Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout1982BkAUMONT CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF JANUARY 11, 1982 1. The Beaumont City Council met in a regular meeting at 7:35 P.M., on Monday, January 11, 1982, in the City Council Ch=ambers, with Mayor Thompson presiding. 2. The invocation was given by Reverand Donald Sullivan. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Councilman May. 4. On Roll Call the following Council Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 5. There being no additions, deletions or corrections, the Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of December 28, 1981 were ordered filed as presented. 6. There being no objections, the Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of December 15, 1981 were accepted as presented and ordered filed. 7. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the Warrani as audited per Warrant List of January 11, 1982, in the amount of $268,514.66 and Payroll of January 8, 1982, in the amount of $24,557.99, were approved for payment as audited. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 8. f ORDINANCE NO. 541 - Repealing Ordinance 164 and Ordinance 245. SECOND READING. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Ordinance No. 541 repealing Ordinances No. 164 and 245, at its second reading by title only. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. None. None. None. 9. ORDINANCE NO. 542 - Repealing Ordinance No. 478 and Providing for the Playing of Bingo Pursuant to Section 19 of Article IV of the State Constitution and Section 326.5 of the Penal Code. FIRST READING. On Potion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, Ordinance No. 542 passes its first reading by title only. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. BSENT: None. /ABSTAIN: None. 10. ESOLUTION NO. 1982 -1 - Opposing Senate Bill 314, Dills, Compulsory and Binding Arbitration for Firefighters. The resolution was read in its entirety by the Deputy City Clerk. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont - approves Resolution No. 1982 -1 opposing Senate Bill 314 (Dills) Compulsory and Binding Arbitration for'Firefighters. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Page 1 11. Request from San Gorgonio Pass Artists for fee - exempt Business License. Ms. Lee Johnson, President of San Gorgonio Pass Artists, addressed the Council concerning their request. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City ' -' Council of the City of Beaumont denies the request of San Gorgonio Pass Artists for a fee - exempt Business License. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 12. Authorization for Presentation of Plaques for Service to City. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the presentation of a plaque to people who have served on various boards, commissions and volunteer organizations in recognition of the service they have provided to the City upon recommendation of the City Manager and Department Heads. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 13. Recommendation for Council Concurrence with Recommendation of Chief Martines Regarding Quick Attack Vehicle for Station 66, Beaumont City. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont concurs with the recommendations of Chief Martines, in letter dated July 16, 1981, Items 1 through 4 inclusive; and further declares the 1954 GMC as surplus and directs the Purchasing Office to sell this vehicle as recommended in Item 5; deleting the recommendation in Item 5 concerning the 1937 American La France which has been disposed of by previous action. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 14. Curb and Gutter at Xenia Avenue Cul -de -Sac (Jack Nottingham). (Continued from December 14, 1981). This agenda item was continued until the next regular meeting of January 25, 1982 pending receipt of a report from the State Contractor's License Board. 15. Application by Southern California Gas Company for Increase in Rate. 16. Application by Southern California Edison Company for Increase in Rate. Agenda Items 15 and 16 were consolidated and heard together. Motion by Councilman Shaw and second by Councilman Hammel to deny request for increase in rates were withdrawn by Councilmen Shaw and Hammel respectively. The City Attorney was directed to prepare a Resolution opposing the rate increases requested by Southern California Gas Company and -, Southern California Edison Company for adoption by the City Council at their next regular meeting. This agenda item was continued until the next regular meeting of January 25, 1982. 17. Highland Springs Village Sewer Service Agreement. This agenda item was continued until the next regular meeting of January 25, 1982. 18. Determination of Business License for Activities Conducted Through Parks and Recreation and YMCA. (Continued from December 14, 1981). �,'On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the ity Council of the City of Beaumont directs that any and all activities conducted through Parks and Recreation and the YMCA conducted for profit to the individual shall be charged a business license. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 19. Agreement for Performance of Services Relating to Dogs and Other Domestic Animals. (Continued from December 14, 1981). This agenda item was continued until the regular meeting of January 25, 1982. 20. Decision on Recommendation of Participation in Benefit Assessment District for Flood Control Protection. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City ' Council of the City of Beaumont supports participation in the Benefit Assessment District for Flood Control Protection, and further supports the concept of a sub -zone basis. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 21. Acceptance of Resignation of City Clerk Lois Miller. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the resignation of City Clerk Lois Miller with regret. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 22. Appointment of New Planning Commissioner to Fill Vacancy Created by Resignation of D. E. Barker. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the resignation of Planning Commissioner D. E. Barker with regret. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Mayor Thompson addressed the audience asking anyone who would like to submit a name for consideration for appointment as Planning Commissioner, to submit this name to the City Manager's office. 23. ORAL COMMUNICATION: a) A letter from the Beaumont Police Reserves was presented to the Council requesting an increase in their monthly allocation. This request was continued until a special financial review meeting is held. b) Mayor Thompson stated a Special Meeting should be called to discuss the financial picture, tentatively Thursday, January 21, 1982. c) Mr. Jim Melvin addressed the Council concerning the recent dust storm created by the field owned by Deutsch Company and leased by Al Dysart, citing Penal Code Sections 370 and 373.a as a means of taking action. He requested the Council's cooperation in directing the Police Department to make the necessary report. Page 3 I On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont directs the Police Department to L prepare a report delineating the severity of the dust problem created by the Deutsch Company /Dysart property as it affected the people of Beaumont, and in particular the High School, the Valley Mobile Home Park and the Cherrywood Senior Citizen Apartments for submittal to the District Attorney's office. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont directs that a copy of the Police Department report concerning the dust problem be forwarded to Supervisor Kay Cineceros with a request for her follow -up in the enforcement of existing County ordinances. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:03 P.M. Respectfully submitted, /W-44-. Uge -a� DEPU Y CITY CLERK, City of Beaumont Page 4 BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF JANUARY 25, 1982 1. The Beaumont City Council met in a regular meeting at 7:40 P.M., on Monday, January 25, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor Thompson presiding. 2. The invocation was given by Reverand Bruce Cooper. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Councilman May. 4. On Roll Call the following Council Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 5. There being no additions, deletions or corrections, the Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of January 11, 1982 were ordered filed as presented. 6. There being no objections, the Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of January 5, 1982 were accepted as presented and ordered filed. 7. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, warrants as audited per Warrant List of January 25, 1982, in the amount of $73,170.42 and Payroll of January 22, 1982, in the amount of $24,587.41 were approved for payment as audited. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 8. ORDINANCE NO. 542 - Repealing Ordinance No. 478 and Providing for the Playing of Bingo Pursuant to Section 19 of Article IV of the State Constitution and Section 326.5 of the Penal Code. SECOND READING. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont passes Ordinance No. 542 at its second reading by title only, repealing Ordinance No. 478 and Providing for the playing of Bingo pursuant to Section 19 of Article IV of the State Constitution and Section 326.5 of the Penal Code. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor.Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 11. (Out of Sequence). Agreement for Performance of Services Relating to Dogs and Other Domestic Animals. The City Manager informed the Council that a Cherry Valley contractor had called and volunteered his services, as well as material he had left from a job, to upgrade the Beaumont animal shelter, and was in the process of doing this upgrading. Dr. Randhawa, of the Abby Animal Clinic, addressed the Council stating the comments made regarding tick infestation on the site of the animal shelter were totally incorrect from his professional point of view, and he did not feel there would be a problem if the facility is utilized. Dr. Randhawa also restated his offer to volunteer his services to put the animals to sleep, so long as the City paid for the serum and dis- posal of the animals. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, this agenda item was continued until the regular meeting of February 8, 1982. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. n n_ i 9. PUBLIC HEARING - 8:00 P.M. Appeal filed by Joseph Kirklin of Planning Commission Decision denying Change of Zone Request - Beaumont Avenue at First Street. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:00 P.M. At the request of Mayor Thompson, Mr. Gary Croft, Chief Planner for the City of Beaumont gave the background concerning this Change of Zone Request and subsequent appeal. Mr. Croft: Briefly, the background starts with Mr. Schooley, who approached us during the summer to request the change of zone on his parcel, which is the southerly most parcel of the group of six parcels that were heard in this zone change. At the time he indicated he wanted a commercial use on the property, and in reviewing the general plan and the zoning, it was indicated to him that commercial use would not be likely, since there was no general plan designation for commercial in that portion of the City; and that it would be possible to consider an industrial use, since there was an industrial designation somewhat to the north of that parcel. However, that the intervening parcels between his parcel and those parcels which were currently designated industrial would have to be included in that zone change. Some time in late September then, Mr. Kirklin,,on behalf of Mr. Schooley and Mr. Shuler, filed an application for a zone change on three parcels. In taking that to the Commission, it was recognized that these parcels were not contiguous either to the existing designated general plan industrial area, or to existing in- dustrial zoning and thus would constitute unreasonable extension of the general plan, and also spot zoning. As a result, the Planning Commission added three additional parcels, which were currently under industrial type uses - one being the Gas Company, Southern California Gas Company. . . Mr. Schooley's parcel, which was the most southerly of the six parcels involved were those (pointing to a map). The Gas Company, which has their major facility on this parcel, was added by the Planning Commission, as was this parcel, which was 84 Lumber, and this parcel, which is owned by Buckeye Gas, which is a bottle gas company. At the hearing, the staff recommendation included those parcels out- lined in yellow, to be included with the general plan, and the industrial zoning, including these three, which were added by the Commission, and this parcel of Mr. Shulers. The staff recommendation was not to include Mr. Schooley's or Mr. Shuler's, as it was still considered to be unreasonable extension of the general plan, and of the zoning designation. The Commission, following the hearing, made a recommendation and passed that only those two parcels, which were shown in blue - that is the parcels northerly of First Street, which included 84 Lumber and the Buckeye Gas Products Company,'be included in their recommendation for the change of zone. Following this, then, Mr. Kirklin filed an appeal with the Council to cover the appeal of the denial then on these parcels to the south, which he represented. Mayor Thompson: He represents the three parcels - 1, 2 and 3? Mr. Croft: Yes. These two of Mr. Shuler's and this one of Mr. Schooley's. The final portion of the report, and is that the staff recommendation then is to recommend a denial of the appeal, and approval of the change of zone as was recommended by the Planning Commission from the existing R -A zoning to M -1 zoning based on the following findings: 1. The proposed zoning is consistent with the logical extension of the existing general plan industrial category. 2. The proposed zoning would be consistent with surrounding zoning. 3. The proposed zoning would be consistent with existing deve- lopment. 4. Further extension of the industrial general plan category and industrial zoning would not be consistent with the three findings noted above. Page 2 Mayor Thompson: Does the Council have any questions for now? I think I will reserve my questions for later. Councilman Hammel: I would like to ask you if this is proper - how are these properties included in future plans for the master plan, as far as the zoning is concerned? Mr. Croft: The proposed general plan, which is all but completed by the Citizens Advisory Committee, essentially draws a line at First Street for the industrial, that is northerly of First Street would be industrial, with the exception of those houses over along Maple, which are currently occupied as residential use. And then southerly of First Street, continuing on outside the City in future annexation areas would be reserved for residential - agriculture. Councilman Lowry: May I ask a question. Isn't it quite common, if you have an industrial area, to interpose a commercial area between that and residen- tial areas? If possible? Mr. Croft: It is done on occasion. It depends on the type of industrial. Frequently very light industrial park type development with the electronics industry and their associated offices and design and engineering actually fit better into residential areas then do commercial development, which usually has high traffic and a lot of daily going and coming. So it really depends on the type of industrial as to whether or not it is appropriate next to residential. Councilman Lowry: You said design and what other one is light industrial you called . . . design I consider more or less commercial. Mr. Croft: In the area that is typical in California you might think of would be the area up around San Jose, which is often called the silicon valley, where they have an awful lot of industrial development which is primarily involved with electronics. In that type of development quite normally it fits in much better with residential uses then commercial uses, simply because they have only one daily going and coming to work normally, and there is very little noise involved, or other obnoxious type of activities. Councilman Lowry: Manufacturing noise is what you are saying. It is mostly wiring operation, and so forth. Councilman Shaw: Do you want to spell out to the public item four - further extension of the industrial general plan category and industrial zoning would not be consistent with the three findings noted above - you want to explain that a little bit. Mr. Croft: Basically the existing general plan as adopted, and existing zoning, has the industrial area ending somewhere in the neighborhood of Second Street. Which is approximately at this location (pointing at map). Northerly of that we currently find industrial zoning and the industrial category existing adopted general plan of the City. The proposed general plan proposes to extend that further south to First Street in terms of industrial uses. Frequently, the general plan as a matter of logical exten- sion, since it isn't like zoning in that it doesn't draw hard, fast boundaries, there can be some flexibility in the boundaries between different categories. But the extension of that category from this point down into here seems a bit excessive in terms of the distance. We are talking about a quarter of a mile. Mayor Thompson: I want to reserve any more questions until later. We will hear from the appellant. Joseph Kirklin, representing Mr. Schooley and Mr. Shuler: The main thing, Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council, is that we felt after the hearing that we had not gotten a fair and unbiased hearing concerning the zoning. To begin with, when we applied for it, we contacted Mr. Croft and asked him about the zoning, and for his recommendation and information. He recommended that these parcels be re- zoned, and that they be put together if we were going to put in manufacturing zoning. This is one of the reasons we applied for the other parcel. I contacted Mr. Shuler to find out if he wanted to go with this, and he did. When we came to the zoning hearing, we really did not get a fair hearing that we feel with the Planning Commission because Gene Thompson completely controlled the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission was never given, I feel, a chance Dann I to make the consideration on their own. He held the whole evening and made his own statement after Mr. Croft had suggested that the zoning be denied. Now, when we first made the approach on this . . when we first approached the City to ask them about the zoning, we were going to ask for these two parcels and this one to be zoned (pointing at the map) manufacturing. That is all we requested. When we came back to Mr. Croft and suggested this, he suggested that we go back and put this parcel, this parcel and this parcel in with those to make it consecutive parcels, so that they would be manu- facturinq. We thought this would be a good idea because sooner or later Beaumont Avenue is either going to go commercial or manufacturing, because nobody is going to build homes on either side of this street where we have got a lumber company, we have already got a gas company, we've got what used to be Cal- Floral, we have got the Yates Company, all this is going to go down Beaumont Avenue. We are not interested in extending any farther, and I am sure that if they are approached later on to have it extended any farther it is probably going to be refused. But we thought that since Beaumont Avenue was the entrance to the City, most of the manufacturing is where you come into the entrance to the City. So we approached Mr. Croft with this idea. Mr. Croft made these suggestions for these parcels himself, and we should face the truth as to the fact why these two parcels were put in there. This parcel here, when 84 Lumber Company built, and of course this City Council wasn't sitting, and the Planning Commission wasn't sitting. We had a different one, this was given a permit to build. . . . . . .. . . . and in doina so for the City to cover its tracks, it had to rezone this parcel here to cover 84 Lumber Company zoning. So this was brought in to make it contiguous with the other parcels. What is this zoning here . . . . . . o.k. . . . . . . . . (statements unintelligible on tape). Will you tell me what sense it makes in putting this little parcel in here residential - agricultural to manufacturing and not going ahead and carry it on through to the City Limits, which would be the normal thing to do. We had this same problem if you remember on Beaumont Avenue between 12th and 14th Streets. They carried commercial up to 12th Street years ago, and they never did carry it clear to 14th Street, which really it should have been commercial all through that area, because it was the main street going through town. Anyway, I won't take a lot of your time with this explanation, but we approached Mr. Croft - he suggested this and even three days before the time of the hearing, I talked with Mr. Croft and he still said that he could see no problem. He thought this should go through. This as a surprise the night we had the hearing, he was the first one to get up to make a recommenda- tion that these parcels be excluded from the zoning. Now I still feel that this should be zoned contiguous with the rest of it here. Otherwise it doesn't make sense that these two little pieces would be picked out by theirselves, and the rest of it left residential - agricultural, and then residential - agricultural down below these pieces. There has to be better reasoning to it than that. But Mr. Schooley, this gentlemen here, is the one who requested the zoning, and I would appreciate it if I could turn the comment over to Mr. Schooley and let him explain what his situation is to you. Mr. Ray Schooley, owner of the property described by Mr. Kirklin: What I would like to ask Gary, because this is the second time that I have had a situation like this where Gary has more or less assured me or my representatives that he was supporting a particular zone that I had requested on property. The other one being at the corner of 14th and Beaumont Avenue, and pulled the rug out from under me, so to speak, at the hearing. And, in spite of the comment that Gene Thompson made at the Planning Commission hearing on this, that Ray Schooley is a speculator, and I don't think we should change zoning to support his wishes - which, incidentally, I think probably re- quires a little bit of reprimanding. I would like to think that to invest in a half a million dollars in real estate in this town, that I command a little more respect - and the comments that Mr. Gene Thompson made, and also Gary to the extent that a lot of time and a lot of fees are spent - put up front - in this case about $350.00 - the previous one about the same - and you know you do a lot of research on this - and you talk to your engineers - and your planners and consultants, before you make these types of investments, based upon the direction of growth, and what is going on in the area, and you come back and you consult somebody like Gary, and he kind of felt, indicates, that yeah that is very logical, right up to the zero hour. And, in this particular case, I didn't even show up at the Planning Commission meeting because I was assured that it was going to be recommended based upon what we had discussed, so it is the second time that I have been shocked to find out at the meeting that some- thing has been reversed around - and I guess my question to Gary is how does one abruptly change his mind overnight - or in a matter of three days? I don't know, I have been in this business since I was nineteen years old . . . . (tape ends, conversation begins on next tape as follows) . . . . 84 Lumber, a high traffic street such as Beaumont Avenue, I've got the gas company to the rear of me, I have a chicken ranch on the other side of me. I really can't see estate homes along there, or even residential zoning. I initially talked in terms of commercial facilities that would possibly take on a nursery, possibly somebody that does a little bit of light assembly or manufacturing and having a sales office on the front on Beaumont Avenue. Gary talked me into, or basically suggested that we can't go the commercial, but M -1 allows it, so let's go that way. So here I am caught in a dilemma, if you can appreciate what I am saying, I relied on a suggestion, spent $350.00, and a lot of time, maybe I wouldn't have even closed the escrow on this deal way back when if I was informed that - hey, it is not possible. Another situation that wasn't brought up either - at least the way I understand it - we are soon going to have an overpass, and it is going to wipe out a lot of your commercial, and when that takes place, the next logical, as you come off this ramp, for commercial, or the type of things I described - maybe a little convenience shopping strip in there or what have you, is my piece of property and Mr. Shuler's piece of property. I am here to find out where do we go from here. Mr. Kirklin: I think you should understand too, that Mr. Schooley was responsible for 84 Lumber Company being put in here. He has come in and spent time and quite a bit of money in the City of Beaumont. He owns 17 acres on 14th Street where we were trying to get a Von's Market in here, and we almost had it to that point, but there was so much confusion over the zoning, it was cancelled out. So he spent a lot of money here, he has invested a lot ofd money in the City of Beaumont, he wants the town to go, and he wants to make money naturally, but if the town doesn't go, he is not going to make any money. So he wants the best thing for the City too. So I think we should consider the fact that what is best for the City - not for me - not for Mr. Schooley - or not for the people who own homes in the area down there that are a half mile away - we should consider the fact what is the best thing for the City of Beaumont for a change, and see if that wouldn't help out in helping everybody in the City. Mr. Schooley has put a lot of time and a lot of effort in here because he felt like the City was worthwhile. And I think this should be taken into consideration because this - the way this is re- zoned, these two spots that were re -zoned - there has to be a reason for it. You don't just re -zone two spots and cut the other three'or four out unless there is a very good specific reason. I think this should be investigated by the City Council. Mr. Schooley: I would like to wind up what I have to say, of course with the right to rebut afterward, if necessary, that if there is some confusion as to the M -1 and the commercial, which, again, I was put in this position by being more or less - it being recommended by Gary to go for the M -1 - if perhaps the neighbors, or people that live around there think that M -1 means that you are going to come in there with a cement manufacturing plant, or be a welding steel, and things like that, that is not the intent at all. The intent was to be what I think belongs there, but under the label of M -1 because M -1 allows commercial uses. If that is the case of the problem here, which Gary rather indicated it might be, I would say that if you do for any reason denying me the M -1, I respectfully request that you approve the commercial, because that is the intent here. I am caught between a rock and a hard place here. Councilman Lowry: In other words that was your first request? Mr. Schooley: Why certainly. We skated around it because there wasn't a provision for it based upon the recommendation. Then I come back and get chopped down. So it is confusing. Mayor Thompson: You have rebuttal time after opponents, I guess. Councilman Hammel: I hope I understand this right. If you would get the M -1 or the commercial, it would comprise all of this property together, right? This entire section would be re- zoned. Mr. Kirklin: Would be re -zoned to M -1 . . . . this parcel here that is outlined already has the existing transmission line for the gas company on it, so it actually should be manufacturing. . . . Councilman Lowry: Or commercial, they have a business office there. Mr. Kirklin: Right, they have a business office there, so it should be commercial or manufacturing already. Otherwise, you really do have a spot zone there. But if you take this as a whole . . . City Manager: It is not a spot zone, it is an illegal use, but . . . Mr. Kirklin: Well, an illegal use, I beg your pardon . . (Unintelligibl city limits on Beaumont Avenue is this whole thing here which is what we were attempting to do in the first place, and which was suggested by Mr. Croft. And this is what we worked up, so Mr. Shuler had these two parcels, the gas company had this one, and Mr. Schooley has this parcel. It is not going to encroach on anybody that has homes on there - it is not going to encroach on anybody who has chickens down there - it is not going to encroach on anything really. Because you have Cal - Floral over here, you have Yates up here, you have a welding shop over by the railroad track, you have another big welding shop sitting over just behind the gas company, which is contiguous to it, so this would all be going into the same thing that you have already started . . . instead of changing because nobody is going to come in here and pay $18,000 to $20,000 for that property and cut it-up and put homes on it. It is going to sit there vacant, and it is not going to do the City any good, it is not going to do the tax structure any good, it is not going to do anybody any good sitting there dormant. Now Mr. Shuler can't possible be a speculator. He has owned this property, and his father owned it before, but he felt this would be the best use for it within the City itself, and I do too. Councilman Lowry: Excuse me, would Mr. Shuler go for commercial instead of M -1 on his property also. Mr. Kirklin: Yes, this is what we were starting for in the beginning. It was changed at the planner's suggestion. Councilman Shaw: Either /or I guess. Councilman Hammel: I have one more question to you - to both of you. Any type of development you might have in commercial, how much would Beaumont Avenue be affected by it by traffic. This is what I am very much concerned about because we have enough traffic,as it is now there. Mr. Kirklin: Well, the way that it is set up with the openings here, you have got plenty of protection coming down off the hill with Mr. Schooley's property. You have plenty of view on coming out on Beaumont Avenue from his property, and also on Mr. Shuler's property. Mr. Shuler's property has access on First Street, so it would be coming off on First Street instead of Beaumont Avenue. Mr. Schooley's would be the only one that would be coming out on Beaumont Avenue. Councilman Lowry: That would be controlled by the plot plan approval anyway. Mr. Schooley: They would have us, undoubtedly, as we go to get a building permit, widen the street and improve it. Also, when they do the overpass with the State Highway Department, there is a plan in there to do that anyway - to widen the access as it comes in, so there is no question whatsoever that that is the most logical zoning for that strip along there. City Manager: Mayor Thompson, may I ask Gary a question just for elimination purposes here. Gary, would it be true that any development on any of those properties fronting Beaumont Avenue would be con- trolled by Cal -Trans in terms of the street itself - openings, etc. Mr. Croft: That is correct. It is a State Highway and they would require the improvements and control access . . . Page 6 City Manager: It wouldn't be a City decision. Whatever is going to be allowed is going to be . . . the input is going to come from Cal -Trans when and if the properties were ever developed, no matter what the purpose. Mayor Thompson: Any other questions for Mr. Schooley or Mr. Kirklin? Councilman May: Well my question was concerning the traffic down there, I know it is a bottleneck. Mayor Thompson: Well, we always have problems with traffic no matter what kind of development comes in any where. Councilman Hammel: But Norm answered this question just now - with Cal -Trans . . . Councilman Lowry: We don't have control of it. Mr. Schooley: If anything, development will help cure some of your traffic problems because the streets are grossly inadequate, and in order to get a building permit you have to bring them up to present specs, which helps everybody at the developer's expense. Mayor Thompson: Are there any other questions at this time. We will probably reserve some questions until we hear the other side, and we reserve the right to come back to ask our questions. May we have the ones that, I guess you would say they are opposed to the appeal. Dennis Duranso, 10 California Avenue: I would be opposed to this zoning change for personal reasons because I happen to reside directly behind that property. My property abuts the lower portion there, and I really didn't move to this City to be surrounded by industrial complexes. I think that is the concensus of the citizens committee that is forming the General Plan that they would like that area to remain a green belt area - a buffer zone for the City, and that would be my feeling also. It would . . . I would start to worry about whether my property would start then to be . . . I don't know what the terminology would be - if that is all industrial then my property doesn't have the same use as that property - what is the terminology I am looking for here . . City Manager: Non - conforming. Councilman Lowry: Would you object to commercial as well as . . . Mr. Duranso: Yes I would. . . . then my property is not conforming to the property next to mine - and then mine has to be re -zoned or whatever. But my main concern is that myself and my family didn't move into that area of the town to be surrounded by industrial or commercial or whatever. We like our way of life out there, and . . Councilman Lowry: What is the size of your property sir. Mr. Duranso: I have four acres.. Councilman Lowry: What is the size of yours Mr. Schooley? Mr. Schooley: Six acres. Mayor Thompson: Is there anyone else who would like to speak to this portion of it? Bill Killough: My name Street, and I am totally most of the City Council to build a new house. I considerable investment, or an M zoning. Ls Bill Killough. I reside at 649 East First opposed to a C zone or an M zone. I think know me. I am in the process of attempting have met all of the City requirements at a and I am not in favor of commercialization Councilman Lowry: Where is your property located, sir, on that map? Mr. Croft: His is the second property to the East of Mr. Shuler's property. Mr. Killough: Yes, east of Beaumont Avenue and south of First Street. PaaP 7 Councilman Hammel: And how much land have you got. Mr. Killough: 11.43 acres. Mr. Croft: He has just completed a parcel map to allow for construction Mr. Killough: I have just completed subdivision and, as I said, have met all the City's requirements attempting to live in a country atmosphere, and commercialization would totally destroy this. From both the pollution standpoint, traffic congestion, you name it, we would have it. Basically, this is my feeling on this. My wife and I both are opposed, I am sure that the neighbors are opposed to it. As I say, I sure most of you know, because I have appealed here - I appealed the Board - different various decisions. I am sure I am known to you. Councilman May: Would you be opposed to electronic or real clean manufacturing out there - or light manufacture like electronics, no smoke . . . Mr. Killough: Sure, because you would end up - you put manufacturing in you increase your traffic flow, and I am abutting directly on to First Street you increase your traffic on that. You increase your noise pollution - your traffic pollution - your likelihood of more crime - you bring more people into it, so . . . Councilman Lowry: You already heard Gary Croft say that everything north of First Street is going to be manufacturing according to the general plan. Mr. Killough: I have no quarrel with this. I say that the City of Beaumont needs manufacturing. Councilman Lowry: Yes, but it is right across from your property . . Mr. Croft: His home happens to be across from the residential area along Maple, which will, on the proposed general plan, be reserved for residential. Where his existing home and the home is is going to . . . Councilman Lowry: You mean he is around the corner and down on Maple down some distance . Mr. Croft: He is on First Street approximately to the southwest corner of Maple. Councilman Lowry: How far east is manufacturing going to go on the general plan. Mr. Croft: The general plan will include the existing industrial development along First Street to the back of Orange. Councilman Lowry: Only one block, I see. Mr. Croft: And then it will cut out an area for residential. Councilman Lowry: Maple is the next block over then. Mr. Croft: That is correct. That is if it is adopted by the Council. Councilman Shaw: What is the total acreage in that area. Do you have any idea. Mr. Croft: In the proposal. Approximately 16 acres if I recall right. I don't have the staff report, but I believe it is about 16 acres. Councilman Lowry: Mr. Shuler's property east of Beaumont, how close is that to Orange Street - where it ends? Is that a half a block about? Mr. Killough: One five acre parcel in between myself and Mr. Shuler's property. Mr. Croft: It is between 250 and 300 feet. I believe the blocks are Paae 8 about 260 or 270 feet in length east /west. It is essentially the distance from one end of this building to the other end of this building. Mayor Thompson: Does anybody have a question from Bill? Mr. Killough: One other thing - I don't want to keep repeating myself, to show you my determination take care of my project ,I had, as I say I have done everything that the City required, at a considerable investment through all the paperwork and all those other things, so I would hate to see my investment obliterated by commercialization by an M zoning. Thank you. Bob Young, 39 California Street: I am a resident now on the south side, and we are south of First Street over on California. Now that does seem a little bit far removed from your project, however, as a member of the Citizens Action Committee, we chose to keep the green belt in an R -A zone south of first street to prevent any encroachment of the business and the commercial, manufacturing areas in there. Obviously we can't have Southern California Gas move - but we would if we could. The reason for this is that, as my brother -in -law, Mr. Duranso attempted to come up with, in Section 490, the building code I believe, in the zoning it cites in the commercial, manufacturing one and manufacturing two zones that inharmonious land use would constitute taking over either R -A or whatever other zones might be in there. Our fear is, and it could very possibly happen, that the parcel immediately east, oh I'm sorry, west of the Southern California Gas Company right now at some time could be shown, or could be proven to be inharmonious land use to R -A, which means now that it is turned into commercial for manufacturing. The next parcel on, and it just keeps growing - the next thing you know those people on the south side of First Street are going to be aced right out of the property that they own now. Unidentified: That is strictly speculation. Mr. Young: That's what we are asking not have continued what are you going are asking is - we the line. So make of First Street - true, but the wording is there. What we are saying, is that it not be allowed to continue. It should up to those two little blue areas, but it is there, to do - level th2m? This is our point. All we have got to make a division there - somewhere along it First Street. If it is in on the north side so be it - City Manager: Mr Young, could I ask you to address the Council, and then we won't have this interplay with the audience. Mr. Young: Well this is the same thing that we went through in another issue, and I am sure you are all aware of what I am speaking of. And it is the same thing - keep it on the north side of First Street. That is all we are asking, and leave the R -A zone alone on the south side of First. This is what the citizen action committee has done - this is another area they are interested in, in keeping it just that way. Councilman Shaw: How big a parcel do you have. Mr. Young: I have three acres on the west side of California. As I say, I seem to be a little bit removed from this project, but my reason for being here is also kind of a spokesperson for the people who live on the south side of First Street. There are a few of us down there, and we moved there - we built there - we established our homes there for the country atmosphere and the rural type living. Mayor Thompson: Question. I think I may have missed something. You were talking about Ordinance 490 and inharmonious land use. I think I missed something. Give me an example of what we are talking about. You said something about to the west of Southern California Gas . . . Mr. Young: Yes. That now is . . . Mayor Thompson: Excuse me sir - from the boundary of Southern California Gas Company to California would be the next north /south street wouldn't it? How far are we talking approximately? Mr. Croft: Around 250 to 300 feet. Mayor Thompson: Say 300 feet? Mr. Young: I don't know the gentleman who owns that piece of property, but if he were to want to develop it, it is in an R -A zone now. Councilman Lowry: Excuse me. I would like -I would like to ask Gary Croft a question about this too. I asked how far west of Beaumont Avenue was the M -1 zone in the general plan. How far east - wait a minute, I said east - how far west now beyond 84 Lumber and Buckeye is the proposed M -1 zone to extend north of First Street. Mr. Croft: It would continue along First Street to what was