcaro of Sand Canyon project at City Hall, questioning why the meeting was held the same day a more-than-7,000-page report on the project was released.
A city planning leader said Wednesday the meeting was meant as an introduction to the plan, blaming state law for limiting the city to five meetings for housing-plan review.
The plans for the newest Belcaro community call for 341 single-family, age-restricted homes on 193 acres east of Sand Canyon and Lost Canyon roads, north of Sand Canyon Country Club. The impacts expected to be studied were expansive, with more than 3,000 pages of soil reports given to the commission on the afternoon of the hearing.
Several planning commissioners questioned why the meeting had to be scheduled for that Tuesday, in light of the lack of materials.
Jason Crawford, director of community development for the city, did not give a specific reason behind the timing for Tuesday’s meeting, but he said the city would follow up with those commissioners about their concerns.
During the hearing, Commissioner Dan Faina asked city planner Andrew Olsen, who gave the city’s staff presentation, if this type of information release was the city’s standard operating procedure.
“Would you typically have an actual hearing for a 7,114-page draft EIR (environmental impact report) that was issued the day of the hearing?” following the staff’s explanation of the Belcaro hearing. “Is that normal?”
Olsen said he recognized the EIR was released that day, adding the next planned hearing Aug. 18 would still be during the public-comment period for the EIR.
He said there would be more of a chance at future hearings to address concerns, and that Tuesday was an introduction to the project. Olsen also gave a virtual tour of the plan for the Planning Commission last year.
“So, my next question is, would you typically have two hearings during the public-comment period on a draft EIR? Is that normal protocol?” Faina said, questioning the purpose of why the commission was having “multiple meetings before we’re kind of in a position to do anything. It seems like maybe we could have had a little more time.”
Olsen said there was no law that governed when the first hearing had to be or whether there could be multiple meetings during the public-comment period.
Faina was pointing out for practical purposes that the Planning Division’s decision to have the hearing the day of the release essentially reduced its ability to ask questions about the several-thousand-page document by a third.
Residents had plenty of questions at Tuesday’s hearing, calling for more information about the traffic plans and their studies, as well as evacuation plans in the event of an emergency. In addition to being in an area that’s considered part of a very high-fire severity zone, several public commenters who spoke Tuesday had memories of how the Sand and Tick fires had burned through in recent years.
The Sand Fire burned 18 homes and an elderly man was killed in the blaze that burned more than 33,000 acres in 2016. In 2019, the Tick Fire started in nearby Mint Canyon and burned more than 4,600 acres.
Planners typically leave two meetings of the five allowed under state law for the City Council, which gives the council a chance to review a project and then have an appeal hearing. That essentially leaves three hearings for the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Lisa Eichman said Faina took the words out of her mouth but offered more specific concerns about how the commission received the information that was supposed to be discussed at Tuesday’s hearing.
She listed questions about the plans ranging from flood zones to traffic.
“I barely looked at the (environmental impact report) today — I mean, we got it what, at 12:30 (p.m.) today, and I opened up one little section, which was fire,” she said, referring to safety and evacuation plans and mentioning the previous fires.
After residents shared their concerns for the project for about two hours at Tuesday’s hearing, New Urban West spokesman John Musella said the developer would like to “utilize future hearings for an opportunity to address some of these issues more closely.”
Commission Chair Nathan Keith shared the same concerns as Eichman, and mentioned a frustration at asking some of the questions that might be answered by the EIR he never had appropriate time to review, suggesting another look at the project’s hearing schedule.
During Tuesday’s discussion, a question was raised as to whether the project should be allowed for expedited consideration, due to its location in a very high-fire severity zone, which has some exemptions under state housing laws meant to streamline approvals.
Crawford said city planners discussed the viability of Senate Bill 330 with the city’s legal counsel, and, “Our interpretation was that the state would interpret that the project would not be exempt from (the bill).”
“(The law) specifically states that section 13 does not apply to very high fire areas, though the remainder of SB 330 (including the five-meeting limit) does apply,” he said.
Ultimately, planners followed a staff recommendation to set the next hearing for Aug. 18.
