The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal AboutCity Council Workshop - 06 Feb 2018 - Agenda - Pdf Agenda City of Beaumont City Council Workshop Regular Session 5:00 PM Beaumont Financing Authority Beaumont Utility Authority Beaumont Successor Agency (formerly RDA) 550 E 6th Street, Beaumont, Ca Tuesday, February 6, 2018 Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packets are available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s office at 550 E. 6th Street during normal business hours Any Person with a disability who requires accommodations in order to participate in this meeting should telephone the City Clerk’s office at 951 769 8520, at least 48 hours prior to the meeting in order to make a request for a disability related modification or accommodation. Any one person may address the City Council on any matter not on this agenda. If you wish to speak, please fill out a “Public Comment Form” provided at the back table and give it to the City Clerk. There is a three (3) minute limit on public comments. There will be no sharing or passing of time to another person. State Law prohibits the Council from discussing or taking actions brought up by your comments. Page WORKSHOP SESSION CALL TO ORDER Mayor Carroll, Mayor Pro Tem Martinez, Council Member Lara, Council Member White, and Council Member Santos ACTION ITEMS/PUBLIC HEARINGS/REQUESTS 1. General Plan Preferred Alternative Land Use Map Recommended Council Action(s): 1. Direct Staff on a preferred alternative for moving forward with the General Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Land Use Map Presentation 3 - 33 Adjournment of the City Council Workshop of February 6, 2018 Meeting at ____ p.m. Beaumont City Hall – Online www.ci.beaumont.ca.us Page 1 of 33 Page 2 of 33 Page 3 of 33 Page 4 of 33 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE City Council February 6, 2018 Page 5 of 33 ■Review General Plan process ■Review refined preferred land use alternative ■Review survey results ■Confirm a preferred land use alternative Today’s objectives Page 6 of 33 PROJECT OVERVIEW Page 7 of 33 The General Plan sets a road map for the future of Beaumont. It is a policy document and forms the foundation for all city ordinances and guidelines. Page 8 of 33 General Plan Process Existing Conditions (Spring 2017) Visioning (Summer/ Fall 2017) Plan Alternatives (Summer/ Fall 2017) Policy Framework (Winter 2017/Spring 2018) Draft General Plan (Spring 2018) EIR (Summer/Fall 2018) COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Final General Plan (Winter 2018) WE ARE HERE! •Cherry Festival •Community Workshop •Community Survey •Visual Preference Survey •Task Force •Community Character Survey •Youth Focus Group •Task Force •Land Use Alternative Survey •Stakeholder Interviews Page 9 of 33 Vision STATEMENT “Beaumont –where we value our small-town feel, our community heritage, and our natural setting. We are committed to encouraging economically sustainable, balanced growth that respects our long history, while meeting infrastructure needs and protecting our environment. Beaumont’s community pride and rural mountain setting sets our city apart as a vibrant and healthy community with local access to retail, services, jobs, and recreation.”Page 10 of 33 AREAS OF CHANGE Page 11 of 33 Areas of change ■Preserve: Protected or open space land uses. ■Maintain: Areas of low change from existing land uses. ■Enhance: Areas of moderate change to revitalize established corridors and neighborhoods. ■Evolve/Transform:Areas of significant change from existing land uses to promote community character, identity, and economic development. Page 12 of 33 Refined preferred alternative ■Downtown Mixed Use (retail along ground floor and residential above or behind at 15 units/acre) ■Neighborhood Center (retail focused on corners, live-work and residential above/behind at 15 units/acre) ■Emphasis on Rural Residential High (10 units/acre) and Rural Residential Low (40 units/acre) in areas south of the City to preserve panoramic views and protect habitat ■Traditional Neighborhoods consist of 7,000 sq. ft. lots (typical) in a well-connected, walkable setting ■Mix of jobs-oriented uses (retail, office, and light industrial), mixed-use and higher density multi-family along SR-79 ■Recreational uses in the area near Jack Rabbit TrailPage 13 of 33 WHAT WE HEARD Page 14 of 33 PREFERRED LAND USE ALTERNATIVE SURVEY ■Survey was open from January 12 –28, 2018 ■Total of 736 responses, but not all respondents answered every question ■27 respondents identified as living in the County ■English and Spanish version of the survey ■Respondents were asked about 5 key areas of change in the City ■Ability to choose whether to provide input for each area ■Promoted via Facebook, website, email list, task force, youth group, and notice to property owners within the “evolve/transform” areas of change (City + Sphere of Influence)Page 15 of 33 DEMOGRAPHICS ■A majority of respondents (93.42%) live in the City of Beaumont. ■Responses included representation from the entire City, including the County (3.79%). The lowest participation was from Downtown (.56%). ■The highest participation rates were from the following age groups: 25-44 (42.76%), 45-64 (24.45%), and 65 or older (29.64%). ■The following race/ethnic groups had the highest participation: White (67.78%) and Hispanic or Latino (19.31%). ■Females had a higher participation rate (59.4%). Page 16 of 33 Downtown ■66.04% of respondents prefer a mix of 1 and 2 story buildings ■62.05% of respondents