Walnut Avenue, which would include the project being built by the Baldis. That would be about 250 -300 feet west of California. This would all be on the north side. Councilman Lowry: In other words, just north of your property now on First Street you have M -1 zoning? Mr. Young: Yes, and we didn't like it then either. Mr. Croft: You may recall Mr. Young showed up at the hearing in oppo- sition. Mr. Young: I am getting to be a familiar face, and I don't like to make the business community think that I am against business, that is not the truth at all, but I am sure that none of you, if you lived in an area that you had chosen to build your house, or your home, would like to have it turned over to commercial, or to manufacturing. This is all I am saying. I understand these gentlemen have more than a right to pursue a business venture, but we are here at this hearing just to make our views known. This is what we would like to do - this is the way we would like to keep it. I am glad that we have hearings like this where we can come out and at least give you our thoughts on it, rather than just sit back. We are interested in Beaumont. That is why I settled here. And I am interested in the business community, several of my friends in the audience tonight are in the business community, and I would really like to see it prosper. I am not interested in the Orange County spread. I am not interested in seeing Beaumont at 50,000 people plus. We owe something to the community that is here today, not ones that we are liable to attract by the year 2000. Let us get our sewer plant - let us get our water plant - let us get our police protection - fire protection up to adequate size for the people that we have here now. Get those situations taken care of then let us talk about expanding. The other point I would like to bring up is that the traffic out on Beaumont Avenue now, just with the community as it is now, I don't know how many of you have reason to go down that way on the weekends, but it is rough. It is rough getting out there. Cal -Trans would have a picnic with any in -roads into it or exits out of it. Councilman Lowry: Well they would govern that, and they would widen the street. Mr. Young: They would have to do something. There is too much traffic on there now that is uncontrolled, and as Mr. Killough alluded to also on First Street. That is going to be a problem. Councilman Lowry: There will probably be additional streets in a property of this size which would be constructed as this develops I would assume. Mr. Young: But this is some of the feelings of the people from down in that area, while they may not be affected by it immediately, this is some of the concern that they are showing. We have already had one roundabout with the Baldi Bros. that went through. We are not too very happy about it, but hopefully we can become peaceful neighbors. But this is about as far as we would like to see it go. If you take Paqe 10 a minute to check that Ordinance 490, it is in the first paragraph of the M -1 and the M -2 zone. Right in there it talks about inharmonious land uses. And there is no mistaking what that means. O.K., the chicken ranches are down there. If the business community or if the commercial community were allowed to expand, those people would be the first people to be affected. Because nobody is going to build a motel complex or a shopping center, or even a commercial center down there and have to worry about the flies, and perhaps the smell. It is there, let's face it. You can't deny it. I live within spiting distance of one of them, but I knew them when I moved there. And I would really hate to think that I'would have the gumption to walk over to my neighbor and say, hey, you know I have a nice house over here - I want you out of here. That is ridiculous. This is really the way I feel about this proposed re- zoning. Thank you very much. Mr. Croft: I might make a comment on the poultry. That is in the unincorporated area of the County, and not in the City. The County several years ago passed an ordinance requiring that all poultry go into poultry zoning, or be abandoned after twenty years. That will be coming up around 1991 as I recall. Of this date they have not re -zoned to poultry zoning, and there is little probability being adjacent to the City that that would occur. Jim Cunningham, 11 South Palm: I have eighteen acres south of First Street. I am opposed to any M -1 zoning any further south than First Street. Mayor Thompson: Do we have any other persons here that wishes to oppose the granting of the appeal. Any other comments for the opponents? Any other comments from the opponents on this hearing? Joe, do you have a final closing statement for the proponent? Mr. Kirklin: There are just two things I would like to make a remark on. First of all, the gentleman that got up here and talked about building the new home up there, I am sure that nobody, including myself, wants to see his investment go down the tubes. But if you will look on the map, not this thing here, but you can see realistically is, but if you go out and look at the area you will see he is quite aways away from there - he has got quite a bit of greenbelt in between him and this area - this particular area - both of them. Mr. Cunningham is right across the street from Mr. Schooley, but he has built up on Palm Avenue, which is quite some distance away. I am sure he will have animals or something in that property that goes down to Beaumont Avenue. But I think it all boils down to one thing. Are we going to be interested in the individual, whether it is Mr. Schooley, Mr. Cunningham or the other gentleman, Mr. Young - or are we going to be interested in the City of Beaumont. Whichever way you vote, vote for the best thing for Beaumont. I don't want you to vote for Mr. Schooley - I don't want you want to vote for me, or these individuals that came up here. Vote for what is best for Beaumont, because Beaumont has got to grow, it can't stay at a standstill - it can't stay a small town, as much as we would like for it to be. I have been here twenty -five years in the real estate business. I love Beaumont just as much as anybody does. I have my business here, and I stay here in Beaumont, even though I live in Hemet I kept my office here in Beaumont because I like the Beaumont area, and I want to see it advance, but I think it is going to have to advance - I don't think it can stand still, and wish that we could all have the perfect setup - it is just an impossible thing to do. So whatever is best for Beaumont that is what I want. I am sure that is what Mr. Schooley wants too. Mayor Thompson: Thank you Joe. Mr. Schooley do you have a rebuttal to any of the things brought up by the opponents? Mr. Schooley: Well it seems that the issue here would be if you approved commercial that I had requested that before obtaining any permits to do anything there, you still have the latitude of creating some sort of a buffer at the rear of my property, and the gentleman . . . .(unintelligble . . . excuse me what is your name? How long have you lived on your property. Unidentified: Three years. Mr. Schooley: Well, three years ago I started coming to this town Page 11 about three years ago. The point shortly, that I am trying to make is the gas company was there, the chicken ranch was there, neither of them provided any buffer for this gentleman's property. I am proposing that in order to do what I would like to do, that prior to any con- struction there, that I would have to dedicate a certain portion of my property at the rear as a buffer, with trees, or whatever it takes to help soften the transition. I know those chickens are there, I know the gas company is there. What are my alternatives. If I don't go and do something planned, that is property planned, and offer some sort of a buffer - guarantee if I was to go out there and decide to feed cattle out there, or raise poultry out there, or some sort of venture like that - which I don't know if you call manufacturing or not - guarantee you that I would have the same arguement, or very, very similar. It is just human nature that if you are there first, and you think you have found utopia, you don't want to see somebody else come in and change it. I have been fighting these arguments for twenty years - twenty years from now we will be arguing the same thing. The proper thing to do is plan it in the right fashion and create buffers and things that soften the transition, which kind of gets a little bit of both worlds in there. I am not trying to come in there and jam something down somebody's throat. Thank you. Mayor Thompson: We have heard from both sides, and the rebuttal from the appellant. There are a few questions that I would like to ask, and this is of Gary. On the map there on the wall, the big map, can you show us approximately where First Street is on the big map. Mr. Croft: First Street is in this position. Mayor Thompson: Now the p constitute what portion of are looking? Mr. Croft: It constitutes Buckeye Gas and 84 Lumber. of Southern California Gas roperty in question, parcels in question, the present grain area. Is that where we these two parcels, which are occupied by These two parcels of Mr. Shulers, this one Company, and this one of Mr. Schooleys. Mayor Thompson: And this goes right to the City limits? Mr. Croft: Right to the City limits, correct. The poultry in question is located in this position. Mayor Thompson: Does anyone else have a question? I have another question. One of the opponents indicated that he was a member of the citizens advisory committee for the general plan update. O.K. I think you mentioned a minute ago that the general plan for all practical purposes was completed except for acceptance, or submission for acceptance. Is that correct? Mr. Croft: Yes. The next meeting will be - If I am correct - will be a joint meeting with the Planning Commission as a workshop related to the final draft of that general plan. And then, beginning on the 16th of February, there will be hearings before the Planning Commission on the general plan. So the citizens advisory committee has, in essence, completed their work. Mayor Thompson: Preliminary recommendation for the general plan update concerning that area is what? Mr. Croft: Northerly of First Street and east of what is Walnut, that is where these parcels - these here - that is for these parcels through here - would be for industrial, with the exception of the area around Maple, which is currently developed to residential use. All the rest of that would be as a residential - agricultural use. Approximately two units to the acre maximum. Mayor Thompson: That is in the preliminary recommendation. It has not been adopted yet. Mr. Croft: It has to go through hearings with the Commission. Mayor Thompson: But that is the preliminary recommendation. Let me pose a "what if" situation. What if the appeal was upheld, and just remember this is a "what if ". I am just asking for information. What Page 12 if the appeal was upheld - what would this do to the recommendation of the general plan and citizens committee for general plan. Mr. Croft: It wouldn't change their recommendation. What it would require would be consideration during the Planning Commission hearings of amending that proposed general plan, and review at that time, both at the Commission and at the City Council. Ultimately, the zoning would have to be consistent with the general plan. Should the general plan hearings result in upholding that - the appeal - then the general plan would need to be modified from its current draft. If it were denied, then there would be a consistency zoning hearing, and the zoning would be returned to R -A. Mayor Thompson: Remember, I said "what if ". It was just an information question. I have one other question. Somewhere along here we were talking about - I think Mr. Schooley mentioned it - the overpass will wipe out basically existing commercial. The overpass on Beaumont Avenue. How would this affect the present, or the proposed, M -1 or M zone from the existing commercial. Can you give me an idea on that? Mr. Croft: M zone is designed primarily for manufacturing and by our current ordinance also allows commercial uses. If the ordinance were to be changed and exclude commercial uses, then it would not affect commercial uses at all. That is up to the amendments of the land use ordinance that are being proposed. In terms of the overpass, should it be built, and, incidentally, it is no longer on the recommended list of projects by Cal - Trans. It fell off the bottom again. If it were to go through it would eliminate the use of commercial at the intersection of Third and Beaumont Avenue, as that would be at a point where there would either be a large embankment or, at the least, a bridge without access to Beaumont Avenue. It would, as their drawings propose, take out some of the commercial at Fourth Street - not all of it however, and Fourth Street would continue to have access to Beaumont Avenue. It would only take out those businesses which were immediatley adjacent to Beaumont Avenue at Fourth Street. The service station, the Shell station. Colony Kitchen would remain, as would the land - most of the land where the service station is located would be available for use, however it would not have direct access to Beaumont Avenue. Councilman May: One other question, if that bridge did go in there and widen it out, there is some residential property down there that would have to be purchased by the State, or somebody, to make a wider road through there. Because it is very narrow right in through there where, I think, there are two or three houses that are sitting there in close to the road now. Mr. Croft: I believe the houses are gone - but it would necessitate purchasing up to about seventy feet on either side of the existing Beaumont right -of -way, and any development that would be going in currently would be taking that into account, as it is coming through the planning and engineering in their review. Councilman Shaw: How does that railroad in there - that siding - come into the picture in that area? Doesn't that enter into the picture somewhere. Mr. Croft: The siding? Not directly in reference to Beaumont Avenue. It is really off to the side. It causes a wider right -of -way through there, but doesn't directly affect the development along Beaumont Avenue. Mayor Thompson: Are there any other questions from Gary? We are getting ready to close the public hearing. There is one more thing I have, and again it is part of the notes, and on number two it says - how does Planning Department reverse its opinion so abruptly. I don't remember the exact context in which that was put out. Mr. Croft: That was the comment I was going to make was relative to that. As I outlined in my staff report to you, I had made no decision on this project, as I indicated, I initially talked with Mr. Schooley Page 13 relative to a commercial project, and indicated to him that was not consistent with the general plan, and that the only general plan cate- gory in the area that would allow non - residential development was the industrial category somewhat to the north, and that in order to consider his property we would have to consider extending the general plan and including all those parcels intervening between his and the existing designated general plan and industrially zoned area. And that is why they followed through with the type of application that they made. I made no indication that I either supported or objected to that. But that was the only possibility of considering that parcel. As far as Mr. Kirk ins comment relative to changing my opinion, as I indicated, I did not write the staff report until after 5:00 on the night it was due - there was no other staff around, and that was when I made the decision. It is not normal that I make a decision until, as Mr. Schooley indicates, I had gathered all the facts, and I did not have all the facts until I was ready to write the staff report. That was when the decision was made. I actually considered a half a dozen different alternatives including the entire parcel or recommending denial on the entire parcel - or approve on the entire parcel or any individual number of parcels. The Southern California Gas Company, incidentally, although it is normally considered a non - conforming use, is an institutional use, and by our ordinance, and most ordinances in the State, are permitted as non - conforming uses as a public use, the same as schools, churches, hospitals, and other types of public entities. The telephone company is another use. And these are allowed in resi- dential as well as commercial and industrial areas. Mayor Thompson: On a public hearing the normal procedure is to hear both sides of the appeal, have staff bring in their side of it, and then the routine procedure is to close the public hearing and render a decision within a prescribed time as outlined in the ordinance that governs the appeal, which is 490. Primarily the reason for that is to give the Council or Planning Commission a chance to review the tape and evidence that has been presented both for and against, and to com- pare this evidence - testimony - whatever you call it - to the require- ments of the ordinance on which the appeal is based. If we have no objections from the Council, we can close the public hearing at this time and render the decision within the prescribed period of time - which, I think, is forty days. However, I don't remember a Council ever taking that long to -- once we get the testimony. So does any Council Member have a question to Gary? Councilman Hammel: Gary, I would like to ask you, don't you feel what is the use of this City spending big money for a general plan, and then not comply by it. In other words, you are trying to build something, you are trying to shape it, trying to form it, trying to put this package together - why should we have spent thousands of dollars for a general plan, if we don't want to go by it. City Manager: Well I know you have asked that question of Gary, but I would suggest you have no general plan - you are in the formative stage, and until you, the Council, make that decision, you don't have a general plan. You, the Council, are really charged with the final analysis with making that decision - so, that is all part of the process. Mr. Croft: The existing general plan is the one that was adopted in 1973, which, in effect, shows the industrial area coming into the City somewhere between Second and Third Streets, but the proposed one - it is essential, in fact, it is required under State law that any decision which is rendered relative to planning be consistent with the general plan as it is adopted. Mayor Thompson: Are there any other questions. Then the appeal hearing for Joseph Kirklin on Zone Change 1007 will be closed, and the Council will render a decision within the prescribed period per Ordinance 490. The Public Hearing was closed at 9:13 P.M. At this point in time, the Council allowed Mr. John Mealy, of the County of Riverside Community Development, to address the Council before going to the next public hearing. Mr. Mealy addressed the Council regarding the rehabilitation program that the County is sponsoring with the City and with the City of Banning also, called the Banning - Beaumont Pass Rehabilitation Program which will make rehabilitation loans to people on a deferred loan basis, up to $5,000.00 to allow low income and very low income families to make necessary repairs to their homes. The loans to be paid back when the family sells the house, or if the family should otherwise move out of the house, rent the house out to somebody else. The purpose of the program is to enable people to repair their houses, make them decent, safe and sanitary, to fix up any code violations, otherwise make the houses livable. Mr. Mealy then described the background of the program including funding to the Council, and answered questions from the Council. He then asked for a resolution from the Council endorsing the program. The City Manager was directed to bring a resolution to the next Council meeting. 10. PUBLIC HEARING - 8:00 P.M. - Appeal filed by James L. Hayes of Planning Commission Decision Reapproving Original Site Plan for 680 Beaumont Avenue. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:21 P.M. Gary Croft: This particular project has really a long historical back- ground prior to the applicant's involvement with the parcel. Initially in 1961 Jack Birch proposed to build a commercial center at the south- east corner of Beaumont Avenue and Seventh Street. At that time he requested, by means of variance, permission through the Planning Commission to reduce the parking area below the 50% standard, which was then in the ordinance. A minor deviation was allowed at that time, and he later then came back in 1965 with an amended plot plan to add a small addition on to the back of the building at the southerly end. This request was approved, providing that he maintain the parking as he outlined in his plot plan, and a loading zone at the south end of the property. Sometime later Mr. Birch sold the property and Mr. and Mrs. Wohl purchased it. Eventually, Mr. Hayes, who is the apellant, became one of the leasees in the building. With the permission of Mrs. Wohl, because of his expanding business, he was quickly outgrowing his existing facility, and needed some additional space to use. The Wohls then granted him the opportunity of enclosing a portion of the what was the loading area in the previous plot plan. Incidentally, neither Mr. Hayes or the Wohls were aware of this prior plot plan, as apparently the Building Department was also not aware of it. Initially, a fence was erected. He wanted to cover the area to protect some of the things that he was storing there. He went to the Building Department and obtained a building permit for a patio roof to be placed inside the enclosed fence. The Building Department was not aware of the plot plan requirement and went ahead and issued the permit. Subsequently Mr. Hayes then enclosed the area under the patio roof. It was•at this time, or following this, then, that the Building Department was made aware of this enclosure without a proper permit and sent Mr. Hayes a letter. He then came into the Planning Department and discussed it with the Building and Planning Department, and we indicated that if he were to retain the structure that he had put up, there was only one option in terms of getting approval - and that would be to go to a new plot plan approval for the structure behind the building, after which time, if it were approved, then building permits would be issued to correct any errors or deficiencies. He then, a couple of days later, applied for plot plan 1008, which was scheduled then for hearing on the 17th of November. However, prior to that hearing, oral communication was brought before your Council relative to the problem of the development of that site. And, as a result, the planning staff was asked to give a report back to your Council. That date was scheduled for November 23, which was approximately one week after the scheduled hearing of the Planning Commission. Planning then recommended to the Planning Commission that they continue the item until after the City Council disposed of the oral communication and, as a result, that was staff recommendation to the Commission. Mr. Hayes was not present then at the hearing before the Planning Commission, however, the Commission decided to go ahead and act on the basis of the information which it had, and therefore made a recommendation to deny Mr. Hayes' application. No one was there to either speak in favor or against the project, and as a result of that action he is appealing the plot plan before you, the Council. It has a rather involved and confused history, not the least of which were the two simultaneous actions before two separate bodies, and the differences between the recommendation of the staff and the action taken by the Commission. The staff recommends that Mr. .-. __ - 1 I Hayes be given an opportunity to formally present his request, and that it be given at a new hearing before the Planning Commission, due to the irregularities in notification of Mr. Hayes, which prevented him from being there to appear in his own behalf at the Planning Commission. City Manager: Gary, isn't this a little irregular asking the Council to send it back to the Commission where it has already been heard, even though it wasn't heard in terms of Mr. Hayes being able to appear, they held a hearing, they closed a hearing and made a decision. Now he has appealed that decision evidently. Why recommend it go back to the Commission. Why not just hold the hearing, and if the Council upholds the Commission's decision, then it is upheld, or the Council can grant whatever Mr. Hayes is requesting. I really fail to see why it is being recommended back to the Commission. Mr. Croft: The reason staff is recommending that is because of the irregularities in notification. City Manager: I recognize that. Even though there were irregularities, Commission did hold a hearing - rightly or wrongly - and, after all, the Council is the final determiner, and why not hold the hearing. I just wonder if this is really a legitimate recommendation actually. Mr. Croft: It would be proper to hold this before the Council. City Manager: I know it is proper to hold it here I just wonder if it is really proper to send it back to the Commission, because you could get yourself into a danger here, anytime you might not like a Commission decision, you send it back to them in the hope that, in effect, it could look like you are forcing them to take contrary action in order to come back to the Council and, in effect, you would have something you could understand. I would think there would be a real danger here that you start sending things back to the Commission, once they had held a hearing. City Attorney: I think there is a lot of merit to that because just sending it back - why it sounds like disapproval, in other words you are up here on appeal. I think Council ought to determine this issue while it is here now, rather than send it back. I think that the Council should determine this matter while it is here - right now. There is an appeal pending, and I think it has got to be disposed of. Mayor Thompson: Somewhere along the line you did make reference to the fact that the Building Department was not aware of something. They weren't aware of the plot plan or the development that has been there. Mr. Croft: They weren't aware of really of two things. One they weren't aware of prior actions relative to the parking and loading zone at the rear of the building. That is the prior plot plan approvals. And, two, by their interpretation of the ordinance, they didn't believe that this constituted the need for a plot plan approval. They held it was simply covering a parking place. Mayor Thompson: Who made this determination. Mr. Croft: This was the Building Department. The position of the Building Department was that putting up a patio roof was simply covering an existing parking place in a parking area, which would be permitted if someone has a parking lot and wanted to cover it, make it covered parking, they would be permissible. That was the position they were taking in granting that building permit. City Attorney: Gary, what is the legal affect of approving the appeal. What is going to happen. Mr. Croft: If the appeal is upheld by the Council, then the structure as it exists would be allowed to remain providing that it paid the permit then to enclose the patio roof. Councilman Lowry: But how does that conflict with the required parking, are we in to a . . . Mr. Croft: The parking - that would become a variance to the parking standard. The parking, as it exists today, is not up to the standard which we currently require. City Manager: It isn't up to the standard that was originally required. Mayor Thompson: Under 282, Ordinance 282, under which this building and plot plan was approved, this was the requirement - 50% of the area of the site. Mr. Croft: The actual Commission granted a minor variance to the 50% rule, but it retained the same number of spaces that would have been able to be developed under the 50% rule, actually the design of the parking area could be modified considerably because it shows three tiers of spaces - the 1965 plan - of which the most easterly, that is spaces one through seven actually extend out into the alley. Some three or four feet. If it were redesigned, all the spaces could be accommo- dated on the existing parking area, but it would require a different design of the parking lot to do that. Councilman Lowry: Isn't it a fact that the parking area is much more than adequate at the present for the present uses. You never see that parking lot loaded up and full of cars to my knowledge. Mr. Croft: The existing uses in the building have unique hours in relationship to each other. And, as a result, normally speaking, that is true. In fact the only time the parking lot is full is late at night when only one of the businesses is open. And that is the one - the restaurant to the north. Most of the businesses - two of the businesses do not have access to the parking lot directly from the building in terms of their customers, so, as a result, for the most part, the customers use the street for parking. The others do have access, but the hours of the businesses are quite unique. Mayor Thompson: Thank you Gary, we will get back to you in a little bit as the City representative. Mr. Hayes, your letter of appeal is very eloquent, and in reading it I realize you have a problem. Just to set the record straight, I happen to be on the Planning Commission from 1960 to 1973, at which time I happened to be in on the original development of this particular piece of property, and it was developed in accordance the requirements of Ordinance 282, which has since been repealed. At that time the parking requirements, as indicated, were 500 of the site. I was also there in 1965 when Mr. Birch came back for a modification, and, at the time, it was a reasonable request. Basically, you are appealing the decision of the Planning Commission which says that the structure which has now been built there is illegal. Basically, that is what you are saying? Do you have any basis, other than personal feeling, that the Planning Commission has erred in this sense. Mr. James Hayes: I think it has really been, it was kind of wrong. The way it was handled Planning Commission - or not on my part - whe to come in and asked them to erect a fence up from Mr. and Mrs. Wohl to do this, and I told he needed to go ahead and put the fence up. from the start, I think maybe. Not on the n I got Allen Fence Co. there - I had permission them to go get whatever Mayor Thompson: Where was the fence placed - well - in accordance with this. Mr. Hayes: It comes in the southwest corner. No, southeast corner of the building. At that time Allen Fence Co. came out, I had two or three estimates at the time - Allen Fence Co., they came in and put the fence in - I said do whatever you - you get a permit - whatever you need - I need a fence up out here and I had the permission and all from the landlord - and there was trash drums there at the time. Big trash containers - two of them. They were taking up the parking space. In fact I moved one of the trash cans back so I could put my motor home in there - we stayed in it most of the time trying to get the business started, but Allen Fence Co. went ahead and proceeded - they said as long we go six feet tall we don't need a permit. I said you have already checked it out. They said no problem, they checked it all out. So we got the fence up and people kept climbing over the fence at night. Then they cut all the stringers around at night, and I said, well, we have to do something else, maybe I will put a cover over this thing. So, I went in and got a permit to put a cover within the fence, I guess eight foot tall, so we got that put in. Then people kept cutting the fence, and kept climbing over the fence at nights. Nothing was in there except a couple of motorcycles, but still and all who like to climb a fence I suppose, and that is when I decided well I should go ahead and put the tin on the sides. I hired a guy to put the tin inside the fill it in so that people couldn't see from the outside what was really inside that would excite them and make them want to climb the fence, and I thought it was a pretty nice structure. To me, I hadn't done anything wrong. But, right now, I have being trying to buy - this is a little irregularity here - but I am trying to buy a building, and I just got shot down on it. I found out it was tied up pretty tight, there on Sixth Street here, and after about three weeks of trying to buy the building I found out it was quite a lengthy deal, but I am still trying to buy another location at this time. I think we have got plenty of parking spaces. I don't think nobody really climbing the walls to get in there myself, or the corner bar or anybody else really. Councilman Hammel: Why didn't you put a policedog in the enclosure. Mr. Hayes: I should have sir. I really should have. I have had my problems there. I have overcome most of them. Mr. Davis, here, Chief Bridges - they are all aware of the problems that I have had, but I have overcome them all, and they have left me alone the last few weeks. I've really had a lot of problems. They have kind of stayed away from me a little bit now, so I feel better. But if I can ask the City to bear with me, I am trying, and I have expanded faster than normal, I guess because when you put a lot into something, you get a lot out of it occasionally. But, we are trying. Councilman Hammel: Let me ask you - You personally, how much business you feel is being done at the restaurant next door to you. Mayor Thompson: I don't think that really has a bearing on this appeal. Councilman Hammel: I just want to compare this with the parking area, because they are not parking the cars on Beaumont Avenue. Mayor Thompson: May I interject a question before he answers that. What are your hours of business. Mr. Hayes: From about 8:30 in the morning until about 6:00. We try to get out of there by 6:00. Sometimes we can't get out right on the money - but usually 6:00. Mayor Thompson: This is consistent with the business hours in the other businesses in that building. Mr. Hayes: They usually go in about - they start in about 6:00 or 7:00 in the morning. They are usually there when I get there. There are one or two cars there usually, but I think their business - we knock off on Friday nights, we get out of there at 6:00. We usually try to get out of there before then because they get a little rowdy I guess, but no problem. We are closed Saturday afternoon, we close at 5:00, and that is when their business usually starts. Sunday we are closed - Sunday and Monday we are normally closed. Mayor Thompson: I think what Mr. Hammel was getting at - the sharing of the parking lot. Do all the businesses there have parking require- ments in the same time frame. I think that is what you were trying to find out. Mr. Hayes: I don't think so. Little Louie's next door. You can't get access to his building there in the back because there - that door is pretty well bolted up in the back. It was - I don't know what the deal is now. Most of the time it is from the front. So just myself, really, and the bar, is the only ones who have got access to the back. I think Little Louie keeps most of his junk and stuff next door there in the back. I don't know - in the back room there. City Manager: How many of your customers utilize the parking lot. What percentage. Mr. Hayes: I would say about 45 to 50 %, or something. Councilman Lowry: You don't have a business that has a high volume at any given time usually, though, do you? Mr. Hayes: No sir. Councilman Lowry: What do you have - two or three customers at a time. About the maximum. Mr. Hayes: Right. Actually, I have never had over three parking places out in the back at one given time. It is really hard to say, really. Councilman Hammel: I have come by there, let us say at 8:30 or 9:00, and have seen quite a few cars on the parking lot in the back. Would you say, these are customers at that particular time for the bar or from you. Mr. Hayes: From the bar sir. Mayor Thompson: Do you have anything else on this gentlemen. The letter was quite adequate really on what you have just said. It pretty well goes right down the line. You've added a few things. Mr. Hayes: I do want to stay in Beaumont. I do want to buy a building and we are looking now and going forth. I would like to make this the area to live in. City Manager: Mayor Thompson, could I ask him a question. First, I kind of ask him a question, but ask Gary one really as a prelude to it. Gary, is it possible that this approval, if the Council desires to give it, could be a conditional approval say for a year or eighteen months, or whatever, and if that is the case then would this satisfy your basic request, Mr. Hayes, since you indicate you are really looking for someplace. Is that possible. Mr. Croft: Yes, we can condition it as to time, also it can be condi- tioned upon his moving to another location that it be removed. Both these conditions could be placed on the project. City Manager: Now that you have heard that Mr. Hayes, what is your reaction. Mr. Hayes: Fantastic. I think it is fantastic. My lease is a year and a half left, of course I have an option for three years, but I hope that I will have it out of there regardless, before then. A year or a year and a half, or whenever I move - that is fine. Right now we do need it - I mean there is no getting around it. Mayor Thompson: Is there anything else you want to ask Jim. Do I have any other proponents that want to speak on behalf of the apellant. I will ask then if there is anyone in the audience, then you will have the chance to rebut the testimony. Any opponent to the request, or appeal by Mr. Hayes. Pat Renna, 987 E. 14th: I kind of wrote this, saying, I would like to tell you sarcastically that you should let everything remain as it is at 680 Beaumont Avenue, since it is obvious Yamaha has a special deal with the Police and Building Departments regarding the front of his business. He should be given the same special consideration re- garding the rear. Why change past City practice in regard to the enforcement of Ordinances and laws. To do so would astonish far to many citizens. And Mr. Hayes was deliberately trying to sidestep ordinances when he applied for a permit to build a carport on his area he had already fenced in. Fencing in and erecting a shed on the parking area shared by four businesses showed no consideration for the other tenants. The Planning and Building Departments were very much in error also. This was called to Mr. Ray Smith's attention prior to the shed being built, and sitting back there and listening to the little bit he had to say about when the fence went up -'when the fence went up and it was just a short time later, I mean, no even a couple of weeks, the carpot went up, and as soon as the carport went up, it was like just a spontaneous thing - there wasn't time for people to be climbing over it. Or maybe there was, possibly, but there is quite a bit of police patrol back there because of the bar. Mr. Hammel was asking questions about the hours. We, at one time opened at 11:00 and stayed open until 2:00 in the morning. But, since we have moved around the corner and we had that opportunity to buy that property over there, we have been more or less phasing out our hours and everything, and we are down to 4:00 to 11:00, and we were considering closing, and we have had the opportunity now that we are going to close the business entirely in time. So I don't know what would go in there, or how they will be concerned with the parking, or whatever. When we were in full force there, we were busy, and we had a lot of traffic from the bar that would come -- because the bar's main entrance is on 7th, but the majority of the customers used that back parking lot entrance, and we had a lot going back and forth, but then Louie isn't there - he is over at the other restaurant. We had a problem with people that were pretty well drunk just walking in, and our waitresses and the help that we had at the time not knowing how to deal with it. Councilman.Hammel: They don't serve any food in the bar? Mrs. Renna: We did when my husband was there . . . Councilman Hammel: No I mean the bar. Mrs. Renna: The bar itself doesn't serve food. We used to carry pizzas in there, and hamburgers, or whatever they ordered, we had a system set up between the two places, and phones and everything, but when my husband moved over to the other place full time, we discontinued all that. Mayor Thompson: Do you have any rebuttal, Jim. Gary, I have some questions to ask. (Tape is changed - next tape picks up at following point) Mr. Croft: . . . would have been the off - loading for the pharmacy, which was located in that building. Councilman Lowry: I see, at that time it was a pharmacy. Mr. Croft: As I recall, it was also a bakery - I am new to town, and I am not familiar with it - but it was a bakery and a restaurant as I recall. Mayor Thompson: The opponents have been heard. The rebuttal has been heard - now we are just taking some of the testimony and having it clarified by Mr. Croft. For your answer - yes - there have been times when I have needed a loading zone at my place. But I don't have one designated per se. What I was getting at here is, when this plot plan was modified in 1961, the loading zone was placed in this parti- cular area - right? And from your knowledge it has never been moved, this is the official place it is supposed to be? Mr. Croft: I have found no other plot plans after considerable research. Mayor Thompson: In other words, the loading zone here was placed here, and it did not infringe upon the basic parking requirements. Mr. Croft: That is correct. Mayor Thompson: Now the building that they have there now is a building per se, right? It is not a loading zone, because the loading zone is a