Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission recommends certification of Clearwater Specific Plan EIR and sends plan package to city council
Summary
Planning commissioners recommended that the City Council certify a final environmental impact report and approve the Clearwater Specific Plan package—incorporating a general plan amendment and zoning text changes—after staff and MIG consultants described a multi‑decade, 70–71‑acre vision that could accommodate up to 2,000 housing units and identified unavoidable air quality, greenhouse‑gas and noise impacts.
Planning commissioners voted to recommend that the City Council certify the final environmental impact report for the Clearwater Specific Plan and adopt the accompanying general plan and zoning amendments after a staff presentation and consultant review.
Staff said the specific plan covers roughly 70–71 acres around the Paramount Swap Meet and surrounding properties and is intended to set a long‑term framework for redevelopment, mobility and development standards. “This is one of the biggest projects that we’ve had in Paramount,” a staff presenter said at the start of the presentation, describing phase‑based implementation that could unfold over decades.
Jose Rodriguez, senior project manager with MIG, described a land‑use framework of six use districts: a central mixed‑use town center for higher density residential and retail, step‑back height limits along Paramount Boulevard, and a separate neo‑industrial area that would not allow housing but would support employment uses. He told commissioners the EIR analyzed a maximum scenario that would permit roughly 2,000 dwelling units, about 158,000 square feet of commercial space and about 800,000 square feet of flex/neo‑industrial space, while noting full buildout depends on market decisions by property owners and developers.
The EIR identified several impacts that staff said could not be reduced to less‑than‑significant levels: air quality, greenhouse gases and long‑term operational noise tied to traffic increases. The EIR therefore includes mitigation measures and a recommended statement of overriding considerations. “There is a series of impacts that were identified that we could not mitigate,” MIG’s environmental analyst Cameron How said, adding staff and consultants recommended mitigation and described the public‑benefit tradeoffs tied to complete‑streets, expanded housing and transit‑oriented development.
Commissioners reviewed emailed comments received before the hearing. Staff summarized letters from an advocacy group (Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility), which raised concerns about bike lanes, Spanish‑language materials and indoor air‑quality analysis; letters from nearby property owners raising site‑specific feasibility questions; Caltrans’ review; and correspondence from Modern Development Company (the largest property owner in the plan area) highlighting technical questions and EIR concerns. Cameron How responded to the submitted criticisms by describing how the EIR addressed those topics and by pointing to existing city transportation planning for broader bikeway coordination.
Property owners’ written comments questioned the economic viability of some proposed permitted uses, the size and location of proposed roadway dedications, and the potential for narrow or constrained development footprints on certain parcels. Planning staff said the city had commissioned an independent market study and acknowledged uncertainty while describing ongoing outreach and negotiation with landowners.
After questions and discussion, the commission voted to close the public hearing and approved Resolution PC26007 recommending that the City Council certify the EIR, adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program, and adopt a statement of overriding considerations. The commission then recommended the related general plan amendment (PC26008) and a zoning ordinance text amendment (PC26009) that would incorporate the Clearwater Specific Plan into the municipal code. The commission’s roll call on those recommendations recorded four votes in favor and one opposed (Vice Chair Weisenberger).
Next steps: the Planning Commission’s resolutions will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. Staff said, if the council concurs, projects would proceed under the new plan and zoning rules and individual development proposals would return to the planning counter for project‑level approvals and permits.