prefer angled parking ■Top rated features for safety: ■Public spaces (i.e. plaza, park, etc.) 55.26% ■Wide sidewalks (15 ft. or more) 51.08% ■Slower car traffic (41.64%) ■Flashing crosswalks (36.38%) ■Pedestrian scale lighting (34.83%) For community members that identified living in the County, responses aligned with these choices. Slower traffic and pedestrian scale lighting were tied (39.13%) as the third priority.Page 17 of 33 Other comments Concerns: ■Homelessness ■Streetscape (e.g., uneven pavement on streets and sidewalks, missing or not visible street markings, street trees and landscaping) ■Additional lighting (e.g., street lamps, lighted bus stops, consistent) ■Lack of events/things to do (e.g., generate pedestrian traffic) Page 18 of 33 6th Street extension ■The majority of respondents prefer 1 story corner buildings (44.96%) ■The majority of respondents prefer housing behind retail (45.96%) Community members that identified living in the County also preferred 1 story buildings (50%), but chose multi-family housing (38.1%) over housing behind retail (28.57%).Page 19 of 33 Planning for change ■Respondents were presented with 4 key trends across the region ■The majority of respondents (93.02%) agree that the City should plan for change Community members that identified living in the County agreed (92%) with the City planning for change. Page 20 of 33 Urban village south ■Top rated amenities: ■Restaurants (81.99%) ■Movie theater (62.44%) ■Open air shopping (60.21%) ■Entertainment (40.82%) ■Walking paths (34.48%) For community members that identified living in the County, top rated amenities are: restaurants (69.6%), walking paths (60.9%), open air shopping (52.2%), entertainment (43.48%), and movie theatre (39.13%).Page 21 of 33 Urban village south ■Top rated destinations: ■Retail (52.52%) ■Transportation hub (e.g., for potential rail) (20.17%) ■Jobs (7.13%) ■Residential type and character for multi-family housing ■Multi-family housing (2 story) (67.95%) For community members that identified living in the County, top rated destinations are retail (40.91%) and transportation hub (18.18%) and education (18.18%). County residents agreed with 2-story multi-family housing in the Urban Village South. Page 22 of 33 Traditional neighborhoods ■Preference for a variety of housing styles (76.18%), instead of all homes looking the same (23.82%) ■Top rated features in a traditional neighborhood ■Neighborhood serving retail (79.15%) ■Multi-use trails (60.89%) ■A mix of uses (e.g., jobs, housing, retail, and public places) (56.46%) ■Parks for recreation and gathering (56.27%) ■Walkable blocks (48.15%) Community members that identified living in the County also preferred a variety of housing styles (90%). For County residents, the top rated features in a traditional neighborhood were: multi-use trails (76.19%), neighborhood serving retail (66.67%), continuous network of sidewalks (47.62%), and parks for recreation and gathering (47.62%).Page 23 of 33 South of potrero ■Top rated features to preserve: ■Panoramic views (86.68%) ■Sensitive habitat (44.93%) ■Natural vegetation (41.55%) ■Topography (39.76%) ■Rural-urban buffer zones (39.36%) For community members living in the County, preserving panoramic views (88.24%) was also top rated, followed by topography (58.82%), natural vegetation (52.94%), sensitive habitat (52.94%), ridgelines (41.18%), and rural-urban buffer zones (41.18).Page 24 of 33 South of potrero ■Top rated features to incorporate: ■Access to open space (57.06%) ■Conservation development (46.32%) ■Limits on scale of homes (43.14%) For community members that identified living in the County, responses aligned with these choices.Page 25 of 33 Other COMMENTS ■Perception that areas south of the City are open space/rural ■Too many people in the City (e.g., more traffic and infrastructure impacts) ■Already sufficient housing in the City ■Interest in well thought out planning ■K-12 school facilities ■Diverse retail and commercial uses (e.g., opportunities for big box and small businesses) ■Balanced growth ■Interest in innovative/flexible work opportunities Page 26 of 33 BUILD OUT PROJECTIONS Page 27 of 33 CITYWIDE CONTEXT Total Number of Households Number of Jobs Jobs/Housing Ratio Existing (2015)13,563 5,800 0.42 SCAG 2040 Projections for City (NIC SOI)25,000 18,000 0.7 Build-out Capacity for City and SOI approx. 33,700 approx. 35,700 1.06 Page 28 of 33 IDENTIFYING A Preferred ALTERNATIVE ■Need for direction from Council to continue General Plan Process Following approval a preferred alternative, these are the next steps: ■Citywide fiscal model to be developed ■Citywide mobility analysis to be developed ■Draft general plan goals and policies Page 29 of 33 QUESTIONS?Page 30 of 33 Refined preferred alternative ■Downtown Mixed Use (retail along ground floor and residential above or behind at 15 units/acre) ■Neighborhood Center (retail focused on corners, live-work and residential above/behind at 15 units/acre) ■Emphasis on Rural Residential High (10 units/acre) and Rural Residential Low (40 units/acre) in areas south of the City to preserve panoramic views and protect habitat ■Traditional Neighborhoods consist of 7,000 sq. ft. lots (typical) in a well-connected, walkable setting ■Mix of jobs-oriented uses (retail, office, and light industrial), mixed-use and higher density multi-family along SR-79 ■Recreational uses near Jack Rabbit TrailPage 31 of 33 Existing general plan LAND USES Page 32 of 33 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE City Council February 6, 2018 Page 33 of 33