covered area. Mr. Croft: It could be - but it would have to be large enough to accommodate large delivery trucks. Mayor Thompson: In other words, put a truck inside? Mr. Croft: Yes. Normally you would have to have twelve or fifteen foot overhead door to allow to load inside a building. That could accommodate a loading zone. Those are usually rather rare. Mayor Thompson: What are the normal requirements on a dedicated parking area as for utilization other than parking or loading zone. Mr. Croft: I am sorry, I don't understand. Mayor Thompson: Let me go at it another way. If you have a dedicated parking lot, that is approved plot plan, parking stripes. What is the normal procedure for utilization of that. Simply transit traffic, or is it permanent traffic, or is it . . . . Mr. Croft: It is considered normally transit - but it is also permanent that is, for the use of the employees of the building, and in that respect it would be considered permanent during the hours of the „_ __ businesses. Employees would be allowed to park there full time. Mayor Thompson: You didn't quite answer my question, but that is close enough. What I am basically getting at, Gary, is that once a parking area is established and approved, it is to be used for parking. Am I correct under 490? Mr. Croft: That is correct. Mayor Thompson: Once the loading zone is established and approved, it is to be used as a loading zone according to 490. Mr. Croft: Yes. Mayor Thompson: In essence here, what we have is something that does not comply with the requirements of 490. Mr. Croft: That would be correct. Mayor Thompson: I have no more questions at this time. City Manager; It would also be correct wouldn't it Mr. Mayor, to assume though that there is nothing in 490 that can force anybody to use any parking lot. Mayor Thompson: This is true. But once you designated it as permanent off - street parking, you cannot arbitrarily infringe upon that particu- lar use by another use. Councilman Lowry: Unless there is a variance granted. Mayor Thompson: . . . procedures are followed. Am I basically correct on that? Mr. Croft: Yes. Basically, the ordinance sets out certain standards, and the only way that can be amended would either be to change the ordinance or grant a variance to the standard. City Manager: Are you telling Council then, that they have no alterna- tive here tonight? Mr. Croft: Basically, it would be true. City Manager: Well, basically, or is it true. Mr. Croft: The parking layout could be redesigned to accommodate the same number of parking places, and still allow for additional use at that end of the parking lot. The question is whether we are preserving the total square feet of the parking area or the number of parking places, and if we are preserving the number of parking places, yes it could be redesigned - which, in effect, would be a new plot plan . . . Mayor Thompson: Let me ask a question. If you do that, then this supercedes the original requirements under which this was developed. Maybe I should ask the attorney that. Mr. Dougherty, if they - we are talking about redesigning the parking area - would this action super - cede the original action under which this property was developed. Mr. Dougherty: I don't know about supercede, but I think what you are getting at is some action whereby the applicant or the appellant here filed with the Planning Commission to redesign so that it complies with the ordinance, is that what you are suggesting. Mayor Thompson: Well, that is what I am getting at. I am not sure whether or not I am getting it or not. According to our present ordinance, the required parking spaces are what, 40? Approximately 23 on here. Councilman Lowry: But that encroached on the alley supposedly, so you couldn't get that many in there. Mr. Croft: Twenty -four is what is currently shown, but seven of those spaces currently project into the alley approximately three or four feet. With redesign, all twenty -four of those spaces could be re- accommodated on the private property of the parking, with modification of the south end. City Attorney: How could you redesign it and get all those added spaces, twenty -four. Mr. Croft: By doing vertical parking, and changing the circulation pattern. Councilman Lowry: Would that obviate the structure he has then, in order to do that. In other words, would you have to remove that. You can do that and have this structure in place also. Mr. Croft: Yes. What the problem is, when you do angle parking, you lose a lot of ground in the corners, and that is where you would be picking up your extra space, and it also requires greater depth, but by redesigning it you could pick up that extra space. Mayor Thompson: Down on the bottom line - the thing that has been developed there is a structure, right? Basically it encroaches upon the parking or loading zone area? And it is not part of the original approved plot plan. Mr. Croft: That is correct. Mayor Thompson: I have no more questions. Does anybody else have questions. Councilman May: The structure is 17 x 27. Mr. Croft: Yes, that is correct. The exhibit that Mr. Hayes submitted with his plot plan is attached to the staff report further back in your packet. Councilman Shaw: Is that still in existence? Mr. Croft: Yes, it still is in existence. Councilman Shaw: According to correspondence here of October 13, 1981 it was supposed to be removed. Mayor Thompson: He is appealing that Planning Commission decision. Mr. Croft: In abatement procedure like this, the normal procedure is to not require a structure to be removed until they have exhausted their remedies. And the one remedy that was open to him was to apply through the planning process permission to have that structure there, that is the option which he has exercised. City Attorney: Gary, if the Council should decide to overrule the appeal, and, in other words, follow the action taken by the Planning Commission, that will require that he take the sidings down, and not use it for their place of business. Isn't that the net result. Mr. Croft: Yes. What would be required then would be to follow the letter from the Building Director, which would require the removal of the enclosure, and, as he says, remove the sides of the carport and return it to its intended use, that is to a parking area. Mayor Thompson: Do you have any other questions. City Attorney: You were suggesting the possibility of granting a condi- tional use for a period of a year and a half. Mr. Croft: Yes, that would be an option. City Attorney: That is permissible under the ordinance? Mr. Croft: Yes. In other words, we can condition the site plan approval by Commission or Council action. That could be a condition that could be set on it. Mayor Thompson: Thank you very much Gary. Mr. Hayes, as you probably heard in the previous public hearing, the Council may close the public hearing, or they may continue it if they find it necessary, however, once the public hearing is closed, under Ordinance 490 we have the option to render a decision in a prescribed period, which I believe is forty days. under those conditions, we have complied with Ordinance 490, we have duly noticed the public hearing, we have held the public hearing, we have received testimony on the appeal, and we received testimony from those opposing the appeal, and we have asked - questioned the Planning Department. I think we have covered the subject in public very thoroughly, not it is up to each one of us to make a decision. Under those circumstances we will close the public hearing, and we will render a decision in writing within the prescribed period under Ordinance No. 490. The Public Hearing was closed at 10:05 P.M. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont grants a modification of conditions to the appellant to permit him to continue in his business until the appellant can relocate, since there does not seem to be a hardship caused by the modification of conditions, as follows: 1. The requirement for a loading zone be eliminated since it is not required for the conditions. 2. The structure, as exists, be permitted to stand for eighteen months with the understanding that it will be removed at the end of eighteen months or prior to that time if the appellant should move to another location. 3. That the parking lot be marked out for the original twenty -four spaces as required on the original Ordinance No. 282. 4. The appellant shall take out the proper permits for enclosing the structure. AYES: Councilmen NOES: Councilman ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Lowry, Hammel and May. Shaw and Mayor Thompson. 12. Curb and Gutter at Xenia Avenue Cul -de -Sac (Jack Nottingham). (Continued from January 11, 1982). The report from the State Contractor's License Board has not been received, therefore this agenda item is continued until February 8, 1982. 13. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -2 - In opposition to the Application of Southern California Gas Company and Pacific Lighting Gas Supply Company for Authority to Increase Rates Charged for Gas Service Based on Test Year 1983; to Include an Attrition Allowance for 1984; to Include in Rates a Reward for Conservation Achievements; and to Include in Rate Base as Plant Held for Future Use the Expenditures Associated with Major Gas Supply Project, being Application No. 61081. 14. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -3 - In opposition to the Application of Southern California Edison Company for Authority to Increase its Rates Charged by it for Electric Service, being Application No. 61138 (NOI #60). 15. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -4 - In opposition to the Application No. 61067 filed by the Southern California Edison Company for Authority to Increase Rates to Cover the 1982 Incremental Expense of Edison Residential Conservation Service (RCS) Program through its Conservation Low Management Adjustment Clause (CLMAC), Effecting Service Rendered Throughout the Service Territory Upon and AFter April 1, 1982, as set forth in Said Application, Resulting in an Annualized Increase in Retail Revenue beginning April 1, 1982 of 7.7 million dollars over Existing Rate Levels and in Accordance with said Application. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolutions No. 1982 -2, Resolution l'. No. 1982 -3 and Resolution No. 1982 -4 by title only. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. ,._ __ BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 1982 1. The Beaumont City Council met in a regular meeting at 7:37 P.M., on Monday, February 8, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor Thompson presiding. 2. The invocation was given by Reverand Paul Lucas. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Councilman Lowry. 4. On Roll Call the following Council Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 5. There being no additions, deletions or corrections, the Minutes of Special Council Meeting of January 21, 1982 and Regular Council Meeting of January 25, 1982 were ordered filed as presented. 6. There being no objections, the Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of January 19, 1982 were accepted as presented and ordered filed. 7. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, warrants as audited per Warrant List of February 8, 1982, in the amount of $174,961.39 and Payroll of February 5, 1982, in the amount of $25,965.24 were approved for payment as audited. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 8. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -5 - Opposing the Application of Southern California Gas Company for Authority by an Ex Parte Order to Increase the Conservation Cost Adjustment (CCA) Component in its Effective Rates in order to Continue its Demonstration Solar Financing Program as Set Forth in Application No. 82- 01 -27. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -5 by title only. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 9. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -6 - Honoring the Years of Dedication by Don McLaughlin to His City. The Deputy City Clerk read the resolution in its entirety. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -6 honoring the years of dedication by Don McLaughlin to his City. r' AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 10. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -7 - Providing for a Sub - Surface Sewage Disposal Review Fee. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -7. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 11. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -8 - Pertaining to Ordinance 369, Prescribing Speed Limits on Beaumont Avenue Between 13th and 14th Streets and from the City Limits South to 14th Street. The resolution was read in its entirety by the Deputy City Clerk. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -8. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 12. Request from Cherry Festival Association for No -Fee Permit for Cherry Festival Carnival. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont grants the Cherry Festival Association a no -fee permit for the Cherry Festival and carnival with the provision the City is named as an additional insured, with this proof of insurance delivered to the City a minimum of two weeks prior to the date of the festival, with the coverage being a minimum of $1,000,000. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 13. Vacancy in City Clerk Office. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont appoints Ms. Edna J. Burkett, of 1444 Michigan, as City Clerk for the unexpired term of office. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 14. This agenda item was held until the end of the agenda. 15. Inland Disposal, Inc. Request for Fee Increase. Motion by Councilman Hammel and second by Councilman Shaw to grant the 10% increase per contract for a period of six months, subject to re- view at the end of six months was withdrawn by Councilmen Hammel and Shaw respectively. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont grants a ten per cent per contract increase for residential and commercial plus 20 cents per contract for the Riverside County dump fee, with the provision that in two months Inland Disposal, Inc. bring to the Council meeting exactly what the costs are for the dump fee. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 16. Highland Springs Village Sewer Service Agreement. (Continued from January 25, 1982). This agenda item was continued until the next regular Council meeting v of February 22, 1982. 17. Curb and Gutter at Xenia Avenue Cul -de -Sac. (Continued from 1- 25 -82). This agenda item was continued until the next regular Council meeting of February 22, 1982 pending receipt of the report from the State Contractor's License Board. Page 2 18. Decision Pending. appeal filed by Joseph Kirklin of Planning Commission Decision - Change of Zone Request Beaumont Avenue and First Street. The Mayor announced that no decision has been made at this date, and continued this agenda item until the next regular Council meeting of February 22, 1982. 19. Request from A. C. Nejedly for Waiver of Developer's Fee (School Impact Fee) for Senior Citizen projects. Mr. A. C. Nejedly, 2041 Elsinore Road, Riverside, California, addressed the Council explaining his request, specifically that since no im- paction of the schools will occur from senior citizen projects, he feels, in all fairness, the school impaction fee should be waived for all senior citizen projects. Mr. Paul Harper, 25609 North Road, Twin Peaks, California, representing John C. Heers, Inc., who are also developing property in the Beaumont area, addressed the Council in support of Mr. Nejedly's request. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont refers the issue of the school impaction fee to the Planning Commission to consider the impact of a waiver of fee to Senior Citizen projects, along with their other considerations of fees for school development. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 20. Authorization to Purchase Minibus from Microbus Corporation. ,,/On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the purchase of the minibus from Microbus Corporation in the amount of $21,518.00 plus applicable tax, thereby capitalizing on the RTA bid purchase. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 21. Authorization for Disposal of Old Tires. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw,-the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the disposal of surplus used /tires as proposed in Vehicle Maintenance & Transportation Superintendent's letter of February 4, 1982. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 22. Decision on Allocation of 1980 -81 Carryover Balance. The following recommendations were made for use of the funds: Councilman Shaw: (1) New fire equipment - pumper and 50' aerial; (2) Street improvements, specifically 12th, 10th and Michigan, and improvement of alleys. Councilman May: (1) Purchasing the vacant land, but nctbuilding the City Hall at this time; (2) Fire Equipment, specifically the snorkel. Councilman Lowry: Concurs with Councilman May's recommendations. Councilman Hammel: Invest in piece of property adjacent to the City Hall for the future, to be used for parking at the present time. Mayor Thompson: (1) Purchase land at Orange Street and Sixth Street for future use, and specifically for parking at this time in order to adhere to the City's own regulations; (2) Codification of City's Ordinances; (3) Fire equipment to service south and west of the City; Page 3 (4) Improvements for Pistol range to upgrade to acceptable standards; (5) Rehabilitation of present buildinq for city office use - more efficient use of space. Robert Martines, Battlion Chief, Riverside County Fire Department: (1) 1968 International must be replaced. Suggested apparatus would be 50 foot aerial platform mounted on a pumper, called a telesquirt, and would provide what is needed including doubling as an engine; (2) Repair of structural defect at Maple Street station. The summary of recommendations, and expenditure of funds is as follows: (1) Purchase property at $100,000. (2) Establish fire equipment account at $50,000. (3) Rehabilitate existing city office building at $60,000. (4) Upgrade police reserve pistol range at $5,000. 23. ORAL COMMUNICATION: There was no oral communication. 24. RESOLUTION 1982 -9 - Indicating Support for the Banning - Beaumont San Gorgonio Pass Area Rehabilitation Program. •:'o The resolution was read in its entirety by the Mayor. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -9 indicating support for the Banning - Beaumont San Gorgonio Pass Area Rehabilitation Program. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilman Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. (Councilman Lowry left the Council Chambers at 10:28 P.M. and returned at 10:33 P.M.) Mr. A. C. Nejedly requested to address the Council stating they would have no objection to contributing funds towards the fire truck facility or paramedics that the senior citizens could use in the west end of town, and would like to work something along that line, rather than pay the school district fee. Secondly, he asked the Council to put a moratorium on Tract No. 14124 until the school impaction fee has been resolved. At the present time they have been notified they have until March 18, 1982 under the present rules, and he does not feel an agreement can be reached regarding the fee before that time. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, UTY CITY CLERK Paqe 4 1. 2. 3. 4. go The Beaumont City Monday, February Thompson presidin BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 22, 1982 .ouncil met in a regular meeting at 7:36 P.M., on 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor The invocation wa4l. by Reverand Gerry Chaddick. The Pledge of Alliance to the Flag was led by Councilman Shaw. Prior to proceedif with the agenda, the new City Clerk, Mrs. Edna J. Burkett, was introo used to the audience and to members of the Council. On Roll Call the llowing Council Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry andirmayor Thompson. i I; There being no ad 'tions, corrections or deletions, the Minutes of Regular Council M ting of February 8, 1982 were ordered filed as presented. , r 6.. On Motion by Coun ilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of t`e City of Beaumont deleted Item No. 4, TR 18341 and Variance 1001 fro the Planning Commission Minutes for Review by the City Council, and sets the date of March 22, 1982 for Public Hearing of this m tter. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel and Lowry. NOES: Mayor 1hompson. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. There being no o Iil ections, the balance of the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeti of February 2, 1982 were accepted as presented and ordered filed. 7. On Motion by Cou 'ilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, warrants as audited per Wa rant List of February 22, 1982, in the amount of $112,670.23 and P yroll of February 19, 1982, in the amount of $24,355.24, were ipproved for payment as audited. AYES: Counc' men May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. f ABSTAIN: None. 8. RESOLUTION NO. 1$f2-10 - Supporting Senate Constitutional Amendment 7. i On Motion by Cou'ilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the C t y of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -10 supporting Senate Constitut! nal Amendment 7. i. I` AYES: Counci men May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.i ABSTAIN: None. 9. RESOLUTION NO. 102 -11 - Approving the Annexation to the City of Beaumont of Certain Uninhabited Territory Without Notice or Hearing Hereinafter Designated as Annexation No. 25 and Further Designated as LAFCO No. 81- 46 -3:. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -11 approving the annexation to the City of Beaumont of Annexation No. 25, LAFCO No. 81 -46 -3. The resolution ws read in its entirety by the City Clerk. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. } 10. RESOLUTION NO. 1912-12 - Commending Senator Robert Presley for His Support of Local overrrnent in the 1981 Session of the Legislature. On Motion by Cour ilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the C' y of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -12 commending Sena!-_ Robert Presley for his support of local government in the 1981 Ses: of the Legislature. 1�S The resolution w17.".' read in its entirety by the City Clerk. AYES: Counc, men May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 11. Appointment to Fill Vacancy on Planning Commission. This agenda item las continued until the next regular meeting of March 8, 1982. I 12. Highland Springs ewer Service Agreement. (Continued from February 8, 1982) . On Motion by Cou Council of the Cii between Highland by Ramos Jensen with the provisi': be incorporated ilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City y of Beaumont accepts the Sewer Service Agreement pring Park Ltd, a California Limited Partnership mpany, General Partner and the City of Beaumont that the corrections discussed at study session to the agreement. The City Manager(,tead the corrections into the record. AYES: Counc men May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. tif ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None.h 13. Curb and Gutter Xenia Avenue Cul -de -Sac (Jack Nottingham). Continued from FT pruary 8, 1982). On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of e City of Beaumont directs that the curb and gutter non -confo ance at Xenia Avenue Cul -de -Sac be left with the ..fit' City administrat' n for correction. AYES: Council men May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 14. Request from Bea J% Establishment of On Motion by Cou Council of the C study by the Cou mont Senior Citizens Center Advisory Commission for a $200.00 Petty Cash Fund for the Senior Center. cilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City ty of Beaumont files this request for further cil and the Finance Director. AYES: Counc lmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.', ABSTAIN: None.: 15. Decision Pending:, Appeal filed by Joe Kirklin of Planning Commission Decision. Motion by Councilman Lowry and second by Councilman Hammel to uphold the appeal and citing specific zoning for the parcels was withdrawn by Councilman Lov4ry and Councilman Hammel respectively. This agenda item;was continued until an adjourned meeting of February 23, 1982. '4 Pacre 2 16. Authorization fo: Equipment; and A- and Ensuing Cont: On Motion by Cou: ' Council of the C. submit Title III• the City Manager on behalf of the Senior Center to Submit Title III -B Application for horization for City Manager to Execute Application ct. ilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City y of Beaumont authorizes the Senior Center to Application for Equipment; and further authorizes o Execute the Application and Ensuing Contract ity of Beaumont. AYES: Counc men May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 17. Petition for Ann4kation of Cherry Highlands Estates Subdivision to the City of Beauont. On Motion by Cou ilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the C y of Beaumont authorizes the City Manager to pro - { cess the annexat n as proposed. AYES: Counc NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 18. Report on Appli On Motion by May Council of the supplementary a City of Beaumon None. f, AYES: Counc NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 19. Transfer of Poli Cleaner. 20. t 21., On Motion by Cou City Council of $105.00 from Acc Contingencies, t a vacuum cleaner AYES: Counc NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Request from Bea May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. ions for CATV Franchise in City of Beaumont. Thompson, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City of Beaumont directs that the time for submitting - ations for the Cable Television system in the all be extended to March 19, 1982. May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. Department Budget Funds for Purchase of Vacuum cilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the he City of Beaumont authorizes the transfer of unt 040 -034, and $45.00 from 040 -037, Reserve for Account 040 -082, Equipment, for the purchase of lmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. t Little League for Funding for Baseball Equipment. On Motion by Cou cilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the C ty of Beaumont denies the request of the Beaumont Little League fo funding for baseball equipment. AYES: Counc�llmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None.; Authorization fog Mayor to Execute Termination of Grant Administrative Services Agreeme,kt by Mutual Consent of the Parties, between City of Beaumont and Coui ty of Riverside. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont terminates the Grant Administrative Services Agreement between the City of Beaumont and County of Riverside, and authorizes the Mayor to sign said termination of agreement. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ` x 'D;; 22. Request to Insti to Condemnation Proceedings Against Flamingo Motel, 1307 East Sixth 11reet. On Motion by Cour.ilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the C',y of Beaumont instructs the City staff to take the actions necessar to achieve removal of these structures as recommended by the City Mana_ r, according to Ordinance 434. AYES: Counc'men May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. ' 23. Submittal of Fin cial Report for Period Ending January 31, 1982 for Filing Pursuant it Government Code. This financial rftort was accepted for filing. 24. Agreement for Pei Domestic Animals. On Motion by Cour Council of the Ci Performance of SE with the City of ormance of Services Relating to Dogs and Other (Continued from January 25, 1982). ilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City y of Beaumont directs that the Agreement for vices Relating to Dogs and Other Domestic Animals anning be cancelled effective March 1, 1982. AYES: Counc .men May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.' ABSTAIN: None. 25. ORAL COMMUN I CAT I W : a. Mr. A. C. Ne dly, 2041 Elsinore Road, Riverside, California, addressed th `Council concerning the issue of a waiver of the school impac''on fee for developments for senior citizens. 26. Response to Luig #'Renna's Allegations. The City Manager ead his report responding to the allegations made by Mr. Renna in a 1 ter to the Record - Gazette. Mr. Irish Mitche addressed the Council regarding this agenda item, stating the distince had been measured by a former City Engineer and there was room t park the motorcycles in front of the building legally. Mrs. Donna Hayes of Yamaha of Beaumont, addressed the Council asking the City tell th exactly what they have to do to be legal, obtain a permit, or whate r elue is needed. There was additi al discussion from Mr. Jim Hayes and Mrs. Pat Renna which is, for th -most part, unintelligible on the tape. The City Manage s directed by the Council to research the present encroachment pr `�„ ..ires and report to the Council. The City Manager was further dir r6ed to draw up a workable ordinance pertaining to abandoned or di�'antled automobile abatement. 27. Decision on Alloo,ation of 1980 -81 Carryover Balance. (Continued from February 8, 1982),. ;3 The agenda item 'Was continued to the adjourned meeting of February 23. � 28. Application to Coii mmunity Development for Use of 9th Year Entitlement Funds. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the City Manager to make an application to Community Development for 9th Year Entitlement Funds as recommended by the City Manager in letter dated February 22, 1982. r tY 4 BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL INUTES OF ADJOURNED MEETING OF I! FEBRUARY 23, 1982 (A journed from February 22, 1982) r: 1. The Beaumont City Council met in an Adjourned Meeting at 3:07 P.M., on Tuesday, Febru ry 23, 1982, in the City Manager's Conference Room, with Mayor Thomps n presiding. 2. The Pledge of All giance was dispensed with since this is a continuatirn of the meeting of February 22, 1982. 3. On Roll Call the ollowing Council Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. I 4. Set Date for Public Hearing: TR 18341 and Variance 1001 - Turner -Fagot Construction. On Motion by Cou ilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont rescinds their previous motion setting the date for this'ipublic hearing on March 22, 1982, and moves to set the date of this 'ublic hearing for March 8, 1982 at 8:00 P.M. AYES: Counci men May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. j. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 5. 11 Discussion of Goes and Objectives for the City of Beaumont for 1982 -83. .` After a general d,scussion among the Council, City Manager and Department Heads, it was dec ded that each person present would compile a written list of goals an ,.objectives to be submitted for review at a meeting set for March 16111.1982 at 9:00 A.M. 6. Discussion on Fox ation of Community Improvement Agency. Ordinance No. 543. FIRST F ADING. On Motion by Courcilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont passes Ordinance No. 543 Declaring the Need for a RedeVE.opment Agency to function in the City of Beaumont and declaring thE City Council to be the Redevelopment Agency for the City of Beaumont t its first reading by title only. AYES: Counci� men May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 1 NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 7. RESOLUTION NO. 1 2 -13 - Authorizing the Department of General Services of the State of lifornia to Purchase Certain Items. On Motion by Courkilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -13 authorizing the partment of General Services of the State of California to PuI hase Certain Items. r � AYES: Councl!imen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. f� NOES: None. ABSENT: None . t ABSTAIN: None. i 8. Decision Pending: Appeal filed by Joe Kirklin of Planning Commission Decision. Change'of Zone No. 1007. (Agenda Item No. 15 of February 22 agenda carried over). i On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont directs that this appeal be r ?p returned to the Planning Commission on Change of Zone No. 1007, the area below First.5treet, for consideration of commercial zoning. Page 1 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Counci Counci None. None. 7,' May, Hammel and Lowry. Shaw and Mayor Thompson. Decision on Allo tion of 1980 -81 Carryover Balance. 27 of February 226agenda carried over). On Motion by Cou Council of the C carryover balanc the City Manager AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Counci Counci None. None. On Motion by Cou Council of the C carryover balanc AYES: NOES: r BSENT : / ABSTAIN: Counc- None .1 None .1 None.' On Motion by Cou Council of the C development form AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Counc None. None. None. On Motion by Cou Council of the C the 1980 -81 carr fund. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Counc None. None. None. (Agenda Item No. ilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City y of Beaumont allocates $100,000 of the 1980 -81 for the purchase of land, and further authorizes o enter into negotiations with the landowner. men Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. men May and Shaw. ilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City y of Beaumont allocates $50,000 of the 1980 -81 for the purchase of a fire truck. �nen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. ilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City y of Beaumont allocates $65,000 for community ion activities. men May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. ilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman May, the City y of Beaumont allocates the remaining balance of ver funds, approximately $100,000, to a building en May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. There being no furthe business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 5:21 P.M Respectfully submitted, 1 Page 2 A BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 1982 1. The Beaumont City Council met in a regular meeting at 7:34 P.M., on Monday, March 8, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor Thompson presiding. 2. The invocation was given by Reverand Harry Lansman. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Councilman Hammel. 4. On roll call the following Council Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 5. There being no additions, corrections or deletions, the Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of February 22, 1982 and Adjourned Meeting of February 23, 1982 were ordered filed as presented. 6. There being no objections, the Minutes of Regular Planning Commission meeting of February 16, 1982 were accepted as presented and ordered filed. 7. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, warrants as audited per Warrant List of March 8, 1982, in the amount of $299,849.52 and Payroll of March 5, 1982, in the amount of $24,945.03, were approved for payment as audited. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 8. PROCLAMATION - Declaring the Week of April 11 -17, 1982, as "Sales to Fight Arthritis Week ". On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont declares the week of April 11 -17, 1982 as "Sales to Fight Arthritis Week ". AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 9. PROCLAMATION - Congratulating Soroptimist International of Beaumont on the Establishment of the Soroptimist House of Hope. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont congratulates Soroptimist International of Beaumont on the Establishment of the Soroptimist House of Hope. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 10. ORDINANCE NO. 543 - SECOND READING. Declaring the Need for a Redevelopment Agency to Function in the City of Beaumont and Declaring IL the City Council to be the Redevelopment Agency for the City of Beaumont. This ordinance was continued until the regular meeting of March 22, 1982 due to the fact the newspaper did not get the notice of consideration of adoption published, thereby not meeting the legal requirements. 11. ORDINANCE NO. 544 - FIRST READING - Regulating Encroachments and Excavations on City Streets. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont passes Ordinance No. 544 for its first reading by title only. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 12. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -14 - Requesting Support of the Legislature of the State of California for Reallocation of Air Pollution Funds. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -14 by title only. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 13. ✓ PUBLIC HEARING - Review of Planning Commission Decision Regarding Approval of Tentative Tract No. 18341 and Variance 1001, Turner -Fagot Construction. Location: SE of 14th Street and Maple Avenue. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:03 P.M. Mayor Thompson: In accordance with the legal requirements of public hearing, the legal notice has to be published in a newspaper of general circulation at least ten days prior to the opening of the hearing. We have an exhibit showing that this requirement has been met as of February 25. As a public hearing, we will try to conduct it in an orderly manner, and I believe this item was pulled from the Planning Commission agenda by a member of the Council, so under those circumstances we will allow the Council Member to lead off the Public Hearing, and we will not interrupt until such time as you are recognized to speak. Councilman Lowry: The proponents should go first shouldn't they? Mayor Thompson: In this instance, I think, since the item was pulled by the Council, that the Council should lay out to the public as to why they pulled it, and what the question is. Then we can go from there. I believe, Mr. Lowry, you were the one that started the process, so do you want to lead off. Councilman Lowry: Will the City Manager please read the letter to you from the Chief of Police, subject Tract No. 18341, Variance 1001, Maple Avenue. City Manager: This letter reads from the Chief, upon the request of the City Council, I made an on -site inspection of this particular tract, and propose that Maple Avenue be continued northbound to 14th Street. The purpose of this suggestion is to insure timely response of the Police Department to calls for service, to make patrols of the residential area more feasible. It is currently suggested that the two cul -de -sac areas makes proper police patrol difficult, and the area only accesEible by only one way in time of an emergency. Signed, Robert Bridges, Chief of Police. Councilman Lowry: Next I would like to ask the Fire Chief of our Fire Department if he would please come forward and make his recom- mendations. Bob Martines, Battalion Chief, 1550 East Sixth Street, Beaumont: Of course, all public service agencies, police and fire, will recommend that you always have two sources of ingress and egress. That is the ultimate. However, our system does allow for cul -de -sac, but our recommendation would be for cul -de -sacs not to exceed 600 or 650 feet, in some cases they could be a little bit longer than that, with proper street widths and turning radius - so if it met those requirements it would be o.k. But the ultimate way would be to have two ways, and we always recommend that first, but there are other ways to handle it too. Councilman Lowry: But, your recommendation, also, you say is maximum of 600 -650 feet to the end of the cul -de -sac. Page 2 Chief Martines: That is what the County recommends. I am not familiar yet with the City regulations as far as your road department and planning commission and things like this. But the County Fire Depart- ment and the State of California recommends those things that I just mentioned to you. Councilman Lowry: Gary, do you know, do we have anything in our ordinance on the depth of cul -de -sacs. Gary Croft, Chief Planner, City of Beaumont: Our ordinance only addresses the use of cul -de -sacs, not the actual length, and we attempt to follow the County standards where appropriate. Councilman Shaw: Does that meet the radius requirements in that particular area? Gary Croft: Yes, the design of the cul -de -sac does meet the radius requirements. Councilman Lowry: I have a prepared statement here which I will read. To begin with, let me say that I have absolutely no animosity for Mr. Fagot or Mr. Turner. I am acting purely as I see my duty as a Councilman representing 7,000 people in Beaumont. I also have no adversions to cul -de -sacs per se. They are landlocked conditions where they serve a purpose. But this is not one of them. There is a mere 140 feet of extra paved street required in this subdivision to eliminate what I fear could be a future disaster. We all know how hard the winds blow for several days at a time in Beaumont. Up to eighty miles an hour on occasion. Both from the East and from the West. If it were not for the winds I would not be nearly so concerned. My fears that if a house gets on fire during one of these wind storms, particu- larly with a house near Orange Street and the fire begins jumping from one house to another, then the residents will be trapped by this cul- de -sac with little help available from the Fire Department. Fences will be built around the lots and actually the Planning Commission is requiring that a three foot high block wall be built along the back lot line of Lot No. 10. My fear is not a remote possibility. Every year we lose many homes in similar wind driven fires in California. In 1947 when I built a home in Alta Dena, my neighbor across the street was Fire Captain Slim White, who was in charge of the LA County Fire Station in Alta Dena. He told me that several years before during a wind storm in Alta Dena, a house caught fire and when the firemen arrived they could not keep ahead of the fire. They lost a thousand feet of hose, which burnt up before they could get a drop of water through it. Sixty houses burned up, and there were some fatali- ties. You have heard the recommendations of the Fire Chief and the Police Chief, expert witnesses, which is now public record. I intend to make a motion requiring this subdivision application be changed to provide a through street to 14th Street. But before I do I want to say that if my motion does not carry, this cul -de -sac becomes a reality, my conscience will be clear, should a fire disaster ever occur. Now, therefore, I make a motion that the . . . Mayor Thompson: This is a Public Hearing and a motion is out of order. Councilman Lowry: Okay, I will save it until later. But that is the statement to that point. Councilman Shaw: Mr. Fagot, there is only one objection that I have in that cul -de -sac right there, and I think I stated to you - I have made two surveys myself, and I feel that that street would be an unnecessary burden on your part, and when people eventually buy the homes it would cost them more money. Primarily what I am concerned about is another fire hydrant on the northeast corner of Donna Drive, because there are two, and I think if we get the other one there we would have ample hydrants in there. Mr. Martines, do you know the hydrant pressure on that particular line in there. Chief Martines: Yes, it is about 956 gallons per minute, and 80 psi. Councilman Shaw. Okay, so a third - I believe we should have a third hydrant in here. Bernard Fagot: Mr. Shaw we are perfectly willing to put in a third hydrant - that is going to make three hydrants - t could be off a few Page 3 feet - but about 300 feet, and I know that the County Ordinance re- quires one fire hydrant every 300 feet, so that should suffice. The only thing I want to say, and then I am going to let our engineers . . . Mayor Thompson: Bernie, could you hold that until the next part, until rebuttal time. Councilman Shaw: Bernie, the only I require the third hydrant is due to the fact that we don't have the gpm's, you know, below a thousand gallons per minute - and grant we have the seond hydrant, but as I say, when you stretch up to that portion you have got six or seven or eight lengths, your friction loss will reduce that pressure . . . Councilman Lowry: Mr. Mayor, I forgot one thing I would like to add if I may, and that is the Fire Chief mentioned a recommendation of 600 -650 feet. This cul -de -sac, from Orange, if you take from the right -of -way of Orange Street down the center of the line to the end of this is 800 feet. If you take from the curb line, it is 810 feet. I wanted to bring that back out. It does exceed the County recommended length of a cul -de -sac. Councilman Shaw: This is why I want another hydrant - it reduces friction. Councilman Lowry: That is not what they are speaking of - they are speaking the entire length of the cul -de -sac, from beginning to end. Steve Quinn, 1495 14th Street, Beaumont: I am the property owner of the street that you are calling Maple Street. That happens to be on my deed. And it is not Maple Street. I own the property you are referring to as Maple Street that you are going to continue on to 14th Street. The easterly 105 feet of the westerly 380 feet, northerly 140 feet of lot 2 in Block 195. That is my property. You cannot continue without buying my property. Councilman Hammel: Would you be good enough to give us the history why this street has become your property. Mr. Quinn: Because of the fact that a man named Mr. Bud Watkins took it to Court in 1977 and proved that it is property, and which the Bank of Redlands, the Telephone Employees Credit Union, they happen to own a second and first trust deeds on this property. Councilman Hammel: Then how did the curbs and gutters ever get in there. Mr. Quinn: I have no idea. A man named Mr. Armstrong built the home, and that is how he designed it. But this is my property you gentlemen are talking about. Councilman Lowry: It isn't your property at all. We haven't even mentioned your property sir. Maple Avenue is shown here and all I said . . . Mr. Quinn: You said you were going to continue to 14th Street, and here is my trust deed. Councilman Lowry: I didn't say it was going to be over your property. I didn't tell the developer how to put it through. Mr. Quinn: I rest my case. Mayor Thompson: The basic question here has been . . . .(tape changed). disagreement among .the council members as to the need for the street. Councilman Lowry spearheaded the contention that a through street named Maple Avenue should be an integral part of this development, and he has so stated his reasons from a safety factor - ingress and egress to the property owners that may purchase this property in the future. Is there anything else you would like to add, Bill? Councilman Lowry: Not until there is time to make a motion. Mayor Thompson: Is there anyone else on the Council that would like to be an advocate of this particular. . . Page 4 City Attorney: Mr. Mayor, I think advocates, they are sitting here as either for or against. You listen that which you think that under the let's don't act like advocates. rather than ask people if they are judges, and you don't advocate to the testimony presented, and do law is the proper thing to do, Mayor Thompson: In this instance, Mr. Dougherty, the Council itself, on a split vote, pulled this and brought it back for a public hearing, so, therefore, the Council is not - what do I want to say - is not impartial to this particular thing, because they brought it back. City Attorney: Well, I know they may bring it up for a hearing, but I still don't want the Council to act like they are advocates. They are judges up here. Actually, I think the problems should be pre- sented - the ones that are asking for the subdivision present it, and the opposition, then any comments that are brought out, but I want you fellows to act as judges, not advocates for one side or the other. Councilman Lowry: It was a majority of the Council that brought it back. I don't think that that necessarily means that there is a division in the Council. Mayor Thompson: Is there anything else that you would like to bring up. I believe the conditions of approval for Tract Map 18341 are part of our packets. This was done after adequate public notice, public hearings, everything. This is what came out of it. Gary Croft: Yes. In addition to the regular public meetings, we held what would be considered a land division committe meeting with the developers, where staff and the engineer discussed various alter- natives, and worked out solutions to some of the problems that were presented with the tract. Councilman Lowry: You might mention that they have been given a variance in frontage on the lots as part of this deal. In other words, the Planning Commission has worked very extensively to save them every inch of land that they could up to now. Gary Croft: Yes there was a variance granted because the lots do not meet the adequate minimum requirements, 70 foot in width, and they also are excessively deep beyond, I believe, it is 150 foot depth that our ordinance permits. There were a couple of reasons for requesting and granting a variance. One is the odd shape and size of the lots. To lessen the depths of the lots would simply require an excessive right -of -way for the street, which would be really a burden on the City as opposed to an advantage in terms of upkeep of the street, and so on. The other reason for granting the narrowness of the lot was the size of the lots were all very large exceeding, the deep ones, were exceeding, as I recall 9,000 square feet, which was considerably above the 7,000 minimum which we have. In addition, there were many of the surrounding lots on the block also were 60 foot lots, or slightly above, did not meet the standard 70 feet, and in view of that, a variance was granted. Mayor Thompson: We will have some of the others now - Mr. Fagot, Mr. Turner, on this. Do you want to present your reasons as to why the street shouldn't go through Bernie Fagot, 9477 Avenida Miravella, Cherry Valley: Your honor and members of the Council, I don't know really how to start. As you know we were at your study session tonight. We worked with your staff and your engineer, and a plan was agreed on. Then we go to the Planning Commission and we get a 5 -0 vote. Then all of a sudden we are in trouble with the Council. I don't really quite understand what we are even doing here, to tell you the truth. I understand Mr. Lowry wants to put the street through. We wanted to put a street through a year and a half ago, and as far as .. one comment I would like to make before I forget, your Chief of Police says that they couldn't respond to it, what did he letter say - something about they would have trouble responding? The only thing that kind of makes me wonder is - well let me ask this question - how long has your Chief been with the police here. Three years maybe. Well I wonder, it kind of makes me wonder. He didn't have anything to say about a small subdivision we put in on Beaumont Avenue. If he didn't like a Page 5 f' cul -de -sac, why he didn't he come to your review board. Mr. Davis formed a review board that developers go before, before they ever get to the Planning Commission, to iron out their problems. Why wasn't he there. And why wasn't he at the Planning Commission? Another thing that makes me wonder, is how does -- you know I drive down into the nice areas in Redlands and see cul -de -sacs all over the place. I wonder how those police departments respond to cul -de- sacs. Cul -de -sacs - they are legal in the State of California. Mayor Thompson: Bernie, may I interrupt just a moment. Could you give us a reason why that street can't go through, or shouldn't go through, or you don't want to put it through. Mr. Fagot: Why it can't go through? Well, the man that was here says he owns the property that Mr. Lowry suggested that we take it through. Now, I don't think you can just take part of his property and pay him for that. I would assume you got to buy the whole thing. Mayor Thompson: What I am getting at, Bernie, is Mr. Lowry says that the cul -de -sac, by eliminating the cul -de -sac and opening up to 14th Street, it will promote safety . . . Mr. Fagot: I don't know how it is going to promote safety, because I will tell you what, right across the street from there, and I mean if that is where he would want it to go through, is a driveway coming out of the Calvery Baptist Church. On many Saturdays, and every Sunday, it is a traffic jam. He wants to take a street out right across the street from the Calvery Baptist Church - I know I've seen at least 75 cars in there on Sundays. I don't know, like I say, I don't understand why we are here. I really don't. To me it doesn't make any sense. If a developer can't work out his problems before he gets to the Planning Commission, and if a developer doesn't have the approval of the staff when he goes to the Planning Commission, he is sunk. Ninety -nine times out of a hundred, the Planning Commission is going to kill him. I know, I have went through that before. So this time, we work out a plan that the Planning Commission approves 5 -0, and the staff recommends it, and we are still in trouble. You know, how .. it is pretty discouraging - if you are going to do this to every developer that tries to do something in Beaumont, I feel sorry for them. That is about all I have to say. Councilman Lowry: Mr. Fagot. I wanted to answer you. Mayor Thompson: Just a minute Bill. Before you answer, there is someone else that wants to talk on this I am sure. Councilman Lowry: Aren't we in the middle of discussion with Mr. Fagot at this time. Can't I reply. He asked why the police chief found fault . . . Mayor Thompson: I tried to have the other side not reply to you at the time and made them come back. Paul Turner, 39423 Tokay Street: The primary reason the street - to go straight through there like it was said before - that property is privately owned. Now to bring that street straight through there as you have drawn lines and so on, that man that owns that property that you have drawn the lines through, if he tried to get into his driveway there is a space of five feet from the front of his garage to where the sidewalk would be, and then the curb, leaving . . . and my car is 1917" long, leaving the whole tailend of the car laying clear out in the street, while he gets out of his car and opens his garage, and to go in, which would be an absolute traffic hazard. On the other side of the street there is a house which we own. You bring it straight through there you have to cut off a portion of the house. That would mean that that house - it is part slab floor, it is part wooden floor. It was suggested by Mr. Lowry that that house could be picked up and moved. I don't know how many years ago you were saying that a house could be moved for $3,000.00. Councilman Lowry: I did it. Councilman Shaw: Is that on a foundation. Mr. Turner: Part of it is, and part of it isn't. Part of it is on slab and part of it is on foundation. Well, to take that house that - - -- a generates a certain amount, and I might add, taxes to the City, gen- erates a certain amount of income to help pay the mortgage, to tear that house up, to turn it around, to move it around, to adding this additional cost, and losing the lot - adding this cost to the remainder of the lots - to say nothing of Lot 10 on the other sub- division, which would cut that so small that it would be unusable, there would be an odd piece of ground there - I'll step over here and show you - when you bring this street right through here, this leaves you a portion of ground from this line to here which is of absolute no value. A piece of ground about 40' wide in back and about 16 to 18 feet wide in the front. This lot would be destroyed. This house would be destroyed. All of this cost, plus the lot line adjust- ment, plus the moving of all of this sewer and all of these facilities that were in here, to move those over, to get them in the street, and all of that adding all of this cost to the remainder of what few lots is left would be absolutely, economically, not feasible. We could not accept this kind of expense and add it to these pieces of property, and still come out. Everybody knows as to the tremendous cost of building today. The cost of property. All the off -site improvements, to say nothing of the cost of our engineer. All of these costs, added together, would not make this an economical situation, and we do have to try - at least that is what we try to do - to make a profit. And with this tremendous cost, and besides that no more cherry trees along there - we couldn't raise cherries . . . Councilman Shaw: Mr. Turner, what do you estimate Councilman Lowry: Mr. Mayor if I can't talk, how come Mr. Shaw can talk at this time. Councilman Shaw: I am asking a question. You are entitled to ask a question aren't you? Councilman Lowry: No, he told me I wasn't. Mayor Thompson: Economics, really, from the standpoint of the Planning Commission, is not a primary consideration. Land use is a primary consideration of the Planning Department, Planning Commission. Now, while economics are important from a developer's standpoint, it is not a primary consideration from this body's standpoint. Basically, what we are supposed to be doing is looking at land use, highest and best use of land. Mr. Turner: All right, I will do my best to answer it on land use. It doesn't seem like to me to run a street through there, to - if not destroy - to badly bend this man's home there. To destroy Lot No. 10. To destroy one house, and god only knows it is hard enough to get a house built and paid for in this town anyway. Your ruining one, destroying another, and destroying a lot. Now to me this is not intelligent land use. You are ruining three sites to get a street through there that, in my thinking, and in other people's thinking, is not necessary. Now it is a known fact through the law enforcement agencies throughout.the United States, it is an absolute known fact that there is less crime, there is less accidents, there is less traffic hazards on a cul -de -sac then any other position, any other place in any City. Due to the fact that, true enough, a cul -de -sac only has one way out, but it - whether it is a psycological thing, or what it is, there is much less crime committed on a cul -de -sac than on a through street because they can get out both ways, but as far as your land use - you will destroy three pieces of property. I submit to you gentlemen this is not intelligent thinking. Mayor Thompson: Gary, you are the planner for the City. Is what Mr. Turner just said basically correct from a land use standpoint. Gary Croft: From a land use standpoint - as to the crime.portion I have heard that, but I don't have any documentation of that. I can't swear to that. As to accidents,_I have read studies that do indicate that is true. But from the land use, it would in fact ruin Lot - depending on where the street were to go through - it would either take out the house in the proposed Lot 10, if it were to be placed where it was originally intended where the curb and gutter and so forth are on Mr. Quinn's property, it would seriously require an alter- ation to Lot 10 of the prior subdivision which was put in. It would seriously jeopardize that lot as far as being viable. It may simply Page 7 I require a complete realignment of those lots in order to have viable building sites. It does create serious problems, and this is one of the reasons staff recommended this alternative in the first place. Ken Fagot, 435 Cherry Court, Beaumont: I am one of the owners of the company, and you know it appears to me - I live in a cul -de -sac street myself and, evidently, from what I am hearing, I am living in a fire hazard. I don't really believe that. I am living in such a thing. I believe I am quite accessible as far as the fire department is concerned. Our cul -de -sac is designed in the same type of a manner. It meets the standards of the City and the County. And I also feel, which was brought up earlier, we did go in front of the Planning Department of the City, and I feel that they are behind our development so far as the layout of it is. And I would also like to say it is the most feasible way of doing it as far as benefit to the City and benefit to the developer. It was the best land use, and I feel that this street going through would be a detriment to us, and also a detriment to the City. If anything else, it is going to be a shortcut through there, that is all it is going to be, a shortcut. Here we have got Orange Avenue, which is quite sufficient to carry traffic, and also have Palm Avenue, which is also quite sufficient to carry traffic around that area. I don't see anyway, any reason why it should, in any way, shape or form. The fire department has been here and stated it is quite adequate in the way of size for fire .protection, and going out that way, like Mr. Croft pointed out, it cuts into lots of a previous tract which has been approved by the City, so you are not only talking about going through one piece of property, you are talking about two or three pieces of property. You are talking about moving a house ninety degrees, which seems un- believable to me. You are also talking about buying property from this single family residence shown on the map. Mr. Croft . . . Councilman Lowry: Sir, you know I withdrew that recommendation at the study session, and we talked about this. Mr. Fagot: That is all I have to say. Mayor Thompson: Jack did you have something to say. Jack Kessner, 38595 Florence Street: I have been a policeman for a number of years, and several years ago when the FBI Bulletin, which is a magazine published by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, it showed - statistics showed that the safest place to live so far as crime was concerned is on a deadend street or a cul -de -sac. The reason that was given was that thieves aren't all that dumb, or burglars, they want two exits themselves, and when you have a cul -de- sac you only have one exit for them leave from. The same entrance that the police would have. I have lived on a deadend street for twenty years, and we have had no crime other than a gasoline theft that I know of, on a three block long deadend street. I believe, personally, after twenty -eight years in law enforcement, ex -Chief of Police Bob Bruce is sitting here, I am sure he could tell you the same thing, it is the safest street to live on in any community, a cul -de -sac or deadend street. Thank you. Mayor Thompson: We can go on and on with this . . . Councilman Lowry: May I answer them now. Mayor Thompson: I missed a hand back here in back. Mary Helen Thomas, 640 Donna Drive: My husband and I invested almost $90,000 in our home there, and we don't want the street through because it would be just another shortcut for motorcycles and hot - rodders. We love the cul -de -sac idea, and that was why we bought the house. So please don't take our cul -de -sac away. We like it. Mayor Thompson: One more, and then we are going to go to Bill. John Moore, 1112 Chestnut: Gentlemen, I would just like to say I have a piece of property over on Euclid, between 12th and 13th. Any of you that are familiar with when that street was put through, as basically a semi - sub - standard street rather than bringing a cul -de -sac in from 13th down, they opened it up between 12th and 13th all the way on Euclid. You created four sub - standard lots on Page 8 the west side. Utilization of the property would have been much wiser to bring a cul -de -sac in on 13th, and not bothered to carry Euclid through. As far as utilization of the property, that would have been the best use, certainly much better, more beautiful lots than were created by putting Euclid through. I think you are going to do exactly the same thing if you put this street through. I think you are going to create a sub - standard situation with about a five foot setback or less on the existing home and garage there, it is going to look miserable just as it does on the west side of 12th and Euclid. I just don't think it is a sensible use of the property. I think you would be making the same mistake that was made, and I don't think I was on the Council when it was made, at least I hope I wasn't because it was bad utilization of the property. Irish Mitchell: The entire development started on this in September of 1979. There was a hearing in January of 1980 and it was thoroughly gone over. Another hearing in February of 1980 where they had changed the map on two different occasions. There was another item that came up in March. Two meetings in March, and there was one more meeting in April. Councilman Lowry: Excuse me, you are talking about the prior sub- division. Irish Mitchell: I am talking about the concept. I am speaking of the concept of the area. Then on the 27th all the engineering was cleared, and on the 27th there was a public hearing in these very chambers and everything was gone over. Fire hazard, the police protection, the future development, and they were developing the west side, and it was agreed among all people that they would continue and allow that cul -de -sac to be built around instead of going through with the street, for the developer to develop in the future, and so we had a thirty foot street they allowed - they were going to put another thirty feet in, it was voted on unanimously. It was voted on yes by Mr. Lowry, it was voted on yes by Mr. Hammel, it was voted on yes by Mr. Shaw, voted on yes by Mayor Peterson, who were the only four who were on the Council. Councilman Lowry: You are mistaken, I was not on the Council at that time. Irish Mitchell: In 1981 sir . . . Mayor Thompson: Gentlemen, don't argue the point. Irish Mitchell: I will not argue the point. But this was thoroughly hashed out and gone over and Ross Nammar was the City Manager at the meeting of the 27th, and this was all hashed out. You were here when Mr. Nammar was here . . . Councilman Lowry: It was not hashed out. It was found that we could not act. Mayor Thompson: Gentlemen. We will have no more interchange at this time. Irish Mitchell: I just want to be on record that that was decided by a majority of the Council that this concept would be completed the way the engineer and the Fagot- Turners had it. Councilman Lowry: First I will reply to Mr. Mitchell. I was on the Council and I was against that cul -de -sac at that time when we discussed it, and as you will notice the cul -de -sac shows the curbing coming on out ready to go on to the 14th Street. We found that the Planning Commission had approved this, and a former Council before I was on the Council had approved the Planning Commission's minutes. Therefore, by State Law we could not call this back to the Council for review. We did not vote on it Mr. Mitchell. Now, as far as cul -de -sacs, as I stated, I have no aversion to cul -de- sacs., but I do this one because there are only 140 feet from an intersecting street, and as far as the crime is concerned, this has a weakness which the police chief and I discussed that a burglar can park his motorcycle out here on 14th Street, slip through these lots and come in here and commit a burglary, and when a call is made they come in from Orange Street, and he runs through the lot, gets on his motorcycle and is long gone. Or a bicycle, at nighttime. You y bet. I did, at the study session, mention the possibility that perhaps we could go straight through here and by imminent domain take that paved area street and carry it through, but in the dis- cussion and talk with the attorney it was found that it would probably take two years, and I said forget it. I withdrew that suggestion. I am not suggesting how they do it, I am just suggesting that it can, and in my opinion, should be done. Mayor Thompson: We have heard both sides, and had a rebuttal. Is there any other member of the Council who would like to add to this. Councilman Hammel: I just would like to say this. Inasmuch, and this is the way I feel, inasmuch as we have staff which we hired, our City Manager or this Council, we put a Planning Commission out there, and I hate to say it, I may not approve this plan, but I tell you this much, if these people approved this, I hope that in the future they look at the plan twice before they approve another one. I have no complaints as far as this is going the way it is because even Mr. Baldi, who is here tonight, he had to make certain changes, and I feel that if the Planning Commission makes a decision, I hope that in the future you look at your master plan, what we plan for the future, and we go from there. Otherwise, what is the use of us having a Planning Commission. Also, our City staff, our Planner, look at these things twice before you make a decision so that this does not come up again before the City Council that we have something to contend with like this. Mayor Thompson: Anything else from the Council. Okay, we will close the Public Hearing at 8:50 P.M. and entertain a motion at this time from Councilman Lowry. Councilman Lowry: Well as I said, I stated my fears and my conscience is clear no matter how this goes. Motion by Councilman Lowry that Tentative Tract Map No. 18341 be revised to eliminate the cul -de -sac, and a paved ingress and egress to 14th Street be constructed instead; also that the City Manager, staff and City Council work together with the developers to achieve this to the mutual benefit to all concerned. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts Tentative Tract Map 18341 and Variance 1001 as approved by the Planning Commission, subject }r� to those conditions set by the Planning Commission and the Building Department, with the exception that one extra fire hydrant be added on the northeast corner of Donna. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. NOES: Councilman Lowry. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 14. Authorization for Mayor to Sign Contract with Envista, a Division of Willdan Associates, for Technical and Professional Community -i G Improvement Program Consulting Services. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the Contract with Envista, a Division of Willdan Associates, for Technical and Professional Community Improvement Program Consulting Services, in the amount of $45,000.00, with the conditions stated therein; and further author- izes the Mayor to sign said contract. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 15. Appointment to Fill Planning Commission Vacancy. (Continued from February 22, 1982). On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City �r Council of the City of Beaumont appoints Emeline Schuelke to the Page 10 Planning Commission to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of D. E. "Doc" Barker. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 16. Authorization for Mayor to Sign Purchase Agreement for the Purchase of Property from Albert and Barbara Haskell. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City 4' Council authorizes the City Manager to obtain an appraisal of this property, the cost of which is not to exceed $1,000.00, and report the results of this appraisal back at the next Council meeting. AYES: Councilman May, NOES: Councilman Shaw. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 17. Request by Ray Joslin for Reimbursement of Costs in Opening Plugged Sewer. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes reimbursement to Ray Joslin for his costs in opening the plugged sewer in the amount of $150.00, to be drawn from the sewer funds. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 18. Request from Police Chief for Reclassification of Position. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the request of the Chief of Police to reclassify the position of Supervising Clerk- Dispatcher to the position of Supervising Station Officer as recommended by G, the POST Management Survey Team and the City Manager. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 19. ;Request for Budget Transfer to Purchase Police Walkie- Talkie Units. 'v This agenda item was continued until the next regular meeting of Cs�f March 22, 1982, pending receipt of information from Bob Martines. a �5 20. Authorization to Purchase Tranquilizer Guns and Supplies for Animal Control Officer. `On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the purchase of tranquili- zer guns and supplies for the Animal Control Officer as recommended. AYES: Councilmen May, NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 21. Authorization to Purchase 1982 Editions of the Building Codes. r On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman May, the City " Council of the City of Beaumont approves the purchase of the 1982 Editions of the Building Codes. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. r BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF ADJOURNED MEETING OF MARCH 16, 1982 (Adjourned from March 8, 1982) 1. The Beaumont City Council met in an adjourned meeting at 9:15 A.M., on Tuesday, March 16, 1982, in the City Manager's Conference Room, with Mayor Thompson presiding. 2. On Roll Call the following Council Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. Councilman Lowry was absent from 9:15 A.M. until 11:30 A.M., after which time he was present and participated in the discussion. 3. Discussion of Goals and Objectives for the City of Beaumont for 1982 -83. Following an outline compiled from recommendations submitted by members of the City Council, Department Heads and the City Manager, a general discussion was held regarding the goals and objectives for the City of Beaumont. The meeting was adjourned for lunch at 12:10 P.M. and reconvened at 1:40 P.M. The discussion concerning the goals and objectives of the City continued in the afternoon. There being no further busine --s to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 4:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Deputy City Clerk BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF MARCH 22, 1982 1. The Beaumont City Council met in a regular meeting at 7:35 P.M., on Monday, March 22, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor Thompson presiding. 2. The invocation was given by Reverand Herbert Moise. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Councilman Hammel. 4. On Roll Call the following Council Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 5. There being no additions, corrections or deletions, on Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of March 8, 1982 and Adjourned Meeting of March 16, 1982 were approved as submitted. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 6. There being no objections, the Minutes of Regular Planning Commission meeting of March 2, 1982 were accepted as presented and ordered filed. 7. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, warrants as audited per Warrant List of March 22, 1982, in the amount of $88,311.90 and Payroll of March 19, 1982, in the amount of $25,841.50 were approved for payment as audited. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 8. f RDINANCE NO. 543 - SECOND READING - Declaring the Need for a Redeve- lopment Agency to Function in the City of Beaumont and Declaring the ¢ity Council to be the Redevelopment Agency for the City of Beaumont. y, On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Ordinance No. 543 at its second reading by title only. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 9. )ORDINANCE NO. 544 - SECOND READING - Regulating Encroachments and / Xcavations on City Streets. , On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Ordinance No. 544 at its second reading by title only. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 10. J ORDINANCE NO. 545 - FIRST READING - Providing for the Abatement and /,Removal as Public Nuisances of Abandoned, Wrecked, Dismantled or Inoperative Vehicles from Private Property or Public Property. Motion by Councilman Shaw and second by Councilman Hammel to pass Ordinance No. 545 at its first reading was withdrawn by Councilmen Shaw and Hammel respectively. Page 1 AkGENDA On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont passes Ordinance No. 545 for its first reading by title only. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel and Lowry. NOES: Mayor Thompson. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. RESOLUTION NO. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -17 pro - claiming May 1, 1982 as "Law Day USA" by title only, with the stipula- tion that the typographical error of the word rededication be corrected. 1982 -17 - Proclaiming May 1, 1982 as "Law Day USA ". AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. At this point, the Public Hearing noticed for 8:00 P.M., listed as Agenda Item No. 15, was heard. 15. PUBLIC HEARING - the Draft General Plan. he Mayor announced that the legal requirements of publication of notice have been met. r" *'' L The Public Hearing was opened at 8:00 P.M. J Norman Davis, City Manager: Let me read this notice from the State Office of Planning and Research, then the original presentation will be by Gary Croft, the City's Planner, and Paul Secord, of Beland/ Associates, who performed the development of the General Plan, is here also to answer any questions at any stage of the hearing, but we will have Gary make the presentation. I just want to read into the record at this time the acknowledgment that came from the State of California Project Notification and Review System, Office of the Governor. Pro- ject: Beaumont General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. It has been given a number, and it points out that their review starts effective March 17, 1982, and that the document review period ends April 30, 1982. Which means that they may use all of that time if they so desire before they make a report, or ask for changes in the draft of the EIR, or they may give a report to the City of Beaumont prior to that deadline of April 30, 1982. In any event, the hearings have to continue until such time as the final date, or in advance of that date, if they reply earlier than that date, before the City Council can take - close the hearing and take any action upon the General Plan. So with that notice, I would ask Gary Croft to come up and present the General Plan to the City Council and to the public. Gary Croft, Chief Planner, City of Beaumont: On the 2nd of March the Planning Commission concluded its hearings and approved the General Plan as you see presented before you, and as you have contained in the documents which you previously received. The Planning Commission held two public hearings as is scheduled for yourselves, at which time the plan as recommended by the Citizens Advisory Committee was presented at the initial hearing, and discussion - presentation was made by the consultant, and discussion was held with various members of the public and the Citizens Advisory Committee making presentations. The second hearing, likewise, was held in which further comment was made. Basically the plan, as adopted by the Commission, is the same as presented by the committee with the exception of about a half a dozen changes. In particular, designations on the plan, but none of them were substantially changing the concept of the plan in its scope or in its text. The Commission, in fact, made comments at the hearings that they felt the policies and goals as outlined by the Committee were quite outstanding, and would be of considerable value in the development of the City. Let me outline basically the plan as you see it in terms of the categories. It would probably be easiest to go by the color code, since that is the Page 2 most visible. The first category which you see is the rural residen- tial category, basically designed for rural residential development on half acre lots, that is, essentially, two units to the acre or larger. You basically find that in the southern edges of the City and then stretching on to the hills to the south in the unincorporated area. The second category is the low density residential . . . Councilman Lowry: Would you mention the colors as you speak to it? Mr. Croft: That color is a light green. The second category is a golden color, and it is low density residential, one to five units to the acre, which is basically what we think of as standard single family, and the bulk of the existing City, as you see, is found in that category. One of the changes made at that time was to include the area just outside the City limits along Sunnyslope within that category as it is already somewhat developed to that density, and the existing larger acreage in that area could also fit into that. Another area where you find that category is up off of Brookside, the tract which is currently being considered for annexation. In addition, one of the changes made by the Commission was to add to that category the balance of the forty acre parcel from which that tract is cut. The other areas where you find that category are down around Rangel Park in the southwest section of the City where it is currently developed to that type of a density, and then along Maple just off of First, again where you find a small existing residential area. The next category is the medium density residential of five to eight units to the acre. Here you find the category along the north side of the freeway easterly of Maple going east to approximately Pennsylvania, and then in the same area to the north of Sixth Street approximately where Seventh Street would be found, then further east from approximately where the storm channel comes through just east of Xenia to almost Highland Springs, and then again in the mobile home park development up at 14th and Cherry, and the balance of that super block where you find the high school. The next category is the high density residential where the densities range eight to sixteen units to the acre, and basically that is found in two locations where we have existing high density apartments. One over along Cherry, the other north of the Bank of America on Beaumont Avenue. The next category is general commercial, and it includes all of our commercial type of development. The basic area is the area along Sixth Street from Highland Springs through this central portion of the town to approximately California, and then along Beaumont Avenue northerly to just north of 12th Street, then the area at 14th Street and Beaumont Avenue. One change - or two changes made by the Commission from the Citizen's plan was one to add - to change from the medium density resi- dential at the corner of 8th and Highland Springs to general commercial. That is that vacant lot across from the hospital. And then the other was to reduce the commercial that was along Beaumont Avenue, which as the Citizens Committee had shown it extended westerly to Euclid and easterly to Magnolia. They essentially reduced it to where the alley currently runs behind Beaumont Avenue, and then extended that north. The next category, which is a magenta, is the highway service commercial, and the orientation for this was the locations where the zrccess was towards the freeways and towards the major highways running into the City. The areas designated for this use were around the Beaumont Avenue exit, both north and south of that, and then over along Highway 60, where Dowlings have their stand, as well as an area paralleling Highway 60 along Western Knolls, along Frontage Road on the north and then a comparable frontage road on the southerly portion. Likewise, over at San Timoteo Canyon, an area was designated as highway service commercial. The next category is the purple or violet color, which is the industrial category. The basic areas designated for that were the area south of the freeway northerly of First Street running from approximately Cali- fornia Avenue, just westerly of California Avenue, east to Highland Springs. Then, in addition, the area west of Elm, again south of the Page 3 t freeway including the existing portion of the City where the old dump sites were located northerly of Fourth. In addition, an area between the railroad tracks and the freeway northerly of Highway 60 that tapers out. The next category in the darker green are public open spaces, and these are scattered throughout the City and basically designate existing uses. Everything from the series of parks running down Orange Street and including Noble Creek Park in the unincorporated area. The next category is a blue which designates public facilities including this building, the various school sites around the City and properties the water district uses for storage or for pumping. Also included, of course, are the sewage treatment plant of the City, the City's yard, the Southern California Gas Company facility. The next category is a lighter green, which is the open space reserve. Basically these are found in categories - one of the hillsides southerly of the City, and then along the areas which are subject to flooding along Noble Creek and San Timoteo Creek that you find to the northwest of the existing City. The last category on the list is this yellow category, which is a very significant change from the existing general plan, which was adopted in 1973, and that is a category designating for these large ownership acreages that we find scattered around the perimeter of the City, and some within the City, as a specific plan designation basically for residential, but allowing supporting commercial with a recommended density of one to five units to the acre. Basically what it amounts to is those areas which encompass forty acres or larger - in order to define their development and their long range program, would require that they come before the Commission and Council and do a specific plan document, which would outline in detail their proposed development over a period of time - which would allow both the developer and the City to view in some detail, well in advance of development, the type of development and the type of amenities which would come to the area. The Commission in their hearing and then in adopting the General Plan, recommended that the Council adopt the plan as presented, and as you would have following your hearings. I might point out, in the hearings, that any item that is presented to the Council, which was not speci- fically heard by the Commission, must be referred back to them for their recommendation. You do not hold another public hearing, but they simply consider the request as it has been made before the Council, and make a recommendation back. So, if there is a considerable amount of presentation which was not previously heard by the Commission then it does create the possibility of some delays in adoption. And, hopefully, what would be presented would be either similar to what has already been presented, and would not require undue delays of recon- sideration by the Planning Commission. Are there any questions? Irish Mitchell, 402 East Sixth Street, Beaumont: The only question that I have is along Beaumont Avenue going out - on the commercial property from downtown to 12th Street - between 12th and 6th. Now that is basically a half a block on each side isn't it? The only reason that I am mentioning that in the form of a question - that is exactly what we have at the present time, isn't that correct? There has been a great deal of conversation relative to going down there, especially with the parking requisites of commercial property, is the depth of those lots. You only have about 150 foot depth of those lots, and you are stifling a potential commercial in there unless you include it over to Edgar and over to Magnolia - you could abandon those alleys, then you would have good sensible commercial development with adequate parking without having a problem. I am just offering this as some- thing for you to think about, gentlemen, because none of this zoning will be changed until such time as there are zoning hearings, is that right? So I thought I would bring that up as a point. It is a good plan - I like it - it is very similar to one I saw very recently. City Manager: What Mr. Mitchell says, of course, is what the Citizens Committee recommended as Gary pointed out to you originally in the report. Nicholas Grimes, 387 Florence, Beaumont: What Irish brought up, I want to speak on that. I was prepared for something else, but you brought up a good point. I have some commercial property in Banning Page 4 A different town. 125 foot depth. I am trying at the present time (Tape changed. Mr. Grimes' comments continue as follows) . . . that is exactly what he says. I have been struggling with this for seven years. I have been over there eleven years, but I live in Beaumont, like I say. But on this alley thing, that is very valid, what he says, because. you can't - a twenty -seven foot deep commercial is not even worth building, the only reason I am building it is because I already have the property. Otherwise, I would like to sell it. But that is a secondary thing. I have a question on the industrial. This area right here (pointing at the map). I am curious to know why we have industrial - or zoned industrial in what I would feel would be a good area of town to bring in traffic off the freeway. Banning exploits as much as they can the freeway. Why can't we do the same thing in Beaumont? Mayor Thompson: If I understand you correctly. Your question is why is that little bit of M zone down there on 6th Street. Mr. Grimes: Well, where he is pointing right there is north of the freeway - no I guess you could say east of the freeway also - why can't we go commercial - let's say get some commercial in there that would attract traffic off the freeway to spend their money in Beaumont for sales tax purposes, nothing else. Why have industrial there. Why can't we have all industrial south of the freeway. Mayor Thompson: Can you answer that question Gary? Gary Croft: When I reviewed the plan I neglected to point out that was one of the changes which the Commission made from the Citizens Advisory plan. That is the citizens had that designated as commercial, however, at the second hearing before the Planning Commission a number of the gentlemen that have machine shops in that area came in and pointed out that, in fact, the commercial that had been designated there for years had really never developed, and had gone down hill over the time, and that they had developed the area into an industrial area, and wanted to preserve their machine shops and the development which they had been doing in the area, basically west of California along 6th Street. Councilman Lowry: They have quite a bit invested, and some nice buildings in this area. Gary Croft: And they pointed this out at the hearing, and the Commission agreed with that concept, and therefore felt that ought to be changed to that designation. That would not preclude, however, commercial development related to the highway from going in - particularly on those parcels near the on and off ramps of 60 and I -10. Mayor Thompson: Does that answer your question. Mr. Grimes: No, not really, but I don't want to drag it on. To me it seems to me it is a waste - we are not drawing enough traffic off the freeway with industrial there. We should draw in - MacDonald Hamburger, that kind of stuff. There is a lot of money in that area. The restaurant row in Banning is that way. They make a lot of money that way. The second question. Is this only for zone change only? Mayor Thompson: Oh no. This is the entire planning concept for the Beaumont City Limits and its sphere of influence. Mr. Grimes: Okay. Second question. I am going to point something out here. This is the corner of Cherry and 14th Street if I am not mistaken. And this is the hospital area. I would like to see - I don't know if it is possible - can we somehow figure out a way to get a road across there - there are a lot of reasons, primarily the emergency vehicles from that part of town - which is the hospital, CHP, ambulance, and on the other side we have the high school, and do you know what that means. I was raised right there on 8th Street and I remember seeing ambulances and fire trucks and everything, which are on that side go racing down that road. One time I saw a little dog get killed. That could have been a little child. And Pennsylvania Avenue is worn out. Why can't we just go straight across for emergency vehicles - for that matter the general public, and we could save Pennsylvania from being worn out anymore - turn it into a collector street rather than a thoroughfare - put the thoroughfare from 14th diagonally. The secondary benefit would be, if you notice, we have a lot of rain - water fall off Page 5 I should say in the area of - is it Xenia and 6th. Okay, we can rec- tify this situation if we put this road diagonally across, because the rain that flows off that big field, if we can have a road going diagonally across, it would capture and shed some of that water over into the Highland Springs . . . that big concrete gutter where they have . . . okay, we would solve so many problems this way. The rain problem we have at Xenia and 6th could be solved - all the rains would be diverted to Highland Springs. Not to mention every one of us have to drive around that field - I was raised in this town. I don't know how much money I have spent driving around that field just because I can't go across. Not to mention emergency vehicles. Councilman Lowry: First off, this is not incorporated in this City. Mr. Grimes: Yes, I know that is why I asked if I should even bring it up. I didn't even know if the City could even figure out a way maybe.the County could put something across there. Because for the emergency purposes - emergency vehicles - not to mention the rainwater. Councilman Lowry: That property is also an agricultural preserve. Mr. Grimes: Okay. Are we going to continue to let somebody who owns that property - and as we develop around it - he continues to sit there, and we have to drive around that. Wait until some little child gets hurt on 8th Street. Councilman Lowry: We have, at present, . . . maybe the City Manager should answer this. We have, at present, an annexation for that property into the City before LAFCO. City Manager: Gentlemen. The owners of this property have brought in a - - not a precise developmental plan, but an elementary developmental plan for their property, and it does show 14th Street going through to . . . well not exactly straight, but it gets there. They show on their plan . . they have got a loop to serve the whole of their property, and then 14th Street making a connection and also Cougar Way making a connection to that loop, which is going to feed Highland Springs by virtue . . . Mr. Grimes: Would that be considered a thoroughfare, or just a collector street. City Manager. Oh yes, it is a major . . Mr. Grimes: I was just thinking of the emergency vehicles from the high school area. You know what I mean there. City Manager: It is a major arterial they have got projected on their plan. Mr. Grimes: That is all I have to say. Thank you. City Manager: A quick comment. On the first part of his comment on the industrial. As Gary has indicated, the area has grown into a light manufacturing use. For years there were commercial establishments on that side of town and virtually, by way of the reason of the freeway design, it killed that side of town, because there is no visibility of Beaumont on that side of town from the freeway, and that is what happened - it killed the commercial and, as a result, the manufacturing sprung up. I think it is a noble idea that he has, but I don't think that anybody can force the traveling public to come off at a point that they just don't seem to want to come off on. That is what has happened on that side of town. Gary Croft: I might make one additional comment. On the diagonal road which he proposed. That was discussed at the hearings related to the circulation element as being a very desirable thing to service exactly what has been discussed, and it basically was felt that they did not want to show that specifically on the map until such time as a specific plan were developed on the property. That a proper consideration be made for circulation, roughly paralleling that. As Mr. Davis has indi- cated, the preliminary conceptual plan for that property lends itself to that type of design. Page 6 Mr. Simoff, 1385 Michigan: All this area - from Cherry Avenue - 6th Street - and here is California - is all this R -1, R -2 or R -3. Gary Croft: Basically that would be R -1. If we were talking about zoning. We are talking about single family. Mr. Simoff: It is all R -1. From 6th Street up to 12th Street and a little more, it is commercial. It is R -1 on one side and on the other side. How did they support this commercial. There is only one house on one lot, with two people or three people. Without people this commercial will die. They cannot be supported. Why is this area ex- cluded - 14th to 12th to not be commercial. Because, in our theory, it is very noisy. There is big traffic and noise, and by being noisy cannot be residential. It must be commercial, or another use. But I don't see this from here to here being residential. There is so much traffic, a regular Los Angeles Freeway. Second. I think that is the territory of the County. You indicate industry. Very little is territory for apartments. We need rentals. If we intend to put industry or something else, they are not residential. We cannot grow this place without residential. There must be much more area included for apartments. My question is why have you excluded this one from commercial. That is my question. And why so little area for apart- ments. Gary Croft: If the Council would like that question answered, I would suggest that it would probably better to talk - to have Paul Secord answer it, since these were considerations that were given at the Citizens Advisory Committee of which he acted as consultant to them. Councilman Lowry: He missed all that area north of 14th, which is for apartments. I think he didn't realize that. Gary Croft: That is correct, the area of 14th to Cougar, from Beaumont easterly to Cherry, basically, is designated for apartment type deve- lopment - or higher density than single family. Paul Secord, City Planning Consultant from the firm of Beland /Associates, Project Manager for the Beaumont General Plan: My answer to that, and I will be speaking as a representative of the Citizens Committee which, over a period of about six months, held bi- monthly meetings, the culmi- nation of which is the plan that you see before you. The justification for not including commercial development any further north was made principally on the existing land uses in the area. Most of that area is completely developed now with single family type development. As is the bulk of the area shown for low density residential. The major developed portion of the City. There are rather extensive areas shown for multi- family development. Most of that is developed, and then there is a tremendous amount of undeveloped property, almost 160 acres, which is shown. Which, based on the economic projections and general feelings of demand, seem to be more than adequate to provide for whatever poten- tial there may be for multi - family development. Are there any specific questions or comments based on that. Mayor Thompson: I have a question. My question is - on your population projections in your plan - was what, 55,000. What was the time span that we were projecting on that. Paul Secord: We are talking about a twenty year plan essentially. Now, perhaps this is a good time to go into the population projection questioned, because I know there has been - I have heard some comments, and there has been some question about how those projections were arrived at. What the basis was for them. Mayor Thompson: Before you continue, may I finish my question. I had prefaced my question on the population. The area that you have there - what is it the orange - the higher density - that area, and one down on 8th Street in this area. Based on your population projections, do you feel that is an adequate size of an area for that? Paul Secord: Yes. Let me talk about the population projections just very quickly, because I know there has been some concern and comment about that. The number of approximately 50,000 is based on what the Page 7 maximum build -out would be under the General Plan designations as shown on that map. And that is the sole basis for that figure. There are also projections that were prepared as part of an economic analy- sis which past development trends as a basis for projection. Now whether those past trends will hold true over the next few years is questionable, and it is very difficult to measure them. There is really quite a spectrum. Then on the other side, if one was to take all of the various proposals for development - just concept plans that we have seen over the last several years for all of this potentially developable vacant property, you would end up with an ultimate population of well over 100,000 people. Which seems to be far in excess of what the area can support. The specific plan designation at a recommended density of five units per acre is a compromise between - on the one hand a very conservative almost no growth projection - and on the other hand, this very large projection. The actual figure is going to be based on economic conditions to a great extent on a national level, which are something that we can't really control as a part of the planning process. But there is certainly a potential for a tremendous amount of growth, and I think the plan does a good job of addressing that potential. So I hope that clarifies any questions that there might be relevant to that. City Manager. Could we clarify one thing that I know is of great interest to some of the people that own these sizeable properties. Gary and Paul have indicated the planned unit development areas are one to five units per acre. Where is that spelled out as regards to that limitation. Paul Secord: Under the specific plan designation. Let me talk about how the plan is constructed basically, and I will answer that speci- fically. In the community development portion of the General Plan, the plan is divided into six basic elements. There is a description of each of the various land use designations, and in that section it defines, under the specific plan requirements, the yellow area shown, it recommended a maximum density of five units per acre. Now the specific plan concept could involve densities which could range considerably lower than that, and conceivably they could be somewhat higher, depending on the specifics of the case, that is why it is mentioned as a recommended density at five per acre. There is a mini- mum area of forty acres that would be allowable under the specific plan, and that is spelled out in that portion of the plan text. Councilman Lowry: Why did you use one to five rather than one to six? One to six would allow 7,000 square foot lots in six to the acre. Five makes it about 8,000 square feet to the acre, and our ordinance says the lot has to be a minimum of 7,000 square feet. Are we going to have a conflict with that in the future. Paul Secord: I don't think so because the areas that are shown for low density now, under the one to five, are principally areas that are already developed. The areas - the yellow areas - the specific plan area, you could have development at a variety of different densities ranging up to apartment type densities, as long as the overall density for the area was within approximately five per acre. Say you could have clustering type developments of townhouses, two -story apartment type structures, as well as much lower density estate type residential uses. Councilman Lowry: In other words, any park area set aside would take care of some of that is what you are saying. Paul Secord: Absolutely. In addition, the plan also provides for ancillary commercial uses in those specific plan areas. Commercial which would be support for specific residential type developments would be allowable, and the acreage that would be taken up by that development would be part of the gross area as well. For example, I think the Deutsch proposal, which I saw for the first time this after- noon, actually has about fifteen acres of commercial development included in it, and that would be consistent with the specific plan policies. Councilman Lowry: New highways, streets and so forth - that area taken out, is that . Page 8 Paul Secord: No, it is a gross figure. It would include streets, highways, public facilities, schools, park, the whole . . . Councilman Shaw: In your plan, what sort of coverage do you give the sewer system. Paul Secord: Well, of course, one of the major constraints on deve- lopment in the area has to do with the provision for infrastructure, and the specific plan concept initially required that more of the developer, at the outset, before a specific plan could be approved, and some of the things that have to be answered are - can the infra- structure be adequately provided for. That includes sewer, water, street systems, and the rest of it. As you know, the City is currently in the process of a sewer master plan, which speaks more directly to those questions. But you are right, that is a major concern and a potential constraint on development. City Manager: Paul, since you indicated that the number of unit per acre in the planned unit development zones there, or areas, is part of this plan, then what you are also saying is that the City Council has the right to make that final determination whether it shall be one to five, or one to eight or one to fifty, if that is what they desire. Is that correct? Paul Secord: I think the one to five, or the overall density of five per acre, is the basic guide. City Manager: I didn't ask you that. Do they have the right to make that decision or not? Or are you saying that what you reported to them now.is frozen in here. Paul Secord: What I saying is that depending on the specifics of a plan submittal, they are locked in essentially to a density that is around five units per acre. I would say if you had . . . City Manager: Paul, you are not answering my question. It could be either yes or no I guess. Does the Council have the right before the adoption of this plan here - the total plan - to set a density of one to five, which is what you have evidently written into the plan at this time, or can they set it at one to four or one to eight, or any other density. Paul Secord: Oh yes, they can change the . . yes. I was reading something into your comment that wasn't there. Yes. The answer is yes. Mayor Thompson: If this plan is adopted as presented, and this plan is normally good for how long - five years - ten years, with an annual upgrading. Paul Secord: There has to be an annual review of this plan, and there is provision in the plan itself for continual monitoring of the goal, objectives and basic land use, controls and policies. For example, if a specific plan was approved for a given area, that approval would be a modification of the plan, and would add to it. It would just create another level of detail. Ultimately the plan is basically designed for a period of twenty years. The plan was designed in such a way that it would be, on the one hand flexible enough to allow for potential development, and on the other hand provide enough control so that the City would be able to control the kind of development that was coming in. Be sensitive to that. It is really a very careful kind of balance, and I don't think there is any real direct answer to say - yes, this will last for twenty years, and then it is going to stop, because ultimately the factors that condition that are things that are outside the ability of the planner to control. Councilman Shaw. You just stated - controlled growth. Now suppose a contractor come into town and we said, well, we want this many units, would that be possible, or would we have to go along with the amount that he wanted to put in. Paul Secord: You have the ultimate say - and ultimately, there could be a General Plan amendment. _ Page 9 Councilman Shaw: Wasn't there some discussion that you cannot control a developer. Paul Secord: I am not sure I follow the point. Ultimately, the City Council has the final say and the final approval process. There is always the option for amending a plan, and the Council has that ability. The law says that can occur three times a year. Gary Croft: I think the question you are asking is really more dealing with the type of planning that I do on a day to day basis as opposed to the long range type planning that we are considering with the General Plan. Yes, the City adopts this as, in effect, a constitution defining the limits of any development proposal. And a developer that does not bring in a proposal which meets the limits of that constitution is, in effect, proposing a law which would be in violation of it, and any proposal would have to be consistent with that. The option that the developer has would then be to propose an amendment to a plan, which is what, I believe, Paul was going to begin to discuss. And that would allow him to create the type of development that he may be proposing, but neither the Commission nor the Council are obligated to accept that proposal. If they feel it is in the best interest of the City, then it would be desirable if they do accept it, but if they don't feel that - you are the elected officials - you do represent the people from the community, and you do have the right to say - no we don't want that development. Councilman Lowry: Mr. Secord, is this the proper time for me to dis- cuss what I think are possibly some omissions from the General Plan other than what we are discussing right now, or should that wait until a little later. Mayor Thompson: Maybe if we can get the public input first, then come back to the Council input, it might answer some questions, or it might bring out reasons why some of your questions are there. Paul Secord: It is my intention to be at all the hearings, so I will be available to answer any questions as they come up later on. Mayor Thompson: Is there any other person in the audience who would like to speak to the General Plan proposal, either they like it - don't like it - and why. Steve Pleasant, CM Engineering, San Bernardino, California: I thought I had better get up now. I thought we would have other testimony here. What I am basically representing is the property at the southeast corner of Brookside and Beaumont Avenue. I have two clients on the property. One has forty acres of residential, the other client, Mr. Roy Kulikov, who is here tonight with me, is proposing a mix of commercial, single family residential and multi- family residential. I would like to point out to the City Council, since most of the members were not here when we started the process some two and a half years ago, we were annexed into the City with the development plan where we were proposing commercial, residential, single family and multi- family. At that time we thought we would be getting the blessings of the City. We proceeded due process for the next two years through the Planning Department, Planning Commission, etc. We did not get to any hearings because we were held up by the general planning process. But we are here before you today, this evening, to request that we be recognized on your General Plan tonight. That you show the commercial that we have requested in the past. There has been some question as to the amount of commercial that should go in that area and what have you concerns in the General Plan - talking with staff regarding the redevelopment of Sixth Street commercial area, and I would submit to you that our proposal, being in the area of two major highways, major routes I should say, Beaumont and Brookside, that it is a combination of commercial with retirement type development residential, that those uses go hand in hand. We need both in order for the project to fly. You have before you the color rendering indicating the proposal that we have been working on for the last couple of years. We invite your comments on this. This is our effort to provide what we feel is a nice looking development. And, of course, going to this specific planning process, and talking with staff, they felt - correct me if I am in error Page 10 S ff on this Gary - the diagram that we have before you would be in suffi- cient detail to be considered a specific plan. In other words, streets, land uses, what have you, are indicated on the map. Again, I say, we have been through the process for quite some time, we feel we are in a good location, the property is a level site fairly free of flood hazards. It is in an essentially growing area of Beaumont. I wonder, Roy, do you have some comments? I respectfully request your questions, or what have you. Again, it has been a lona time that we have been in the process. Mayor Thompson: I don't have one of you right now, but I do have one of Gary. Mr. Pleasant: If I may bring up one other point. The question we brought up regarding the residential density so far as the specific plan density put to you was - could your body approve a development with the density in excess of the five per acre overall - and I am not clear what the answer was. If, for example, our project coming in at - say the density was in the neighborhood of six, seven, maybe eight units to the acre, depending on what happens in the ultimate shakeout on the specific plan process, if it does come in at overall density of seven to the acre, are we still consistent with the intent of the General Plan. City Manager: Mr. Secord's answer on that, Mr. Pleasant, was that at present, within his recommendation, there is a one to five limitation in the planned unit development area. He did say, yes, the Council has the right to increase that or lower that figure. That was his answer. So I would suggest to you that if you have a desire to make something specific in terms of a request to the Council, that you should state that now. Councilman Lowry: Excuse me, Mr. Davis, didn't he also state that it was a gross area that was being considered, and the streets would be taken off, and any commercial would be taken off of the area. In other words, the one to five would be the gross area. Isn't that correct, Mr. Secord. Paul Secord: I don't know if I want to get into terminology as to what net and gross densities are tonight, but if you have a forty acre parcel, and you have two hundred units in that forty acre parcel, wha is the density of that - is that five to the acre? Yes, it would be five to the acre. And I would consier that to be a gross density. That would include streets, open spaces, and whatever. Mr. Pleasant: If, by chance, the General Plan that you have before you tonight, does not allow the higher densities, I would request that the City Council indicate the property for a higher density than what they have shown now. As Gary pointed out, we are contiguous to the medium density area, and because the site is relatively flat, I would like to be able to have - privileged to bring before you a specific plan showing the kind of densities that we have there. Also, the kinds of commercial that we have - if we may, on the first building on the specific plan, in discussions with - we would like to at least be able to get this commercial area. If you don't wish to approve the whole area, we would like this part. With this we would have a spa, tennis courts, what have you - a couple of restaurants, offices, in a planned unit type development. Councilman Hammel: Are you talking homes or mobile homes. Mr. Pleasant: In this area. Mobile homes. Manufactured type of homes. And then in this area it would be garden homes. Councilman Lowry: Isn't there something in this General Plan though, that says Beaumont is going to be a divided street, and you will have to have a frontage street along there which you don't show. Mr. Pleasant: The plan that we have is not cast in concrete. We pre- pared this some three years ago at a time when the City of Beaumont was going through a considerable turmoil, and the reason why we would like to have a commercial at this point here is because on your General Plan you are indicating an access point coming - we realize we will have to change the plan to fit the City of Beaumont's latest thinking Page 11 on it - but as far as our discussions with staff, we felt there could be some controlled access point - or one or two along there, to save the trees. If that is not possible, then there would have to be other ways of providing circulation. But there would be at least one access - you have a break in the street right here. Councilman Lowry: If you are so interested in a beautiful development, then don't you feel that it would be correct to have an access road all along Beaumont Avenue like he mentioned. Mr. Pleasant: I have no objections to that. Councilman Lowry: The other thought I just had - and it is just a thought. Mayor Thompson: We are getting into detail that is not required at this point. My question of Gary was that the Citizens Committee hearing, and the Planning Commission hearings on the General Plan, was this particular thing considered, or thought about, or mentioned, or whatever. Gary Croft: At the Planning Commission I know it was. I believe you also made a presentation at the Citizens Advisory Committee. The concept was discussed, I am in error - they did not make a formal presentation - but the concept as Mr. Pleasant has indicated has been before the City for a number of years, initially when they annexed to the City, and, because of various changes in administration and Council over the past few years, and then the initiation of the General Plan process, the project has never gone to hearing because it was in conflict with the existing General Plan, and the proposal would need consideration in the General Plan, both as a specific plan as is out- lined. But the concern becomes the amount of commercial and the densities - the overall density on the project. Mayor Thompson: Basically, what I am getting at, Gary, is that is this proposal, or this concept, was it considered at the various input levels of this General Plan to such a point that the land use designation in that particular corner was determined because of the presentation, or because they didn't have a presentation. I am trying to find out if this item should be referred back for consideration. City Manager: Or in spite of the presentation. Mayor Thompson: I am trying to find out if this item should be referred back - this particular item - for consideration on the overall General Plan. Gary Croft: There was a formal presentation of this item at the Planning Commission, and their recommendation to follow the Citizens Committee plan constitutes their response to this particular plan. It is somewhat unique for it to be brought up relative to this, there may be a need for it to be referred back. I have heard the presentation and, certainly, Steve may want to modify it. As I see it, there would be no need to refer it back to the Commission. City Manager: I don't think it is clear though to the Council what you are really asking at this point, though, Mr. Pleasant. Are you capable of developing this project within the limits of one to five, or are you not. If not, what is it going to take in terms-of modifica- tion of the planned unit development concept as presented in this proposal to make your plan possible. And I think that is what you had better make clear to this group here because, evidently, you made it clear to the Commission and they didn't change what is up here, and either you can live with this proposal here with your proposal, or you can't. I think you had better make that clear to the Council. Mr. Pleasant: We did make our presentation to the Commission, but there was not the discussion on the proposal as I thought there might be. That is why I am bringing it before you hoping for your consideration. Again, as I indicated earlier, the overall densities that we have laid up for you on our plan is something in the neighborhood of seven units to the acre. We have single family garden apartment units in the upper Page 12 right hand part of the project, and manufactured housing down in the middle. To the southern end near Cougar there is apartment type development. That is why, Mr. Davis, I had to question to you, under the present specific plan designation would seven or eight to the acre be consistent with the General Plan. City Manager: I told you, that out of this hearing it would not be, that is why I am saying to you, if that is what you want you had better make it clear to these gentlemen. Mr. Pleasant: That is what I am trying to indicate to your body tonight, if it is not, then we would respectfully request that it be shown on the General Plan at that density. Councilman Lowry: Are you in any way connected with Peacock Valley. Mr. Pleasant: No. Councilman Lowry: Gary, would you point out on the map just what this piece of property is. Oh, those four. Four pieces. Mr. Pleasant: Actually it is everything except the lower right hand corner. For convenience of discussion, we have prepared a layout showing how the streets would connect. Councilman Lowry: Isn't that the flood control channels going through there. Councilman Shaw: Are you anticipating a little park area. Mr. Pleasant: Yes, this is a two year process we are going through. At one time we thought, and it may still happen, that we could acquire the property. But we don't know if that will ever happen. But as far as trying to lay the design out and show the City how the street system would work, we laid in the streets and . . . Councilman Lowry: In other words, this quadrant down on the right lower corner, you do not have now. Mr. Pleasant: That is right. We may not have this area either: Councilman Shaw: What is that area that you just put your hand on. What is anticipated in that area. Mr. Pleasant: When we were annexed into the City, it was the hope that that would be commercial, but, again, we don't have control of the property so therefore we can't tell you that is what we want. We are primarily interested in this area. Councilman Shaw: If you were to acquire that piece of property, what would that go in - commercial. Mr. Pleasant: It would be a continuation of the higher density residen- tial apartment type units that we have adjacent to Cougar Avenue. It doesn't necessarily have to go to commercial. The same thing is true up here. If we develop this as commercial at this time. Again, we are talking about a ten year program. This does not happen overnight. But we need some assurances from the City of Beaumont. . . (Tape changed, discussion continues as follows) Speaker unidentified: . .beginning of the Citizens Committee meeting stage, we discussed the . basic development concept as shown on a map on that exhibit, and one of the key factors had to do with the amount of commercial development that was shown - potential development that was shown along Beaumont Avenue. There was a policy made, and eventually adopted as part of the plan that commercial development be limited to the extent that it provides support for new residential development. And there was a strong desire not to see extensive commercial development which would draw business away from the developed central business district area. The amount of commercial development shown on their approximately 35 acres, if you include the little blue area down on the bottom - if you include that entire strip, it seemed to be in excess of what would be appropriate. At the present time there is 87 acres of developed commercial property in Beaumont. That includes Page 13 recreational vehicle sales, the swap meet area, so, in fact, the actual amount of retail commercial development in the City is only about forty acres. So this would, essentially, double the amount of commercial development. Now, just based on one forty acre residential project, the amount of demand that would be supported by that would be a rather small amount of commercial development. In this case, because of the area's proximity to Cherry Valley, it is hard to say exactly what the figures would be, but I can conceivably see something from one to five acres of commercial development that would be sup- ported near the corner of Brookside Avenue and Beaumont. But that was the gist of the discussion that took place in the Citizens Committee, and also was presented before the Planning Commission. Mr. Pleasant: If I might say, the commercial that we are proposing as part of the overall specific plan showing the property as twenty - five acres, not thirty -five. Again, that is a ten year program, it is not something that is going to occur overnight. We could go with something less than that, of course. Something that would be supported - economically feasible. I am a little concerned, I don't know where the figure has come from, talking about forty acres of commercial in the downtown area that was developed. It seems like there is quite a bit more than that at the time. Mayor Thompson: You mean like a big furry cat. When you get through the fur, there is not much cat. Mr. Pleasant: Perhaps that is a good analogy, but Sixth Street is quite a long corridor, and it seems like there is considerably more than forty acres of commercial. Irish Mitchell, 402 East Sixth, Beaumont: I would like to pose one or two questions, or make an inquiry from the gentleman from Beland. As a point of information, have you by any chance, given an approximation of the tendency trend on five year increments, like to 1985, 1990, 1995 and 2000, of what the general feeling is of how the population will increase over those five year increments. Paul Secord: Yes. There is a very comprehensive economic study included as part of the master environmental assessment plan. The plan, in fact, has three major parts. The General Plan itself, which is the goals and policy statements, and then there is a master environ- mental assessment, which is essentially a cataloging of the existing information, and it takes data from a variety of sources, abstracts that information out, and it is referenced in there. As part of the environmental assessment, we had economist who did a very comprehensive economic feasiblity study, which includes projections on the types of increments that Mr. Mitchell has mentioned, based on past development trends. And there is a method for making those projections. In addi- tion, there was also a supplemental economic study which allowed for a continual monitoring of these kinds of projections based on the future development potential of the area, and as projects progressed those can be worked into a formula and projections arrived at based on that. It is a very difficult thing to make these kinds of projections in part because all they have to work with are what past development trends are. And those may, in fact, not reflect what the future may really hold. It is possible that if economic conditions continue to go as they are now, that we will see essentially no growth. Or very limited growth. It is also possible that if economic conditions become more favorable, we could see a tremendous amount of- growth. So I think it is -those kinds of projections have to be taken in actual context. Irish Mitchell: The reason I asked the question. Some people have had the misconception that Beland had stated that by the year 2000, this would be populated over in the 40 and 50'000s, and I was sure that maybe some of these gentlemen did not realize, and would read those excerpts from yours showing basically a possibility of a twenty -five percent increase in the next twenty years fluctuating back and forth up to a thirty, back down to a fifteen. Those were the general projections that came out of Riverside County. I believe that some people have a misconception of what you had said, and I wanted to clarify that because you did not say it was going to be that heavy a population. Is that correct sir? Page 14 Paul Secord: I don't think anybody can say that. It would be nice to know exactly where we stand . . . Irish Mitchell: The inference was of a tremendous explosion, and most of the other trends indicate there isn't going be. Mayor Thompson: Is there anyone else that would like to address the proposal for the General Plan for the Beaumont area. City Manager: Mayor, I would like to take a moment to speak to that subdivision just south of Brookside. Gary, if you would point to it there. In the lower ten acres in the southwest quadrant of that forty acre parcel - let me say, the subdivision is developed to thirty -nine single family lots, approximately 7200 square feet each. Subsequently, the balance of those ten acre parcels has been sold off to different property owners, and the southwest quadrant - the southwest ten acres of that forty acres - has now been split into two one acre parcels - one two acre - or two and one -half acre parcel - and then the balance of that ten acres is in approximately six or little less than six acres. The parcel on the east side of the subdivision is about four point two acres. The parcel on the west side is six plus acres and then, of course, the southeast parcel is a ten acre parcel. Now, in talking annexation with the people of that area, they - it was indicated to them that because of the development that has now taken place - the two one acre parcels, the two acre parcel and so on - and the develop- ment to the north - north of Brookside, in the County area, are all one acre minimum - these people want to see the balance of that forty acres developed into very low density, or the two to the acre or greater size. It was indicated to them by me, on behalf of this City Council, that if they wanted to annex to the City, that I held forth to them that hope and that promise, as it were, that is what this City would do in terms of projecting what was to the north of them around the balance of their border in that subdivision. It was presented to the Planning Commission, the Commission choose to allow it to remain in the low density category, which is one to five. That is not what these people want to see. They want to come in to the City so they can preserve that type of develop- ment around them to one or two lots per acre, and I make a strong plea to you tonight, gentlemen , if you want to see annexation proceed, that you cooperate with these people and change that whole area there to show a density - low - not low, but a rural residential density on the balance of that area there - on that area where that forty acre parcel is. I do make that request of you, and it has been considered by the Commission. Mayor Thompson: That designation there is one to five at the present time. One other question. If that proposal is left as such, it does not preclude development on less than a one to five - or five to an acre. City Manager: It doesn't preclude it, but it assures that up to five acres - or up to five units per acre could be developed - and that is not what these people want to see. Gary Croft: I might make a comment. After many years of working with both General Plans, and planning in general with the County, our ex- perience has been that any time a range is placed on a map, the developer will make proposals to maximize their development. Which is only proper and reasonable. And, so, they always shoot for the upper end. Quite frankly, in most single family developments, once you put in streets, your yield is around four units to the acre, not five. It simply depends on what is already existing. But what you would probably see on those parcels would be proposals for around four units to the acre as opposed to two units to the acre, or one to the acre, as would be found in the rural residential category. City Manager: Well, that subdivision that exists there brought about four and one -half units to the acre. Mayor Thompson: Is there anyone else that would like to speak to this presentation, or this proposal? Did you have something that you wanted to bring up Bill? Page 15 Councilman Lowry: Yes, I spent about ten hours going through this thing, and I just scanned most of the tables, and I would like to talk with Mr. Secord about some things here. In the General Plan, first on the map here, isn't there a large high pressure gas line in Sixth Street. It isn't shown if there is. There is two natural gas pipelines shown. There is one in Sixth Street as I understand it, isn't there. Paul Secord: I think there are three major natural gas transmission lines - thirty inch pipelines, and they are shown on the map there. Councilman Lowry: This is a petroleum pipeline down here. Paul Secord: It is the same thing. Councilman Lowry: I understood - I was told at one time that there was a high pressure gas line in Sixth Street, and I think on your MEA plan you do show, in part of Sixth Street, a six inch gas line. Paul Secord: Yes, there are some six inch lines. That line is basically a service line, and isn't as extensive, or wouldn't warrant the kind of concern that the other three major lines. Those three lines are thirty inch transcontinental transmission lines. Councilman Hammel: Isn't that six inch gas line on Sixth Street being replaced or contemplated. Paul Secord: I don't know. The information that is shown in the MEA represents data that we received from the Southern California Gas Co. about a month and one -half ago. That was actually one of the last exhibits prepared, so, I feel, that it is quite up -to -date. I am not aware of any major proposals or changes to it, other than the fairly recent upgrading of their existing facility. Councilman Lowry: Well, one reason I bring it up - you make a recom- mendation on the storm drainage solution for Xenia Avenue, one of the solutions to be carrying it under Sixth Street, and underneath the railroad, and so on and so forth - and I thought that information probably should be shown on this plan so that anyone, in the future, contemplating going ahead with that would be aware that there is a six inch high pressure gas line. That is a pretty good sized gas line. Paul Secord: That is correct. It is a large line and it certainly is going to have an major effect on any kind of crossing that are going to be involved there. I think that the specifics for that, and I will check to make sure it is, - is it shown on that . . . Councilman Lowry: It is shown on your MEA map . . . Paul Secord: Okay, that is the real major exhibit. There would be no problem in including it on the large map, if you wanted it. Councilman Lowry: Well this is a larger scale map, it is easier to see, easier to read and everything else. Now, on other noise hazards - I'm on Page 11 -5, under noise hazards, it completely eliminates - forgot aircraft and helicopters, and this corridor through here is probably one of the highest traffic corridors in the United States for aircraft. And I have seen helicopters come by at 300 feet elevation, and, I tell you, they make a lot of noise. Maybe something should be mentioned that something should be done about making them fly higher - at a higher altitude - when they pass over through this pass. Paul Secord: If there are helicopters coming through at 300 feet, they are in clear violation of the aviation restrictions, because they shouldn't be doing that. Unfortunately, the City has a difficulty in enforcing restrictions relative to that, but those are the kind of comments that I think can come out and be expressed in the MEA. One thing I would like to comment on, I don't think it came out. The MEA portion of it, which has all the substantive information, the specific location of the gas lines, and giving you indications of where those are, that report can be changed administratively and as things like this come up, as more information . . . this is the first time that I Page 16 have been aware of this problem. citizens meetings. It didn't come up in any of the Councilman Lowry: Now, some of the other things, relative to aircraft, there is the danger of falling aircraft. We have had two crashes in this pass just during this past winter. Both of them during snowstorms, in fact, I saw the one fellow going over, I was over on Wilson, near Sunset, and the snowstorm was blowing very strongly at the time, and here went a plane across,and I said to my wife now there is a crazy guy - that is the kind that get themselves killed, and he did. He fell down here in Cherry Valley. He couldn't possibly have seen any- thing with that snow on his windshield. The thing I am thinking about is we mention that because, if we have a crash here, that is one of the things we want to prepare for in our hazard preparation. Paul Secord: Yes, those kinds of comments are very valid. Now in terms of actual crash hazards, zones, and the things that are designa- ted by FAA and the military, those maps were reviewed in the intial phase of the preparation of the report, and there weren't any designated areas - or any planning lines that we could draw on the map relative to that problem. It is certainly appropriate, however, for those kinds of comments to be included in the MEA, and for . . . Councilman Lowry: They are restricted in this pass to a very narrow corridor through here. And they are back and forth - particularly private aircraft. .And then the commercial aircraft - they are going by too, but they are up there 20,000 feet usually when they are passing here, but they could still have a crash coming through here. Now the other thing - dust - high winds - hazards. I would like to add number four. I think you had three listings, and that would be fires during high winds. If you get fires going in residence. It doesn't have to be an area of brush and so forth to be hazardous. If you get a home on fire during a high wind, you can have a problem, because it can jump from one to the other, and this is an area of high winds through here. Paul Secord: Yes. I think we did identify that in the . . . I think the specifics of disaster preparedness and the ability of the City to enact ordinances and respond to those kinds of very real, and very major concerns, are something that can be done in the specific kinds of ordinances which implement the plan itself, mostly the disaster preparedness plan, which, I think, addresses the high wind problems specifically. If there was the desire to include some specific language in the plan text itself, that would be appropriate as well. Councilman Lowry: In the implementation of the policies, on 3 -5, you mention using the parks during a catastrophe. What would the thinking be - that you just take the people out in the park. Would there be some provision for shelter, tents, or something, that could be im- plemented. Paul Secord: Once again, the specifics of how those concerns would be addressed were something from the disaster preparedness plan. The reason that these kinds of specific items were not brought out in the plan - in the text itself - was because we felt that the City had a disaster preparedness plan which addressed them, and since there was - at the time we were preparing these goals and policy statements, that plan was being reviewed and updated - that those factors had already been adequately addressed, and that the plan really didn't need to do anything more than mention the disaster preparedness plan, and mention the fact that these things were a concern, but nothing more specific was really required. Councilman Lowry: There is one additional question that I have here. When you say future commercial development is expected to be a pri- mary function of residential development - you said that this area would not support a major commercial development such as a May Company. Paul Secord: The economic analysis that were prepared, even assuming a maximum development potential based on the land use designations expressed in the plan, that even at that kind of development, there didn't seem to be enough demand to support a regional type of shopping center, and there was documentation in the plan to support that. Paae 17 Councilman Lowry: Does that include all of Cherry Valley and all the potential that we were talking about here. Paul Secord: For the purposes of the economic study, the entire Pass market area was considered, and that includes Banning, Beaumont, Cherry Valley and portions of Calimesa. Councilman Lowry: How much population do they figure it takes to support a major shopping center like that? Paul Secord: Well, I think we are talking pretty close to 100,000 people before you can really make a major development like that viable, especially in this area. Because a lot of people travel outside of the area to do their shopping. I think for the purposes of the fore- seeable future, there didn't seem to be even based on rather extensive development, enough demand to support that. The specifics of it were in the economic study, and I have to refer back to that. That was prepared by a contractor to us, the Nattleson Company. They did that research for us. Councilman Lowry: There is one other thing I would like to bring out. That is, you mentioned that Cherry Valley was not included in this General Plan because the County recently made a General Plan which included Cherry Valley. Wouldn't it be nice if we were given a copy of the County General Plan to supplement this to see what they plan for Cherry Valley, since it is in our sphere of influence. Paul Secord: The proposals for Cherry Valley represent essentially a status quo kind of situation, and there were no real major changes over the existing land use and land use densities considered for that area. They want to stay rural. The decision to restrict this planning effort south of Brookside was made right at the very beginning of the plan program. In part through recommendation of the County. Councilman Lowry: I forget. Do your tables show though the population of Cherry Valley added to the population of this entire district here in your figures. Paul Secord: I think there are figures which relate to the economic support of the area that mention the entire population of the area. There is one other thing that is building on that - there is an im- portant piece of data which,we had hoped to include in the MEA,'which is missing, and that is the results of the 1980 census. I have been making a tremendous effort to get those, and with any luck, next week I should have them. Why it has taken two years to get that, I don't know. The census data for the entire area will be included and amended to the final document. I am just sorry we couldn't include it here. I don't think it will be measurably different from the 78 data presented in the report, however. City Manager: Mr.Mayor, I would like to ask Paul to make one brief comment. Gary did bring out the fact that the commercial along Beaumont Avenue had been reduced in scope there - in size of the area - by the Commission. Paul, would you comment to the Council the thinking of your staff and the Citizens Committee on the original proposal. Paul Secord: Well I have to respond to the thinking that the Citizens Committee made initially. There was a considerable amount, of discussion relative to how much commercial development was really appropriate for that area, and what the ultimate width should be. And the committee was, in the beginning, really split on whether the amount of designated commercial should go all the way over to the block, or whether it should just stop in the alley. There were comments made on both sides. One having to do with land use capability concerns, the other having to do with having really potentially developable sites. The results of that discussion in the Citizens Committee was that it was felt most appropriate to include the larger area, having it go all the way over to the block - to develop sites which were really large enough to provide fairly significant amount of parking, and for relatively large commercial development. When that came up before the Planning Commission, the other side of the ballots tipped the other way, and there was more concern expressed relative to the land use capability concerns, es- pecially since there is already an extensive amount of residential Page 18 development on Beaumont Avenue now, facing Beaumont Avenue, as well as all of the area on the other side of course, is all residential development, so the ballots tipped the other way. That was the change. I think the discussion and comments to that were fairly completely expressed in the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting. Councilman Lowry: I have got another "X" here. Housing program. 8 -23. Action to support housing availability and production. Action l.a, l.b, l.c, l.d, l.e. In each one of them you say the funding source is the City General Fund. I would hope that you would find a better way of financing some of these things, because I think our City General Fund is stretched pretty thin. Paul Secord: I agree with you, and I wish there was, and there, to a certain extent, used to be. The housing element of the plan is the one section of it that deviates in the basic format, and the reason its different in format, in overall format, is because the State has a mandated guideline - it says you will do it this way. You will follow this basic format of this outline. And that is why it is different, and that is why it has this action policy broken out like that. They essentially say, that, for the General Plan to be complete, it has to consider each one of those points, and that is why they are there. The amount of funding that is available for many of those policies is, as you expressed, very limited. There is no other answer to it until the political climite changes, or more monies are avail- able from other sources, I think the ability to implement them is very seriously constricted. Mayor Thompson: Is there anything else. Okay, we have had quite a bit of input from the public, from the people that formulated and brought the proposal to this point, and another public hearing is required. In fact it has already been noticed for April 12 at 8:00 P.M., in these chambers. If there is no one else that has anything they would like to input on this proposal, then we will adjourn this public hearing until April 12, at 8:00 P.M., in these chambers. The Public Hearing was adjourned until April 12, 1982, at 8:00 P.M., at 9:37 P.M. 12. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -18 - In Support of Proposition 9 (Peripheral Canal Project). Vn Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City ouncil of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -18, supporting Proposition 9, also known as the Peripheral Canal Project, by title only. AYES: Councilmen May, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: Councilman Shaw. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 13. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -19 - Opposing AB 2660 and Reaffirming the Present Makeup of the Membership of the Governing Board of the South Coast Air Quality Management District as One that is Answerable to the Con- stituency it Serves. 14. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -20 - Requesting the Water Service Agencies of the San Gorgonio Pass to Initiate Action with the San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency to Import Water from the State Water Project to the'San Gorgonio Pass. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -19 and ,�✓ Resolution No. 1982 -20 by title only. L AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Page 19 16. Authorization for Mayor to Sign Purchase Agreement for the Purchase of Property from Albert and Barbara Haskell. (Continued from March 8, 1982 pending receipt of appraisal). Ii V On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the Mayor to sign the Purchase Agreement for the Purchase of Property from Albert and Barbara Haskell for the recommended appraisal valuation of $90,000.00. AYES: Councilmen May, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: Councilman Shaw. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 17. Request for Budget Transfer to Purchase Police Walkie- Talkie Units. (Continued from March 8, 1982). n Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the purchase of walkie- talkie units as recommended by the City Manager in his report of ,march 5, 1982. f AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 18. Codification of Beaumont Ordinaaces. On Motion by Councilman. Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City UUU� Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the City Manager to negotiate an agreement with Book Publishing Company for the purpose of codifying the City's ordinances. i AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 19. Authorization for City Attorney to Attend City Attorney's Department pring Meeting Sponsored by League of California Cities. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the City Attorney to Attend 'f the City Attorney's Department Spring Meeting sponsored by the League of California Cities, with the City paying the registration from the City Attorney's budget. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 20. Goals and Objectives for the City of Beaumont. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the Goals and Objectives of 1 the City of Beaumont as outlined. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 21. Information Report: Draft Copy of State Controller's Audit Report. Accepted for Filing. 22. Submittal of Financial Report for Period Ending February 28, 1981 for Filing Pursuant to Government Code. Accepted for Filing. Page 20 23. ORAL COMMUNICATION: a. J. Floyd Briggs re Public Nuisance and Health Hazard at Greyhound Bus Station. (Continued from March 8, 1982). It was noted that neither Mr. Briggs nor Mr. Kovach were in the audience. Mayor Thompson asked if there was anyone in the audience representing either party and received no response. Documents concerning this complaint were referred to the Adminis- trative staff for implementation. b. Mrs. Patricia Renna addressed the Council stating she wanted them to know what 'a terrific job the police department was doing in responding to loitering and similar complaints on the occasions they have called. c. Mr. Jerry Kates addressed the Council asking if it was still feasi- ble to contract the sanitation services rather than doing it inhouse, and was advised by the Mayor that the contract has six years to run before the City can consider a change. The City Council adjourned to an Executive Session re Personnel at 10:20 P.M. The City Council reconvened to Regular Session at 10:50 P.M. Let the record show no action was taken in Executive Session. There being no further business to come before the Council the meeting was adjourned at 10:52 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Deputy City Clerk Page 21 BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF APRIL 12, 1982 1. The Beaumont City Council met in a regular meeting at 7:37 P.M., Monday, April 12, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor Thompson presiding. 2. The invocation was given by Reverand Donald Heermans. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Councilman Hammel. 4. On Roll Call the following Council Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 5. Mr. Donald Radtke addressed the Council and audience thanking the Council and the community for the plaque which was presented to he and his wife commemorating Scott Karnitz, and thanking everyone in the community, and specifically the personnel of Station 66, for their support. 6. There being no additions, corrections or deletions, on Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of March 22, 1982 were approved as submitted. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 7. There being no objections, on Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the Minutes of Regular Planning Commission meeting of March 16, 1982 were accepted for filing as presented. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 8. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, warrants as audited per Warrant List of April 12, 1982, in the amount of $404,647.69 and Payroll of April 2, 1982, in the amount of $24,576.76 were approved for payment as audited, with the typographical error on Warrant No. 022716 corrected to reflect $500.00 rather than $5,000.00. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 9. ORDINANCE NO. 545 - SECOND READING - Providing for the Abatement and Removal as Public Nuisances of Abandoned, Wrecked, Dismantled or Inoperative Vehicles from Private Property or Public Property. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Ordinance No. 545 at its second reading by title only. '~ AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel and Lowry. NOES: Mayor Thompson. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 10. RESOLUTION No. 1982-21 - Requesting Support for a Street Lighting Program that Serves the Public with Equity between City and j� Utility Company. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City panes i Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -21 requesting support for a street lighting program that serves the public with equity between City and Utility Company. The resolution was read in its entirety by the City Manager. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 11. 'RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -22 - Initiating the Annexation of the Cherry ` Highlands Estates, Highland Springs and Deutsch Lands to the City �- ,of Beaumont, by title only. !j'' On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City I)� Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -22, initiating the annexation of the Cherry Highlands Estates, Highland Springs and Deutsch Lands to the City of Beaumont. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 12. ESOLUTION NO. 1982 -23 - Designating Certain Real Properties as eing Included within a Survey Area for Community Improvement Considerations; and Directing Staff, the Planning Commission and Community Improvement Agency to Conduct the Necessary Public Hearings and Prepare the Necessary Reports for Consideration and a Adoption of the Beaumont Community Improvement Project Area(s) and Plan(s). On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -23 designating Certain real properties as being included within a survey area for Community Improvement considerations; and directing staff, the Planning Commission and Community Improvement Agency to conduct the necessary public hearings and prepare the necessary reports for consideration and adoptiong of the Beaumont Community Improvement Project area(s) and plan(s). The resolution was read in its entirety by the City Manager. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 13. 8:00 P.M. - PUBLIC HEARING Appeal filed by Best View Land Develop - ment Company of Planning Commission decision regarding on -site �ximprovement requirements. +'y The Public Hearing was opened at 8:00 P.M. The report from the planning staff regarding this appeal was read in its entirety by the City Manager. Following is the verbatim transcription of the Public Hearing itself. Mayor Thompson: The appeal of Best View Land Company from those conditions. Is there a representative of that group here. George Matthews, President, Best View Land Development. Mayor Thompson: In which particular one of these do you take excep- tion to. You are appealing the total decision of the Planning Commission. You want to tell us a little bit more. George Matthews: Yes, I would. What we thought about. We talked about the overpass, that is the main thing. We don't know if it is going to go in now - if it is going to go in in the future, or when it is going in. We thought, as we sold these pieces of land that we have across the tracks over there - that, at that time, it would be the time that we could put in the curbs and gutters, and so forth, or the buyers could put in the curbs and gutters and so forth. That is what we had in mind. Instead of going in and putting all of that in before we try to - we sold the pieces of land. Councilman Lowry: Do you have one buyer for one - quarter of it now. George Matthews: Yes we do have. We do have one . . . Councilman Lowry: Is he prepared to immediately put in curb and gutter and build a building on the property. George Matthews: We haven't talked with him about the curb and gutter portion of it at this point. We have told him that this would be a possibility. That he would have to put the curb and gutter in when he put the . . . Councilman Lowry: to go right ahead George Matthews: structure up. Councilman Lowry: George Matthews: City Attorney: E force and effect. That is only part of my question. Is he ready with a structure on that property at this time. Our understanding - he is ready to put the Do you think you could get that in writing. I believe so - yes. ven if you got it in writing - there would be no Mayor Thompson: What is the time period for compliance with these requirements. What is the time frame. Have you got to go out and do it tomorrow. Or next week. To put in the on -site improvements. Is there a time frame. George Matthews: There is no time frame - no. City Manager: There is to the degree that you could not sell a parcel until you do - based upon what the Planning Commission has done - you cannot sell a parcel until the improvements are made, because there is no legitimate split until those improvements are made. George Matthews: You see, we don't know. The next person who came along might want the whole other portion of it, all in one piece. So here we go along - put the curbs and gutters in, the driveways in, and they may not even need all that section in there. We don't know what is going to happen to that section there. In other words, to us we are putting the cart before the horse, because we don't know who the next developer is going to be who comes in there. What he might be putting in. So why go put all that in on Beaumont Avenue there, and again, even after they are put in, if the land isn't sold or something like that, if they come in with the over- pass, they are going to cover it up. Councilman Lowry: Mayor, when you were asking that question, you say is there a time frame. Are you saying that he can't put in curb and gutter on one portion - and he has a time frame that he can put in the next portion when he is ready to . . . Mayor Thompson: No, I didn't say that. Councilman Lowry: Well it sounded like it to me. Mayor Thompson: I said what is the time frame in which the on -site improvements have to be completed. Have to be put in. Councilman Lowry: Since you even asked the question, without asking that question, it seemed to me that he had to put them all in immediately. City Manager: No. One thing he may do gentlemen, is that he may bond - he may put up cash - a cash bond - he may put up a letter of credit. Anything else that is acceptable to the Council guaranteeing that they will be done within a time frame. Those run for a year at a time, and then can be extended, if that is the Council's desire. Or, I should say, a governing body's desire. Councilman Lowry: What percentage of the cost of the improvements does he have to put up as a bond. 1000? City Manager: Well, if he goes to a bonding company they are going to want him to - at least in my experience it has been they are going to want you to put up more than what it costs, and then pay the cost of the bond besides. So that doesn't make much sense. If you go to your bank, you can get a letter of credit. But that depends on the bank. They may give you a letter of credit with nothing there. They may give you a letter of credit with all of that monies sitting there tied up. That depends upon the individual's credit rating with their particular bank. George Matthews: The only think I had in mind - thinking about is - talking with the planning committee - this is what they propose - and we still got to think about the other street that may go through. If the overpass goes in - then we are going to have to cover that up and we are going to have to put in the other street across the back part of that there - so, you know, we just really don't know which way to go. We are a point here you can go spend $20 or $30 Thousand dollars developing a piece of land in there that we don't know if it is going to be there for a year - or two years - or what might happen. Now, as the pieces of property are sold, we believe, at that time, as the builders put the buildings up, to begin to improve the place, that is the time to - the curbs and gutters and things like that, should go in. That would seem like, to me, to be the feasible way to do it. Instead of putting it in there before the fact - before - it may never be used - for that particular reason. Mayor Thompson: You mention the overpass. Whatever improvements ultimately go in there, would have to have the approval of Cal - Trans. Am I correct? Or be in cooperation . . . George Matthews: No - the land - your planning committee has already taken a big hunk of our land. Okay. They have set us back - they have taken a big hunk of our land - says you can't put nothing here but parking. So they backed us up some - oh, I forget just what the dimensions are - but they have taken a big section out of the front of it and says you can't put nothing here but some parking space. We have got to reserve this for Cal - Trans. This is the overpass. Now we go in there, they want us to put curbs and gutters in there. Councilman Lowry: At the setback point. George Matthews: On the setback, yes. On where Cal -Trans is going to be going in there. So it really - you know - to me - maybe it will be there for the next ten years - maybe it will be there forever - I don't know. I realize it has got to be done, when there is something built there. It has got to be taken care of. But to do all that, and that may never be used for that, is - seems to me - like we are just wasting a lot of energy there. And a lot of money there, to put that piece of land in. Councilman Hammel: It seems to me though, that you don't even know what you want to do. You don't know whether you want to sell the land - whether . . . George Matthews: We do want to sell the land. Councilman Hammel: You want to sell the land. George Matthews: Yes sir. That is the whole intent. Councilman Hammel: Then why are we talking about development. George Matthews: I am talking about the people who are going to develop it. We are not going to develop the land. Councilman Hammel: Well, then you have to comply with the ordinance if you sell the land. The rules and requlations which are stated . . Page 4 George Matthews: I am not arguing about that. Councilman Lowry: He wants to sell four separate parcels though. He has the right to do that, and then put in . . . George Matthews: You see, we want to sell it in parcels. Mayor Thompson: George, you have some very valid points. George Matthews: Is that all you need. Mayor Thompson: We will reserve some time for rebuttal in just a minute. Do we have anybody else who wishes to speak on your behalf. Lyle Millage, 1048 East Sixth Street: You asked a question of George and I don't think he answered it quite properly. The curb and gutter is not at the setback point but at the highway line, so that they have asked us to setback and taken part of our property, and now you want us to put curb and cutter out at the highway line. Councilman Lowry: Out at the highway line, and then a whole new setback which is to be parking. Lyle Millage: Not at the setback line, but at the highway line. And it just seems like a waste of resources to do something like that. Mayor Thompson: We will come back to you in just a minute. Your from Best View, so we will come back to you in just a minute. Do you have something else to add to that George. George Matthews: Can I use the blackboard for just a second. We have Beaumont Avenue here. And then we have the railroad tracks coming across here, and we got this freeway coming here. And this is that piece - I am sure you all know where that is. From where our piece of land was originally, they have coming back here in the back, and they have said okay, some day this may be the street. Maple Street is it? Maple Street. So we have to reserve that. We have to give that to the City. Easement there. Let's go back a little further. Another business over here - we won't bring up the name - they put their building right on the line. So, con- sequently, we have to give land for both of us because something happened back there. We allowed them to get their building on the line, now they can't build their building, so we have to give easements for both our property and for their property. Councilman Lowry: How wide an easement is that then. George Matthews: For Maple Street. Councilman Lowry: How wide is it. Sixty feet? George Matthews: Sixty feet. Then we have to come over on the front, and for the overpass there, we have to go back here - I believe it was ninety, wasn't it - seventy feet. We had to go back seventy feet and give an easement there. But now they want us to come in here with curb and gutter down along this street line. Councilman Lowry: Which piece of property is the one you want to sell now. What parcel. George Matthews: This part up here - just about an acre. It was 4.2 acres - by the time it gets it all down, it is a little over 3.5 acres. Councilman Hammel: How long have you owned this land. George Matthews: We have had it about three years. We understand, if these buildings go in here, and as this is being constructed, yes there is going have to be something taken care of there. But just to go put that in there, and maybe before there is anything built in here, something will happen, and then we will have to put this street through. Councilman Lowry: What is the south property line. Is that another piece of property there, or is that a street on the south. George Matthews: It would have been Second Street if Second Street had ever gone through, but it will be another property line. Second Street up here - this is Third Street down here. See, Third Street will be closed off. Consequently, now then, if they put the overpass in, you have got to go all the way through the housing and come through this way if we don't put the street here through here. So, the City took that part of it there. But, our point is, we don't want to put out $15 -20 Thousand Dollars putting in curb and gutter here, when it may not even be used. We realize that as construction goes in, that it will have to be put in, but not prior to. Mayor Thompson: Is there any other proponent for the appellant on why the appeal should be upheld. Gary, as representative of the City and the Planning Department, you made the recommendation that the appeal be denied for those four reasons as presented in your report. Do you want to amplify anything. Gary Croft, Chief Planner, City of Beaumont: I would like to comment on a couple of the items which have been presented. The seventy foot off of Beaumont Avenue is a building setback line, it is not an easement at all. That property remains the property of the owners of the land until such time as the State were to purchase it. If that were to be widened. Any development along Beaumont Avenue, because that is a State Highway, would have to conform to Cal - Trans' requirement, as well as the City standard. Magnolia, it is not Maple, but Magnolia on the easterly side, is a street on the circu- lation element, and is a designated street since the town of Beaumont was originally laid out. There was a problem, however, a number of years ago. Actually a series of problems. One that was an action by the original Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside back in the late 1800s, which supposedly vacated a number of streets throughout the town. This action was never recorded until the 1940s, almost fifty years later, at which time a number of streets, including Magnolia and Second, in this area, were indicated as being vacated, and all of the parcels as originally laid out , were considered reverted to acreage. There is an interesting problem that arises continuously, and that is the streets are always recognized as having been vacated to the property owners, but no one ever recognizes the lots as having been reverted to acreage. Likewise, besides the ones on the south side there were a number of streets running 9th and 10th Street and the block running from approximately Beaumont Avenue easterly to Cherry were acted upon in the same action. And yet those parcels have long since been sold off and the streets been used. So there is some kind of a problem, and it really depends on who you talk to as to the legal status of those roads. We have indicated that in the approval of the parcel map, that Second Street - it would be appropriate at this location to abandon it because of the buildings on the easterly side, and also the proposed overpass related to Beaumont Avenue - Second Street would become useless, and so it was indicated that Second Street could be vacated, if it hasn't already legally been vacated. Magnolia Avenue is to be reserved to be opened at such time as either properties to the south develop, or Cal -Trans decides that the overpass is to be put throuah, and that was written into the conditions of approval, and was the design developed by the engineer. The right -of -way from Magnolia is sixty -four feet of right -of -way, and that again is indicated in your conditions of approval from the Planning Commission. City Manager: Let me ask you. Are you saying that the condition for Magnolia is something off in the future - it is not a condition of improvement in connection with this parcel map split. Gary Croft: Okay. The engineer proposed, and the Commission accepted, the proposal that - basically a covenent be drawn up between the City and the developer, that Magnolia Avenue would be put in on demand of the City. City Manager: So somewhere down the line the second owner, the tenth owner - all of a sudden could be confronted with this condition . . . . (tape turned over - discussion continues as follows) Well, I will ask you the question again - Due to the fact that you are saying it is being written in as a condition for future development Page 6 as I say, the second, third or tenth owner, somewhere down the line, five - ten years from now, whatever - any time frame, could be con- fronted all of a sudden that the City's - I'll use the word "whim" - and that is not quite the correct word - but when the City decided they wanted that road developed, all of a sudden they could confront any owner somewhere down the line with the condition that he had to dedicate the land - that he had to improve the street for Magnolia. Is that what you are saying? Gary Croft: Basically - yes. Mayor Thompson: Would that be a C. C. & R..? Gary Croft: Yes. City Manager: In other words, it would be a condition that would go along with the land, and, as I say, people sell them. Not very often do they read conditions, and the second - third - or tenth owner of this property, somewhere down the line, could be confronted with a subsequent City government here with a demand to improve this, and it is up to you gentlemen to buy that sort of an idea, but that is a little strange. Gary Croft: This was a proposal which was - it is commonly used in Palm Springs. The engineering firm was from there, and gave us some samples of their actions in that regard. Councilman Lowry: How wide from Beaumont Avenue in depth eastward is that piece of property that would require an easement of sixty - four feet. In other words, what is left after he takes the sixty -four and the seventy feet off. Gary Croft: Unfortunately I don't have the map. They are in the file, but as I recall, in the neighborhood of four hundred feet. Councilman Lowry: So he is losing one hundred and thirty -five feet off of the four hundred. . . City Manager: He is not losing that front seventy feet. He is only losing the ability of placing a building on it. Councilman Lowry: He is losing it if Cal -Trans decides to take it later on. City Manager: Well, if that happens, they are going to take it whether he has got a building on it or not. The idea - what they are trying to do here - is keep a building from being placed on there, which would cost the State of California a great deal more money to buy a building, then it would to buy open land. That is the whole idea of the setback. Councilman Lowry: Then he loses his parking lot and i City Manager: In any event, if Cal -Trans moves in on them, they are going to lose it no matter what happens. Whether they have got a building or don't have a building. Gary Croft: The current setback is fifty -five feet. This only an addition of fifteen foot of setback requirement, so it is not really an excessive request. It is not an easement or anything of the sort. Mayor Thompson: Do you have any other questions of Gary. Martin Shuler, Los Angeles: It has been stated that the vertical street there is Beaumont Avenue, and that the street on the left was Maple - and then it is Magnolia. It was also stated that the top horizontal street is Second Street. That makes north up on that map. That puts Magnolia on the wrong side of Beaumont Avenue. I wonder if anybody else in the audience is confused as to where those streets really are, and where the property is. Paqe 7 Councilman Lowry: We are looking south on that map. Because the railroad and the freeway was on the lower end, which is north. Martin Shuler: There was a statement that the top street was Second Street. Councilman Lowry: Right. That is correct. Martin Shuler: Second Street is south of Third Street. Councilman Lowry: Yes. Maple was a mis- statement. It is Magnolia. Martin Shuler: If that is Magnolia, then we are talking about the block between Magnolia and Beaumont - between Second and Third Street. Councilman Lowry: Yes. Mayor Thompson: George, do you or Lyle have any rebuttal on what has been said. Excuse me. I forgot one thing. I will come back to you in just a minute. I neglected to ask if there is anyone in the audience that wishes to speak against the granting of this appeal. Irish Mitchell, 406 E. Sixth Street: I don't know if this is for or against the granting - we have so many areas in the town right at the present time where when a person tries to work in one particular development, that is not going to be compatible with another, we had a contest like that just a little while ago relative to some cul -de- sacs, as recently as a week or ten days ago. If the engineers could draw the exact specifications of what they need there, just like Mr. Davis had said, the gentlemen can then bond to guarantee that will be done when, and if, the property is sold. And he can pass that bonded guarantee on to his buyer. And when the buyer goes in, then he can fulfill the obligation. We have done that in many areas in Riverside County. I know that a number of builders in here have put up their bonds, and the bonds have always worked out satisfactorily. Then, as it does develop, if it does develop, if he does sell, he sells it with the bond obligation, and it stops the conjecture of what will, or what will not, be developed - or when - or when it will not be developed. When it is put in that way it makes a lot better sense to most everyone. It has in most of the areas that I have developed. Mayor Thompson: Let me get this straight. Your suggestion would then be - Irish - your suggestion would then be to deny the appeal and require a bond. Irish Mitchell: I didn't know which way I was going on it, because of not exactly knowing the set up, I only mention - if, in deference to the developer, he could put up a bond to guarantee the development, it would save him putting up the cash at the present time. Those bonds are very reasonable. Mayor Thompson: As part of the preliminary, I mean the procedure, isn't it Norm, that they can do one of three things. Whatever they choose. City Manager: That is correct. Mayor Thompson: You have heard the Best View Land representative arguing or discussing - presenting testimony on the appeal of the Planning Commission decision. You have heard the City's planner give his reasons for the original conditions. We have heard both sides , and the appellant should have a rebuttal time. Lyle do you have something in rebuttal to what you heard. Lyle Millage: Mr. Croft stated that we would have to comply with Cal - Trans' requirements along Beaumont Avenue, as well as the City, but, to my knowledge, Cal -Trans has no requirements as far as that piece is concerned, unless I am wrong. City Manager: The type of requirements they would have, Lyle, would be the number of openings that they will allow. That would be the first one that would come to mind, and I know would be a certain one. Lyle Millage: Well, as I understand it, with our parcel map, it states one entrance per parcel. But as far as any curbs and gutters, I didn't understand that there was any State requirements on curbs and gutters. Mayor Thompson: Is there anything else from Best View or their representatives. Does the Council have any other questions they would like to ask. A Public Hearing can be held at the designated time and for the period necessary to gather the information. You may adjourn a Public Hearing for reason, for cause. You may close a Public Hearing, and once you have closed a Public Hearing, the decision must be rendered within a specified time. However, the Council, or members of the Council, have the option, or prerogative of, after the Public Hearing is closed, to render a decision by motion, or through other discussion. However, once a decision is made, then, according to the requirements - our requirements of a Public Hearing, they must be reaffirmed by resolution. So, what is your pleasure gentlemen. Do you want the Public Hearing closed. Do you have any other questions to ask, or what. Any other questions. Do you want the Public Hearing closed. Do you have enough to make up your mind. Councilman Lowry: A question I would like to ask. Best View developers are well aware -of the fact that they can put up a bond aren't they. Mayor Thompson: I am sure that was explained at the Planning Commission level. Councilman Lowry: And explained by Mr. Davis. Mayor Thompson: You don't have to make a decision tonight. We can close the Public Hearing. You will have forty days to render a decision, and it is rendered by formal resolution. The Public Hearing for Best View Land Development was closed at 8:34 P.M., with the decision for the upholding of the appeal for Best View, or the denying, will be rendered within time prescribed by Ordinance No. 490. It was determined none of the Council wished to take action on this at this time, therefore, the decision was continued until the next regularly scheduled meeting, which is April 26. 14. PUBLIC HEARING _ Revenue Sharing Proposed Use. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:35 P.M. Mayor Thompson: In accordance with the legal requirements for holding a public hearing, a notice of public hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation, which we have an exhibit on, dated March 29, which states that the revenue sharing public notice pro- posed use hearing on April 12, 8:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, and we will declare the public hearing opened. City Manager: It has been indicated, based upon what we have re- ceived in the past, there will be approximately $172,000 of Federal Revenue funds coming into the City of Beaumont for revenue sharing use in the next .fiscal year - the 82 -83 fiscal year. We will not know precisely what the precise dollar amount is until the Federal budget is adopted in approximately the month of October. But this is what has been projected by the feds as the amount that Beaumont will receive. At this time one of the requirements of receiving this money is to hold a public hearing inviting the citizens of any community, or of this community in this case, to present their ideas of the expenditure of the public funds. It doesn't mean that they have to be utilized for the purpose for which citizens come forward and advocate, but the public must be given a chance to give their input and that is the purpose of this hearing tonight. So if there is anyone in the audience who has a thought as to how they would like to see these funds expended, they may so indicate at this time. Pane 9 Irish Mitchell, 402 E. 6th Street, Beaumont: Based upon what has happened in the past with the revenue sharing funds, they have mostly been used to go into the General Fund, without any specific earmarks on them. What I have to say this evening - may possibly fall on deaf ears. But I think it is well to have it in the record. It seems only fair that the entire Council and the general public should be given all of the facts. Prior to any allocation from anticipated revenue sharing funds for next year, the actual fiscal position of the City should be basically analyzed. The following figures are taken from the City Finance Director statements that all of you have had copies of. During fiscal year 80 -81, in the first eight months of fiscal year 81 -82, street and safety restricted funds have been transferred into the General Fund in the amount of $644 .. . Mayor Thompson: What has that to do with proposed use of revenue sharing funds. Irish Mitchell: I am coming to that - it is all germaine. If it were not germaine, I would not put it this way. Mayor Thompson: I am not sure about that but . . . Irish Mitchell: You could determine if it is germaine if I can finish sir. Mayor Thompson: Okay, go ahead and I will make that determination down the road. Irish Mitchell: I am only stating actual funds that have been basically for street and street - highway funds. Now it is easy to apply the unrelated funds on other expenditures, but it doesn't change the fact that the public has not received the maintenance and the rebuilding of the streets that they are deserving of from the funds available. The total restricted expenditures accounted for in the ledgers for the street and street - related funds amounts to $285,555.00. This indicates an over - transfer of restricted funds into the General Fund of $358,752.00. Now Mayor Thompson and Councilman Shaw were furnished with a complete breakdown of these figures two months ago. The purpose of this presentation is to have it in the record for all to see during the upcoming budget session for 82 -83. In the event the specific projects having expenditures of $644,337.00 can be produced and published, further allocation then should probably be considered. If not, any further commitments for parking lots, fire trucks, consulting services, or others would be a breach of any fudiciary obligation to the elected or appointed officials. However, please brush away the smoke screen and demand an actual, factual projection covering the $644,337.00 for streets and street - related projects. I would suggest that the funds be allocated to repair or replace safety street signs, repave needed areas, and clean up the alleys. Trim the trees and vines that hide streets and stop signs, above all be honest with the people. Get rid of some of our downtown Tijuanas. If these expenditures are made on streets it will compensate for the monies that were trans- ferred into the General Fund that were not spent on streets. Mayor Thompson: Mr. Mitchell, I told you I would make a determination on your presentation, and until you got to the last three lines, I can't see where it is germaine. Irish Mitchell: It is germaine. The point is Mayor Thompson: This is what makes a horserace. Your opinion and my opinion. And since I am sitting on this side of the counter, I don't think the first part of your presentation was really germaine to revenue sharing. City Manager: Could we ask, Mr. Mayor, ask Mr. Mitchell, once again, to give the precise item that he was asking that the funds be expended for. I would like to record them and . . . Irish Mitchell: Allocate the funds to repair or replace safety street signs, repave needed areas and clean up the alleys. Trim the trees and vines that hide street signs and stop signs. It would tie in and Page 10 be germaine to your general plan which has a small article in there about getting rid of blight. It would also tie in very closely with your redevelopment area. To have something done prior to the time that you get the redevelopment going. Councilman Hammel: You had some more on there. Irish Mitchell: Those were the only ones . . . Councilman May: What about clean up downtown Tijuana? Irish Mitchell: . . . .downtown Tijuana. Mayor Thompson: Okay. Thank you. Does anyone else have some input on the proposed use of the revenue sharing funds. What else do we need around town that would be an improvement. A benefit to most people. Harry Wieck: 1265 Michigan Avenue: I might be off on the wrong track. We have a post office location here that is - it is not desirable. It is on a busy street, right facing Beaumont Avenue. The post office was designed when the population was much less, and I don't know whether these funds could be used to build another post office, but I think it is badly needed in this community. The street is a hazard to come in and out of, and I don't know whether it could be used - these funds could be used to buy a lot on a street that wasn't so busy and erect a place, or how that is done. Whether it is - the City could do it, or whether it has to be rented from a private builder. Mayor Thompson: It has been my experience that the postal department usually leases from a private individual. If I am incorrect, some- body please correct me. But that is what I have always . . . Mr. Wieck: I have heard that. I don't know whether a City could properly go ahead and build a building and rent it to the government for that purpose. Councilman Shaw: Could I respond to that. About a year and a half ago I talked to the Postmaster in reference to that, and he sent a letter in, I think, to somebody in Washington, and the reply ghat was gotten back was the fact that the post office was adequate, parking facilities were adequate for the size of the town. I am just telling you what they told us. I believe you, because sometimes it is hard getting in and out of there, and I think we could stand more parking area, but according to those people, they sent people out making a survey, and he came back with a report to me and said that no way would they go for anything like that at all. Mr. Wieck: When was this post office built. Councilman Shaw: I don't know when it was built, but I am telling you the report that we got from them was within the last year and a half. Mr. Wieck: The population is fast increasing to the point where it is going to be inadequate for practical purposes. I just thought I would bring it up. Mayor Thompson: Anyone else who wishes to input on the proposed use of revenue sharing funds. What you feel that the City needs the most to use these funds for. Please come forward, state your name and address. Larry Partain, 308 East 12th Street: Mr. Mayor, I am not really familiar with this, but I would like to see something done with the parks. I don't know if this money can be used for tree trimming of the trees in the parks, for some kind of upkeep, for instance, the parkway on Palm Avenue used to be very attractive and in the last couple of years it has really deteriorated, and that would be my suggestion. Mayor Thompson: A little upgrading in the parks and parkways. Is there anyone else. I am not saying that we get this money - we get all of it, that we will be able to do all of the things that we should do, but ideas from the people in general will give us direction as to what you think is the most important. Any other in- put. Anybody else have anything else that they would like to see our money spent on. (Cannot hear the name of the next citizen on the tape, resides at 560 Euclid: All you have to do is maybe put some weedeaters in the hands of the park workers, instead of hoses and shovels, and you would get a lot more done on Palm Avenue. Mayor Thompson: You did say weedeater didn't you. That goes along with what Larry said. Tree trimming, shrubbery. Any others from the audience who would like to have some input on this. What do you think is a top priority when the money is available for improve- ment in the City. What do you think is a priority item. What is important to you. City Manager: Since you are putting it that way, let me tell you what this money has been used for. It has been used in the past to pay for the police and fire services of the community. Joe Welch, 450 West 4th Street: We have been a property owner down on 4th Street for the last year and a half. And if anyplace needs any improvement that certainly does. I think in every way, I am not saying we should spend that money specifically for that, but the crime rate down there is so bad, I think you are all aware of it. It is a situation of people driving to Beaumont, make a right turn instead of a left, they are going to get the hell out. I think that is where we should spend more money. Mayor Thompson: Do you have a specific suggestion as to what we should do. Mr. Welch: You drive in the area. I think that last year I have watched that area. We have spent money in the parks, when the baseball season came around. Cleaned it all up. Two weeks later, we go down we have graffitti written from one end of it to the other. We spent our money there for that. Why couldn't we spend money there to protect what we had done two weeks ago. There isn't enough police and fire protection down there to handle the situation. I think it should be looked into. Mayor Thompson: Anyone else. Councilman Hammel: We have spent a considerable amount of money at the sewer plant, and I think, as time goes on, we will prove to the public that a nice job has been done down there. Anybody would like to see the sewer plant, they should come to the Mayor's office, or the Manager's office, so they can see what has been done. However, if there is any available that can be used, I would like to see the area down there upgraded to the point where all the trash and the garbage and everything gets hauled out of there, or gets covered up. I would like to see a small lake down there. A lake cleaned up to the point where the elderly, sooner or later, could have an area of recreation, because our sewer plant doesn't smell, believe me. I was down there several times now, to see the construction, and if you folks would take the time to ao down there I think a recreation area down there would be suitable. Mayor Thompson: Anything else. Any other comments or suggestions for any use of this windfall that we may get. I don't know whether it is a windfall or not, I don't even know how much we are going to get. City Manager: If we don't get it, we will have about fifteen people less in the City working. Mayor Thompson: Let me ask a question sharing, what are the strings attached other words there are no strings - in anywhere in the City in any category. City Manager: Pretty much so. Paae 12 for information. On revenue to revenue sharing money - in other words you can use it City Manager: I am not totally certain as regards some of the activities that have been delineated. I am not sure. You can spend them on improvements, or you can spend it on personnel. Almost everything of a general governmental nature. I am not so sure about some of these fine points. They may very well be all right. I am not certain. Mayor Thompson: For instance, repair of streets. In other words a portion of this could be put into the street fund and used to City Manager: I won't say yes or no until I check the law more thoroughly. I don't know of any governmental jurisdiction that does it because there is so much needed somewhere else. But I don't want to say that it is not possible, because I do not know. Councilman Shaw: I think we could spend a good portion on Michigan Avenue. That roller coaster ride between 12th and 10th. Irish Mitchell: Relative to using the funds, they are not re- stricted funds, and nearly every jurisdiction that I have checked with actually - actually I did the checking to be sure - they can be used for any improvement in the City, either capital improvement and /or maintenance. Revenue sharing is to cover up some of the blow the federal laws have taken away from the operational end, but the anticipated shortfall of revenue is going to be such that when you come to your budget session this year, you must bear one thing in mind, almost 50% of your entire general revenue at the present time is being taken by your police department. Almost 500. So something is going to have to happen. You are going to have to have money in there to run your regular services, and you are going to have to make a tremendous reduction in your police depart- ment. I think you will find that - and this is why I was suggesting before it goes into anything - because streets have to be fixed and repaired. If it is going to be allocated, allocate it for that. And it can always be transferred over into something else in general City operation. It is necessary to keep it alive. I will give you one example. You finally have in here, after much difficult time, an accounting department that is probably one of the best in the entire area for a City of this size. They need help. They need continuing help. If the revenue is all going to the police department, percentage wise, by having the general revenue fall off, you are going to have a devil of a time, and you will fall apart on the one thing that you fought three years to get. You finally have a good operational accounting department that will save you money - dollars and dollars - over the years. But if you can't keep them going, then forget about the rest of it. Mayor Thompson: Is there any other comment or other input that anyone wishes to . . . If there is no other input from the public or the Council, we will close this public hearing, and since there is no decision required at this time, we will take the suggestions under advisement and at budget time we will see who has.got what and how much. The Public Hearing was closed at 9:00 P.M. 15. PUBLIC HEARING - The Draft General Plan of the City of Beaumont. f The Public Hearing was opened at 9:01 P.M. t Mayor Thompson: In accordance with the requirements, the notice has been previously published. The public hearing will be on the draft general plan of the City of Beaumont. We have had one public hearing already. This is the second public hearing that was pro- perly noticed, and we will open the public hearing at 9:01 P.M. Before we have public input, Paul, will you give us some input as to what has gone on at the other public hearings bringing the audience up to date on the general plan. Paul Secord, Beland /Associates, the consulting firm who were involved in guiding the citizens committee through the process which has led to the development of the draft general plan. The plan then went to the Planning Commission, and was approved by them. The plan consists of three basic parts. Let me hold up the documents. For the benefit of anyone who was not at the last meeting, this big report represents essentially three basic reports. The first part Is the General Plan itself. The General Plan consists of a series of goals and policies relative to land use within the City. An integral portion of that is the land use map that is on display here. The second portion of the document is referred to as a master environmental assessment, which is a separate report from the plan, and its an inventory of background material relative to the City. Most of this material was gathered over the summer. There has been some - that was last summer - when we first started the program - there have been some additions to it, modifications to it - but essentially it is the same information that we used throughout the review process in the initial citizens meeting pro- cess. Following that is a short report which integrates the two documents together, the environment impact report. And the meeting tonight is a hearing both on the general plan document, these goals and policies, and the factual material which leads into the environmental impact report. So it is the entire package. It has come to my attention that there has been some concern in the last several weeks relative to some areas which have previously been designated as medium density residential development, and which on the currently proposed draft plan are shown as low density residen- tial. I have an exhibit, a rather sketchy exhibit, I apologize, which I hope will illustrate what areas we are talking about. The colors there represent the land use proposals as shown on the draft plan. The yellow - low density residential at proposed densities of one unit - one to five units per acre. That is essentially a single family residential kind of use which is representative of the types of uses which are predominate in that area. On the large color map here, it is the mustard color area. The rather orange -red area is area which is designated as medium density residential development - five to eight units per acre. And then the red area is commercial. Those large blocks which are shown outlined in black, and there are essentially three of them, those are the areas that I think are under - that have been under some discussion and some concern over the last couple of weeks. Those are areas which, in the current zoning ordinance and the current City general plan, are designated for medium density residential develop- ment. The zoning classification there is R -3. It is approximately 100 acres. There are about 340 single family residential uses in there now. Approximately 10% - between 10% and 120 of that area is vacant. In most cases, the vacant areas are scattered parcels or collections of single family residential parcels. The parcelization in that area follows a pattern of approximately 60 x 160 feet. That is the standard size of a residential parcel in the community. What I would suggest, based upon -- well, first let me describe why the area was changed initially. There was not a tremendous amount of discussion about this in the citizens committee meeting, and there was no discussion relative to it in the Planning Commission. The reason for the change was based on the existing land use in the area. The fact that, and the existing ownership pattern and parcelization, the fact that those areas - despite the fact that they have been designated for medium density development for at least twenty years, and I don't know, Gary, do you know - I suspect it may go back as long as thirty years. There has been some scattered medium density development in the area, but the uses which predominate, as I say, are single family residential uses, and they are a single family neighborhood. The change was to recognize what the existing pattern is. Now, I would mention that the changes in the density - the kinds of densities that are being proposed in the new General Plan are somewhat higher than the requirements of the current plan. The current plan shows low density that ranges from one to three units per acre. The proposed plan has densities at- for low density - of one to five units per acre. In addition there is a new State Law which makes it impossible for local jurisdiction to disallow a second unit on a single family residential lot. So, all of these low density areas could be developed with essentially duplex type development. What that would mean, if that entire area, all these low density areas, are developed to their maximum density under the current proposal, we would be talking about. . .(tape changed - discussion continues as follows) . . . Okay, I don't think it would be wise from a planning standpoint to retain the current density of medium density. To do that would - it is essentially from a planning standpoint - making an assumption that the entire area would be ultimately developed at multi - family densities. Which I don't think Page 14 is really the reality of the situation there, or ever really likely to occur. It will also, assuming that did occur, result in a situa- tion where we go from roughly 400 units in the area to perhaps 1200 units in the area under the maximum density, as there would be allowed under that kind of a proposal. That, I think, would put a very severe strain on the service systems in the area now. I know that the existing sewer there would probably not be able to handle that. There would be some difficulty with the service systems. Considering the amount of vacant land, like I say about loo of it is vacant, I don't think that the development of those vacant acres, or even a little bit more, would probably have that effect. But certainly the whole area would. If there are any questions, I will be happy to answer them. If there is a desire for me to comment on anything that was said at the last meeting as well. Mayor Thompson: Thank you very much. We will probably be getting back to you in the near future. Councilman Lowry: Is he taking into consideration your request at Brookside that . . . City Manager: That is up to the Council to make a decision. Once the hearings close you are going to have to give direction as to what you wish to have reconsidered, if anything. All of these things that have been spoken to will be. . . Councilman Lowry: In other words, no decisions will be made at this time. City Manager: Not at this time. Mayor Thompson: Bernie. Bernard Fagot, 9477 Avenida Miravella: I tried to absorb everything he said. I am not too sure I did, but before I say any more, I would like to ask some questions. Is this General Plan, is it going back to the Planning Commission for any more public hearings? Mayor Thompson: It will depend entirely on the input, Bernie. If something is brought forth at this time that should be reconsidered by the consultant and Planning Commission , yes, it will go back. If everybody sits on their hands and don't say anything, we will assume that everything is just fine and dandy, and we will probably go along with it. Mr. Fagot: Well, I do admit one thing. I should have been at the Planning Commission hearings, when the Planning Commission was holding hearings on the General Plan. I know it was advertised in the newspaper, and we are in that type of business. We knew the Planning Commission was holding hearings. I mean we knew the City was working on a new General Plan. We weren't aware of the changes, or anyway, I wasn't, until last week. I would like to ask Paul Secord. . . I am going to give you just an example. We have a number of R -3 lots in the City of Beaumont. They are all 60 x 160 in size. Did I -- that is 9400 square feet, so that is less than a fourth of an acre. So all I can get now is two units on the R -3 lot. Is that correct. Paul Secord: Yes, that is correct. Mr. Fagot: We have got an R -3 lot on Massachusetts. We have got two R -.3 lots on Magnolia. Now the two lots on Magnolia went from R -3 to low density. So that is one house per lot. City Manager: Can I interrupt you, Bernie. Would you be good enough to point out, or to do what you started to do here, say where your lots are. Make your request, and let Gary plot those, so they will all be recorded. Then if it is the Council's decision, at the conclusion of the hearing, to send them back for reconsideration by the Commission of all of your request, then that will all be put in the mill. I think that is all you can really do. Mr. Fagot: The first R -3 lot is on Massachusetts, the first lot south of 701. It is Lot 9, Block 63 of the Funk subdivision. Page 15 The proposed density there is medium. City Manager: Lot 9 in what block again. Mr. Fagot: Lot 9, Block 63. These two lots on Magnolia Avenue, the second and third lots south of 9th Street on the west side of the street. And that is proposed. Those two lots are proposed low density. Now the next lot is on Edgar Avenue, the third parcel north of 10th, on the east side of the street. That is Lot 12, Block 27. That is proposed low density. Another R -3 lot is on the northeast corner . . City Manager: Let me interrupt you again Bernie. Once you have identified each one, would you tell the Council what you want it to be. Mr. Fagot: What I would like to do is . City Manager: We know what it is supposed to be, you tell us what you want it to be. Mr. Fagot: What I would like is - we paid our three prices - we bought large water meters . . . City Manager: Just tell us what you want. Mr. Fagot: That is what I am doing. City Manager: So far you have said it is proposed. But you haven't said give us an R -3 use, or whatever you want to say. Mr. Fagot: Every one of them that I am mentioning, I want them to stay the way they were. Councilman Lowry: You mean retain what they are. Mr. Fagot: Sure. City Manager: That is all you have to say. Mr. Fagot: Where am I at now. City Manager: Lot 12, Block 27. Mr. Fagot: This one on Edgar. The northeast corner of 7th and Illinois. Proposed zone change medium density. I would like it to stay the way it is. Councilman Shaw: Well, Bernie, in order to expedite this thing, what you are asking for is to retain the original zoning. That is what it is in essence. Mr. Fagot: Retain the original zoning. And one more M -1 lot, and it is the southeast corner of 5th and Chestnut, Lot 2, Block 1.20. I would like for it to stay M and it is proposed medium density. I don't want to put a duplex on an M -1 lot next to Pass Transmission. The southeast corner of 10th and Chestnut. Don Archer, 837 Orange: I will make it simple. I would like to have it remain the way it is because that is the plans that I had was to put several units on the property. City Manager: Give me the location again so he can plot it. Mr. Archer: 837 Orange, just up the street about two blocks. It would be the third lot. Mayor Thompson: It is presently zoned what. Mr. Archer: R -3. I would say that I felt, when I purchased the property, that the area facing the park, and near the schools, should be more heavy density area because of the general location, and the fact that property is getting higher all the time, and there needs to be rentals, and I thought it was a real fine choice. I do think there should be some uniformity about what is done through there. But I think, along the area through here, is a natural location for multiple units to be, but that is just one man's opinion. Larry Partain, 308 East 12th Street: I don't know the lot number. It is right here at the corner of 7th and Orange. What is the lot number and the block number there. Gary Croft: It is Block 68. Larry Partain: it is the very first block, I mean very first lot, just on the other side of 7th. Right there. It is zoned R -3. I would like it to remain R -3. My brother and I bought that lot, paid R -3 prices, developed the plans. We got them through the Planning Commission - we were ready to build. We have just been waiting for the interest rate to go down a little bit, and it is going to represent a big loss of money - especially for me. I am just trying to get started. We bought them for R -3. We have got plans developed. They are nice plans for some townhouse units. I think it is really going to upgrade the looks of the area, and it is going to be a real blow to us. It is zoned R -3, and I would like it to remain R -3. James Kadev, Newport Beach, California: I am the owner of four lots located on Illinois Avenue between 6th and 8th Street. City Manager: Which side of Illinois, sir? Mr. Kadev: I believe it is west. Going towards 8th on the west side. City Manager: Are they just north of the real estate office there. Mr. Kadev: Going this way. City Manager: So between the real estate office and the existing apartments. Mayor Thompson: I don't believe we are quite located. Unidentified:It is not between the real estate office and the existing apartments. It is north of 7th Street, right on the curve, north of the existing apartments. Mr. Kadev: I believe, at the present time, this is medium density. The lots are R -3, and my idea was to build apartments or condominiums. I believe the future is for condominiums, including Beaumont, and with the present proposal I will be limited to probably two units per lot, which the size of the lots - the smallest one is 63.75 x 200, which are absolutely suitable for fourplexes or . . . . for condominiums. Now east and west, I believe, south and north, at the present time are apartment buildings, which are fourplexes, and single lots, and I believe it will be unjust to be denied to build buildings, which are at the present time. Paul Turner, 39423 Tokay, Cherry Valley: I would like to ask on the start - as it sits right now - how many units can you put on a 60 x 150 square foot lot under the existing R -3. Gary Croft: It would be two to three units, depending on the design. Paul Turner: Not the existing today. Then how come - as an example, on Edgar Street to the north of the lot that you have marked there, there is nine units. Gary Croft: They don't meet the current ordinance requirements for off -site parking, nor open space. In some cases, they may, depending on the location, in some cases they may exceed the General Plan density. Paul Turner: Well then it would be an impossibility to build an apartment house anyplace, even on the medium density. An absolute impossibility. Is that what you are saying. If it stays R -3 as it -- - -" - l ^ is right now, with a ruling of that kind, you couldn't even build an apartment house. I speak, for example, of the lot right over here, right next to the old Beck home. Mrs. Uber owns it on Palm Street between 6th and 7th. A beautiful apartment house there. Right next door to a house, and it is certainly anything but un- slightly. Under what you just said, there would be no chance of building any apartment house in this town, because if you can only put two to three, that is duplexes. That don't get anything on today's prices. You have got to be able to building apartment houses like they have here. And I cite another case, for example. This man here was saying over - crowding of the density, which would cause a problem insofar as - I don't hear so well - but I thought you said police and this and that and the other thing. Is that what you said. Paul Secord: I think what I was referring to was that if the entire area developed at densities to the point where we had 1200 units, which would assume that essentially all of the existing single family units would be removed from the area, and then we would have multi - family apartment type - high density kinds of development - we are talking about pretty large parcels in that case to be able to do that, because that kind of development would overtax the existing sewer and water systems that serve those areas. Paul Turner: Well let me ask you this then. Of course, we know that the older houses are not going to be going out, and high density apartments put in. We know that. But it seems to me that there is so many linear feet of street in this town, and it would be less problems for fire, for police protection, all of these things, much less problems by building up this area as to annex three or four or five square miles out here, which they are figuring on doing. Now it is going to cost a whole lot more, the City and the taxpayers, and those people out there, and the developers, to annex all of that ground. It is going to cost them a bunch more then to put in some housing that somebody can afford. This don't hold water to me, that by putting in a few apartments, a few units, here on the vacant lots that is already existing, does not hold water that it is going to be a burden, a sewer burden, or a police burden, or fire, or street maintenance, parks or anything else. I cannot, I may be thick, but I can't see where it is going to cause as much problem as annexing a bunch of ground out north of town, south of town . . . Paul Secord: One more point of clarification, because, in fact, I think we are in agreement. I did not say that if there were multi- family, medium density developments under current proposals, even fourplexes on existing single family lots, 60 x 160 lots. On all the vacant property in these areas that we were discussing, that 100 acres there, that that would overtax the sewer systems. In fact we are only talking about 10 or 12 acres of vacant property in that entire area that is not developed, so I agree with you in that sense. I don't think it would. You see, infill development at multi - family density, within these essentially single family areas - no, that would not overtax the areas, and I don't see a major problem with that. Paul Turner: This was my interpretation of what you were trying to bring out, that it could be, and I can't . . . Paul Secord: I was only trying to - talking about a hypothetical maximum kind of development scenerio - the sort of thing that would be implied if the entire area was designated as multi- family development. Paul Turner: And then one other point. I don't mean to really be picking on you, but I have a very definite interest. You said - you were speaking about putting an overlay map, so to speak, of two lots. Supposing you have only got one. What are you going to do with one lot. Just because we are not wealthy enough to afford a bunch of lots, we only got one lot, what is the matter with putting an overlay for one lot, rather than two, three or four, some of us have only got just single lots here and there. Page 18 Paul Secord: Conceivably, that could be done, but the basic effect would be essentially the same with one lot. Given the current allowable densities under the R -3 zoning, or medium density zoning. Gary would you care to expand on that. Gary Croft: I was saying two lots, or 15,000 square feet, because at that point you end up with a parcel which is large enough to actually develop a condominium or higher density kind of apartment unit and get in all the setback requirements and the allowable parking, and the rest of it. But there is nothing to say . . . (the balance of this statement is unintelligible). Norm Gordon, 1302 East 6th Street: I don't own any R -3 property, but I do sell R -3 property. I think it gets back to a very simple concept in real estate, to obtain the highest and best use out of the land. Under the present R -3, in some cases, most of the lots were split years ago 60 x 155, 60 x 160. I keep hearing 15,000 square foot lots. We don't have any. We have 9,000, 9,500, 10,000 maybe. We don't have 15,000 square foot lots. So I think it would really be a restriction on anybody who owns R -3 property to suddenly to say we can put two units on that property, and that is all we can do, where they could get four, five or six in some cases. Councilman Lowry: Excuse me, Gary, didn't you state that under the present General Plan that is in existence, and the present ordinances which are in existence, that on that size lot they can put three units, and that is all. Mr. Gordon: All right. Who is still talking about a loss of one unit per lot. Under the proposed . . . Councilman Lowry: No, he said two or three. Gary Croft: Two or three. There is the possibility of putting your parking underneath, and put everything on top, and get four units. Mr. Gordon: I still sold property to people that paid R -3 prices for the potential. That is what they were buying - future potential. And I would like to say, in my opinion that the R -3 should stay R -3. Councilman Lowry: Well, if it stays R -3 under the present condi- tions, all you can put is three units. That is all you were ever able to put when they bought the property. Mayor Thompson: He said that is existing requirements. Gary Croft: That is if they actually meet the ordinance requirements. Most of the units coming in in the last few years have not met the ordinance requirements. Mr. Simoff: I have lots on Magnolia, north of 7th Street. The second lot off this corner. It is R -3. Now is R -1. It is not a question The next lot - corner from Orange is R -3. Somebody said which is 60 x 160 or 150, would be only duplex. Only weeks ago - two weeks ago, I talked with the Planning Director, and I asked him, because they were changing this General Plan, I asked him when this plan will come in effect. He answered me one month, two months. And I say if I represent and put in the City Hall a plan to build units for existing zoning coordinates on my lot, could we approve it to build now. I think my answer - his answer was no. Some say a normal lot is 60 x 160 could be only duplex. I have plans for a fourplex, four unit, and still I hear small unit. Now, if this General Plan if all this R -3 lots, you buy these lots for R -3, and then you tell us you pay $26,000.00 for a lot that is R -3. Now they are R -1. What kind of house would be on R -1. Maybe $100,000 - 200,000. Who will pay this. Four houses, how much could be, how much construction - 50% must be property to build the house. On 25,000 lot in 56, now $200,000. So many peo- ple don't intend to build . . . . . . that I could build six, seven eight units . . . . if I have space for parking. If there is no parking lot, I can build only four. So all. this affect all this R -3 property, and I ask you to take and consider all R -3 to stay there. Paae 19 Mayor Thompson: We realize that most people wish the R -3 to re- main as such. Do you have some R -3. Manny Baldi, 10185 Winesap: I want the R -3 to stay R -3. But I am not going to be selfish and say that what I have I want to remain, I do that, as well as for other people that have been affected by this change. I would like to have the - make a recommendation, if possible, that the plan goes back to the Planning Commission for further study due to the fact that it has, within the package, it appears it has too many inconsistencies in it. The other item is that all the people in the Pass, or in Beaumont, have not really had an opportunity to meet with the Planning Commission to discuss with the Planning Commission the effect this plan is going to have on the whole City of Beaumont. I know that you are aware of it, the people in this room are aware of it, and I live in this town, and I work in this town, and yet maybe I don't read the papers as often as other people do, but I wasn't aware of it until four or five days ago that this was even taking place - so I am saying that, I don't want to make excuses for what I didn't know, but obviously there is not enough people in this room to represent the whole City of Beaumont. That I think it should go back and give the people in the community a second chance. To let them look and see, to what they are affected, and their cost, and their loss or benefit is going to be. The whole community. I want to point out one area on the map that is an area of the park on Egan Avenue and California. You see that area that you have marked there all in yellow. That is now lower density. And I don't know what low density is supposed to have. I wasn't here earlier enough, so whatever. But that is what the new deal is. That land was previously, in that general area, was either M -1 or M -2. Am I right. Gary Croft: It was designated as manufacturing. Manny Baldi: In that same area, I just bought some land from the City of Beaumont, and this gentleman here can tell you it was worth a lot of money, because I paid for it with a lot of money, but at a stroke of a pen that land will be changed to R -1. That land will cease to be - anything at all. It will be absolutely worthless to me or to anyone else in the future in that area because it has become non - usable so far as residential. So right there, if this goes into effect, becomes a total - as far as I am concerned, robbery. City Manager: So what do you want it to be. Manny Baldi: I want it either M -1 or M -2 as it was. I am not speaking only for myself, but as well for those people in that area that are not here representing themselves. There is no one here who lives in that area that I know, that their land is worth money being sold as M -1 or M -2, and when it is changed to R -1 it becomes useless, at least valuewise to the people. I have made a proposal to buy some land there the other day, but it would not be right if this was coming up, and I withdrew the offer because it was worth- less to me. The fact that this City will be greatly devastated if this thing goes into effect. And speaking for, again for myself, I own some land on - between 7th and 8th on Chestnut, which I bought a few years ago, and because - you know - one thing led to another, I haven't built a house in there. But I am planning to do that. But if this changes, I won't. Again, this becomes useless. I would like to see that area remain R -3. Perhaps, being selfish, but that is what . . . City Manager: Would you delineate, in addition to what you own there what you feel ought to go M -1. All I am trying to get you people to do is spell out. . . Manny Baldi: All this area along here should be what it was - M -1 or M -2. Mainly, M -2. To give the people who live in this area a real value for their buck. Riaht there, this should be M -2. Then this, in the area . . . okay, I am not going to point just to my property, but in the area of 8th Street down through here, this should be multiple family type of area. Not just here and there - you know just take it, so that everybody benefits, not just one or Paqe 20 two individuals. I don't want to speak just for myself, but I am thinking of the whole community who have to benefit by this. If you are going to make such a drastic change, it should be to the community's benefit, not one individual. That is my recommendation on that, and I only had a few minutes to study this plan. I suppose I could find other parts that I would like to see changed, but I don't think this is the place to do that. I think it should go back to the Planning Commission. City Manager: No, this is the place. Because it is not going to go back to the Planning Commission unless you make your desires known. That is why I keep saying these things to you. I am not here to needle you. I am asking you to tell the Council here what you want, because that is the only way it is going to go back. Manny Baldi: The plan has inconsistencies in one area, for example, page 9, in regard to the light industrial. The definition of light industrial area. One is the classification includes a wide range of industrial use. What are these wide ranges of uses according to the plan. Can anybody tell me, because it doesn't say there. It just says wide, you know, can you explain what the wide ranges. Paul Secord: I don't think it is necessary for the plan itself to specify exactly what kinds of uses are allowable under the light industrial kind of classification. There was a strong desire not to see polluting types of industries, and there was a description of basic types of industry that would not be acceptable. The zoning ordinance which will implement the plan will, in fact, specify the types of uses which are allowable or not allowable, but under the conditions of the General Plan, I don't think it is necessary to outline them. Rarely is that, in fact, done in the General Plan. Manny Baldi: How are we to tell then what we want, if we don't know what is going to be allowed. How can we stand here and tell you what we want when we don't know what we will be allowed to do. I think if you want us to tell you what we need, you will have to tell us somewhere where we can look and see what we are going to get if we go along with your plan. Gary Croft: I might point out, those are spelled out in the zoning ordinance, which is a separate document. That is where . . . Manny Baldi: But when you are changing all this zoning . . . Gary Croft: This isn't changing zoning. This is changing cate- gories of units in the General Plan. Zoning would then follow after that . . . . (Several people talking at once, cannot transcribe exact statements) . . . . We can't come back and say well you approved the General Plan. We are not approving the General Plan. We are saying that we would like to know if we are going to go along with this, tell us what,we are to be stuck with. That is one question. I would like to see you explain to us, the public, what we are going to get. I should have been here at the last meeting, but I wasn't. A question too. If any manufacturing company is now considered in an M -2 zone, what will happen to this plant. Paul Secord: The light industrial designation includes the types of uses that are allowable under the City's current M -1 zoning designation, as well as M -2. The destinction between the kinds of uses - M -1 versus M -2 - once again, was something that will be made in the zoning ordinance. It is allowable under a General Plan to have one basic category, then implement it through more than one different zoning classification. Based on the kinds of industrial uses which were - which currently exist in the community, and which the committee expressed a desire to see in the future, there didn't seem to be enough of a distinction between the M -1 and the M -2 kinds of uses - heavy and light types of uses that were being discussed. To really show two separate classifications Paae 21 on the General Plan map. Now in the zoning ordinance, which would implement this, I would assume that those areas which are currently shown as M -2, would remain M -2, and those areas which are currently shown M -1, with the exception of those places where there were changes, would remain as M -1. And that would be under the new zoning ordinances which are being drafted. Manny Baldi: But by then you would have adopted the General Plan. You couldn't hardly make any changes then. It would be too late. Paul Secord: In terms of industrial classifications, - we are really not talking about any kind of major changes, with the one exception of the Rangel Park neighborhood. That is the one area that there is a major change. Manny Baldi: That is my property. How am I going to come and argue with you later if I didn't speak up sooner. How will we go about making me heard on that point when this is approved. How do I come back to you later and say . City Manager: That is why you are here right now. Manny Baldi: I know. But I am afraid you guys are going to put this through and then what do I do. So that is the question. You guys will put it off until later. I would like to see it heard now. Question No. 3. Noise hazards are defined by decibel readings. 65 -70 decibels is considered unacceptable for residential zone, yet the noise on 8th Street - here next to the Southern Pacific Railroad between B and 3rd - which is the same area we have been talking about right now - this area is 65 and 70 decibels. This is a direct contradiction between the noise map and the recommen- dation policy. We recommend that this area remain as manufac- turing zone because of the contradiction that you have. Paul Secord: That inconsistency is, in fact, addressed in your plan. The rationale for the change to residential designations, even given the current noise, was something that is addressed in the plan, and was considered in fact. Manny Baldi: Well, there is already a contradiction with each other. How can we deal later if this thing is adopted. What I am saying is the plan that has been asked of Council to accept is already a contradiction in itself. How can we live with it every time we go for a permit, every time we go for an application of use, we are going to be hit with this thing here. He is going to look at this and say, that is what it says in the book. Goodbye. Then we have to come before the Council and say . . . Councilman Hammel: Then, according to you, we wouldn't have needed this. The way you are talking. Manny Baldi: I am just trying to point out to you that . Councilman Hammel: You have got to finish this today or tomorrow or sometime. You have got to get finished with it. Manny Baldi: There is something wrong with it. Before you approve it we want . . . Councilman Hammel: Then correct it right now. Manny Baldi: That is what I am saying. We should give it back to the board, for a little more study. That is all I am asking. Give the people another chance. City Manager: As Paul pointed out previously, Manny. The only way it can go back to the Commission is orders - direction to do precise things from the Council. That is why you are here to give them the input so that they know what to send back. Manny Baldi: That is what I am saying. Mayor Thompson: Basically what we have heard here tonight is that most people that have previously purchased property and because of economic conditions beyond their control have not deve- loped that as it was originally purchased. Now you are saying that - hey, let us take another look at what the proposal is because on the R -3, the M zone. Is there anyone unhappy with the open space. There is a gentlemen back there who is unhappy with the open space. (Tape is changed - discussion continues as follows). Manny Baldi: . . . I have no argument that it has been everytime. I have no argument with any of what you gentlemen have done. Believe me, because I know, I am as lax as anyone when it comes to reading the paper and showing up for meetings unless it effects the pocket. I mean I am as guilty as much as anybody else, but I think this is too great of an issue, too great of an item, to just pass like that when people have not taken the time. I am just asking, give them another chance. What have you got to lose. City Manager: Nobody is rushing. Neal Baker, 3472 Parkside Drive, San Bernardino: I have a couple of questions. Why, when you are making a change like this isn't the square footage, like R -3, 2000, or R -3 2500 square feet, or R -3 3000. Why isn't that used instead of just saying a lot. Because when you purchase a lot you can limit it to so many dwelling units per lot. It is very unprofessional in my eye. Most other cities and counties have the square footage spelled out. And I think for R -3 most of them are R -3 2000. Am I wrong. Gary Croft: You are talking about apples and oranges. This is the General Plan. You are talking about zoning. They are two different animals. There is, in fact, designations. The single family is one to five units per acre. It measures 43,560. It is a simple matter to divide it out. The same with the other cate- gories. Five to eight units. So it is spelled out. But you are talking about zoning, and zoning varies considerably by jurisdiction. Mr. Baker: What is the zoning in this City for R -3. Gary Croft: We don't have a designation like you are talking about in our R -3 zone. Mayor Thompson: See this area in the bright yellow. Mr. Baker: I understand that. But what I meant is there is no number set out. If you have a lot . . . Gary Croft: Our zoning ordinance does not spell it out in that fashion. Paul Secord: The General Plan indicates areas for medium family development which would correspond almost exactly with the R -3 zoning areas with an average density of about eight units per acre. That is the . . . Mr. Baker: How does that compare with the Paul Secord: That is the 1973 San Gorgonio plan. I think the range is five to twelve with an overall average of approximately eight units per acre. The actual allowable density on any given lot are based on the size of the lot and the kind of setback requirement that would apply to change a parcel of land. But that is something that is taken care of in the zoning ordinance itself, which is a much more detailed kind of document. That is the implementing process for the General Plan, which is by name and nature general in its outline. Mr. Baker: How does that compare with the County zoning in Riverside County and also the City of Riverside. Gary Croft: In terms of the County General Plan, they are basically identical because when I was at the County working on the County General Plan ten years ago, the City of Beaumont entered a contract that the County do for the City of Beaumont. So, in fact, it is basically identical. In terms of the zoning, the zoning category R -3 in the County - high density has an actual. It isn't termed high density. It is called R -3 general residential, and it allows a variety of residential uses, and it allows densities which maps out at about twenty units to the acre - twenty to twenty -one units to the acre. Ours is different because of the way the other parameters in the ordinance. It says 2000 square foot, however, if you read the minimum square footage for the dwelling unit, the parking spaces and everything, it really changes. You have a lot of little clauses which have been ignored . . . Mr. Baker: In other words yours does say - interpret into R -3 2000. Does that mean 2000 . . . Gary Croft: Not really, that is just one of the factors, and it is not equatible to what you see either in the County or in the City of Riverside where I live. They are not the same. They are not at all the same, because the ordinances are written on a different model. The model for this ordinance is not the same model as the County or the City of Riverside uses, which also are different basic ordinances. Mr. Baker: Why wouldn't it be advantageous to everyone to make them the same as the County or the City of Riverside. Why change it, I mean, why have so many different kinds. Gary Croft: I have just rewritten the City's ordinance and it is based on the County's model. Mr. Baker: This new one is not based on the County's model is it. This new one that you wanted to put in. Gary Croft: The General Plan. Mr. Baker: Right. Gary Croft: No. In fact, the County is in the process of redoing their General Plan, and it is not based on any model you have ever seen. It is based on a completely different basis, and you think this hearing is exciting you ought to attend the General Plan hearings for the County of Riverside. Mr. Baker: I won't take any more time. Then I request the same as the gentlemen before me that it go back to the Planning Commission where more of us -- I, like he,, just found out about it a short time ago. I have the southeast corner of 8th and Michigan, that I paid a little more than $2.00 a square foot for that property thinking that I was going to put somewhere in the neighborhood of twenty units on. That, under the new plan, I would be out quite a few units. I think I only have about an acre, and under the new plan that only allows me to put approximately eight units, is that right. Gary Croft: That is correct. Mr. Baker: So I would like it to stay at least -- that is another thing, I have had this property for a couple of years now, and I have tried several times to find out exactly how many units I can put on there. Not through you, because you are new here, but I have never been able to pin it down to exactly how many units I could get on there. Gary Croft: That is because of the way the zoning ordinance is written. It is very complicated. There are several portions of that ordinance that have to be considered. Mr. Baker: Shouldn't that be changed at the same time. They get it simplified. Gary Croft: It is being changed. It has been rewritten and will go to hearing at the Planning Commission next week. Mr. Baker: I have been building for thirty years and I have never had the problem of going into a . . . I mean, Rialto, Fontana, San Bernadino. . . City Manager: You have never dealt with the City of Beaumont before. PAcTo 24 Mr. Baker: But, I think if you are going to change it, now would be the time to change it -- to simplify things instead of making them more complicated. City Manager: That is what we are trying to do around here. It may not seem like it to you, but believe me we are. Mr. Baker: Is it really a simpler deal and . . . Councilman Lowry: He is just saying it is coming before the Council in May. They are just rewriting it. Gary Croft: It has been rewritten. It is being typed, and will go to hearing in May. Mr. Baker: Well, whatever it takes, I would like to see my property and anyone who is around mine, like the other gentleman, stay at least the same as I thought I was getting. And I thought when I bought the property that that would take twenty units. That acre. I put together about an acre. There are three lots on that . . . Councilman Lowry: You probably thought wrong, sir, according to the ordinance that is in existence now. Mr. Baker: Well, I understand I did, but I know that they had already put in twenty units up on . . .I am putting a subdivision in on Pennsylvania and, I believe, it is 10th, and there are twenty units on an acre right across the street from my subdivision. And they are brand new. Mr. Tavaglione has just put them in there. And I have about the same square footage as he has got. Now I don't know how that permit was granted . . . that permit was granted probably in the last year. That is just one acre of ground. Councilman Lowry: That was a special grant for low cost housing for senior citizens. Mr. Baker: Well, was that a special was that a variance. Councilman Lowry: It was a variance, yes. Isn't that true. Gary Croft: It is not really a variance. Under State law there is a provision where increased densities are allowed, providing it meets certain qualifications related to low income. Mr. Baker: Would that apply to this same property that I have, or anyone else. Gary Croft: It would apply to any property in the City which meets those requirements. Our current ordinance does not really address that issue, and that is one of the things that is addressed in the new one. Mayor Thompson: It appears that we are beginning to repeat ourselves. I think we are going to hear about three more right now. Then maybe we should adjourn this to a later date, and have Mr. Secord take copies of what has been said tonight, and then go from there. We will try to get somebody that hasn't been heard tonight. Gary Croft: I want to make one point of clarification related to going back to the Planning Commission. That would not be another public hearing. And I think that is a mistake that a lot of the audience feels. To send it back to the Planning Commission, that is required anytime there is a new consideration. But they do not hold a hearing. They simply consider what has been presented to them by reference from the Council - make a decision - and then send it back to the Council. They have held their public hearings and will hold no more. They simply will make recommendations. City Manager: That is why I have been trying to list everybody. Their precise statements so the Council will have something to send the Commission, because, like Gary just said, they can con- sider nothing that the Council does not send back to them. P;; ap 2 S Mr. Aldrich, 550 B Street: I represent the owners of all of this area here - this area here - this area here - and all of this area down here (pointing at the map). I support Mr. Baldi's theory, and all of the area that is currently yellow or orange be returned, if it was in fact, manufacturing - it all should go back to manu- facturing. Mayor Thompson: You are talking about this area right here. Mr. Aldrich: This area right in here. Basically, I would recommend along the creek bed as a guideline. Everything north of the creekbed should be manufacturing, and look at your R -1 or R -3 development south of the wash. City Manager: Could we clarify, Gary, in the area where the homes are there, basically south of the park, is that presently M zone. Gary Croft: Yes, it is zoned M -1 on our current zoning ordinance. For whatever reason I am not sure. The residents have been there for a long time, and there have been new ones built in there from time to time. Why it is designated that way is not understood. Mayor Thompson: You mean down there in the . Gary Croft: Around Ranqel Park, basically between Walnut and Olive. And from B Street south to 7th, which is where the creek runs through. Basically, that is all residential. There is residential - industrial north of B Street between there and the railroad tracks. And then, of course, there is the new development of Manny's there on California between Walnut and California, which is designated industrial. Mr. Aldrich: One other question related to where your wastewater treatment plant is located, ours is located right next to it. This site here. I don't understand the logic of having that R -1. Mayor Thompson: Is that R -1? Gary Croft: Residential- Agriculture. Two units to the acre is the designation. Mr. Aldrich: It seems to me it would be a little inconsistent with the existing use, I guess is what my problem is. If we decide we want to develop that north portion along 4th Street, with manu- facturing being directly across the street, I don't see how you want in a . . two wastewater treatment facilities within a rocks throw as you would want low density development there. City Manager: So you are asking that your property south of 4th Street be zoned M -1, or light industrial. Mr. Aldrich: That is correct. M -1 or M -2. City Manager: Light industrial, which as Paul has said previously makes possible either zoning there. Al Hawthorne, 1140 Euclid: I want to get one clarification from the gentlemen regarding what he had said about that the noise level was taken into consideration in rezoning of some of these areas. I think there is an area shown in the yellow here just south of the railroad tracks, - between B Street and the railroad, which is now classed as an M zone, one sort or the other, whether it is M -1 or M -2, now being redone as being residential -low densi- ty. According to what I find is in °contradiction is, according to the map, it shows that from south of B Street there, that is a decibel zone of 60, so anything between there and the railroad would get higher in decibel ratings as you get closer to the rail- road. Obviously there are parcels of land between B Street and the railroad which are now residential, which later on, you go on to say, is not, in fact, you have it in here as being normally unacceptable for residential zone, without extensive barriers for sound and that kind of thing between the railroad and the existing zones. What I don't understand is why would anybody build, you know, in this day and age, up against the railroad, especially DaRA iti since it normally seems to have an industrial use now. City Manager: This is the point Manny made? Mr. Hawthorne: Yes, but he discounted it by saying he took care of it in here, and I am saying he didn't take care of it, and I am willing to explain. City Manager: Well, your appeal is to these gentlemen, and these guys are going to make the decision, not him. Mr. Hawthorne: With what he says, I hope they can make a proper decision on it. City Manager: I have trust in them, and he and I have argued a good share of the afternoon, and Paul has done a job. That was what he was paid to do. I hope all of you people out there, and I am speaking, I guess, for the Council at this point. I hope all of you people out there will allow these people to make the de- cision, because these are the ones who are going to make it. Mr. Hawthorne: Okay. I appeal the question to the Council then, and let the Council ask me - or answer me - as to why. . . I don't understand the inconsistencies of zoning that a residential area in the General Plan. r' City Manager: You made your point, I think. Mayor Thompson: You have asked why that was changed from M zone to residential. Mr. Hawthorne: And it is inconsistent to what it says in here. Mayor Thompson: Personally, I can't answer your question factually. However, from the existing development in that area that has been there since lord knows when, it has been predominately R -1. Much of these developments in that B Street, 4th Street area down there, around Rangel Park, is R -1. This is what the citizens committee took into consideration when they were looking at this. Now whether they were right or wrong, I mean, there is going to be some disagreement from my part of it, but I am not sure whether it is right or wrong, but I personally, just as one person, think they may have erred a little bit. Mr. Hawthorne: Well that is why I am basically trying to get this basically the same point. Manny said that that is why we feel that these are the kind of inconsistencies that haven't been looked at. Obviously it has gotten all the way to the Council and nobody has really either caught, or to my knowledge, has brought up the fact that there are these kinds of inconsistencies. And it doesn't seem to follow what you would want for a General Plan. I may be wrong. Mayor Thompson: This is the results of the input from the citizens committee, and Beland /Associates, based on what they've seen, what they have heard. Evidently they didn't hear it all. What I have been hearing tonight . . . Councilman Lowry: There was another public hearing prior to this one, and there was some inconsistencies that some of the members of the Council pointed out also. Mayor Thompson: Okay. You are basically the M zone around Rangel Park. Mr. Hawthorne: I am kind of curi, board's decision as to . . . Mayor Thompson: We are not going Mr. Hawthorne: I . . . do I have try to get an answer out of that, Mayor Thompson: Well, I think we Dus to to or ha- as maybe it would affect the make a decision tonight. go back to him later on to do we just leave it at that. ve pretty well covered most of it tonight, unless . . is there something new that you had Paul. Paul Secord: It is a little bit new, and I will keep my comments very brief. This comment is relative to the change in the designa- tions in the Rangel Park neighborhood. This area was something that was discussed at great length in the citizens committee, and there were members of the committee who had lived in that area, and represented the people who are living there. It is recognized that portions of that neighborhood are heavily impacted by noise. It was also recognized that those houses, and the people who live there, have been there for many, many years, and have lived with that. The 65 decibel line is, to a certain extent, a rather arbitrary kind of a line. It is based on Federal guidelines which say - okay, when you are exposed to noise levels of this magnitude, most people find this obnoxious, and undesirable, and would not want to live there. The fact of the matter is, that there are a number of units in that area which are exposed to noise levels of that magnitude and the people have continued to live there. And from the input that we received at the committee meetings relative to the people that are living there, there was a desire that they remain, and that that neighborhood be recognized as a viable resi- dential area, despite the fact that it is impacted by noise, and that is mentioned in the plan. It is a portion of the plan relative specifically to the Rangel Park area. So, in fact, it is not an oversight, and it is nothing that was not considered either in the process, or by the Planning Commission. Councilman Lowry: What would be wrong, it has been M -1 all along, with leaving it as M -1, and then as these people want to sell it off_ they get more for their property, selling it M -1. Paul Secord: The principal concern had to do with the people who are living there now, and with the fact that . . . Councilman Lowry: You mean to make them feel more comfortable, to be rezoned R -1 instead of M -1 . . . Paul Secord: From a planning standpoint, that functions as a single family, residential neighborhood, and we felt that it would be appropriate, in the General Plan, to recognize the fact that, yes, indeed, it is a single family, residential area. There are some light industrial uses scattered in the area there. But the principal uses there are single family residences, and from just a planning standpoint, to not recognize the fact that it was not an M -1 was inappropriate. Councilman Lowry: Well, even living there and putting up with that noise, isn't it a known fact that that high decibels actually, causes physical damage to them in a way, and psychologically damage to them also. Paul Secord: At those kinds of levels, not necessarily. It is really a very subjective kind of a criteria. It is true that ex- posure to very high noise levels do cause severe mental and physical problems. But when you get down to these kinds of levels, these are subjective guidelines that have been drawn up . . . Councilman Lowry: Well, industrially, and I do a lot of industrial design, they try to keep it to 40 decibels. Henry Gerwin, 1406 East Sixth: I acquired that place in 1960. When I acquired that place in 1960 it was M zone in the back, and C -2 or 5 in the front, and I still have a workshop - cabinet shop - on the property. I would like to leave it M zone, if possible. That 150 feet in the back was M zone because there was a cabinet shop. Other than that, I had a fruit stand in the front that somebody ran over and wrecked, but we are going to eventually replace it. City Manager: The corner of American and 6th. Northeast corner. David reLancrg attorney practicing in Newport Beach, California: I represent Ab -Kov Corporation, Mr. Kulakov is President, and is present here this evening. I would like to address for a moment property that is on the board behind you shown on the map there to the left, shown as Cherry Valley Acres. I am sure you are all familiar with thaw - that is the southwest corner of Brookside Avenue and Beaumont Avenue. I will state, since the City Manager has reminded everyone to state what they want. I don't want to be remiss in that. What we would like, and what we request of the Council, is that the plan be sent - the General Plan - be sent back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration as to this property, in any event, for zoning that is commensurate with the prior agreements of the City, and the basis under which the property was originally annexed. The property was annexed by Resolution No. 1980 -13, on April 14, 1980, under a recommendation from the Planning Commission that set forth that there would be, in this it says 25 - and what we are seeking is 35 acres commercial, and the balance would be - of the property would be medium and high density housing. With that thought in mind, application was made to the City of Beaumont on October 17, 1980, and I will be happy to supply your City Attorney and the Council with all - copies of all these documents in the event that are hard to find in the files. I realize how those things happen. But we did apply at that time - we did receive a request for additional funds, and on October 29, 1980, we sent a cover letter to the City with a check for $1,020.00 for the General Plan amendment requested as outlined, and as we had fulfilled all the requirements at that time, of application for the necessary zoning. The money was accepted. The letter that accompanied that called attention to the fact that we had previously paid $250.00, but nevertheless, we would pay the additional amount. Again there was no rejection or acceptance of that zone change request. I would call the City Attorney's attention to Assembly Bill 884, which has not become Government Code Section 65920, Chapter 4.5, which states that any development - and it defines development under Section 65927 as development means, among other things - one of them is change in the density of intensity of use of land, including but not limited to subdivision pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, and any other division of land. In effect, what this assembly bill, and later government code does - is says that if there is -- if you have met the requirements of the City, which we feel we did, and there is not a denial or an approval within one year, you are deemed approved. We therefore ask that you resubmit this plan to the Planning Commission for reconsideration with your City Attorney, Mr. Douaherty's, opinion accompanying it, regarding the applica- bility of this Government Code section and Assembly Bill to our project. We think it is very much applicable, and that the property should be zoned as it was promised by the City, and as originally applied for by the developer. Councilman Lowry: This plan was up here at our last Council meeting, and as I understand it you don't own all this property that you thought you were going to own. Is that true. Mr. DeLancy: That is right. We have an option to purchase part of it. Councilman Lowry: At the last meeting you said you didn't know if you were going to get it or not. Mr. DeLanc,T: It depends on the City. If they don't want . why should we buy it. Councilman Lowry: That wasn't what I got. This ten acres here, that is not included. You hoped to get that too at the time. Mr. DeLancy: That is not part of the property that is owned by this developer. Councilman Lowry: Then how can you present this plan to the Planning Commission when you don't own the property. Mr. DeLancy: We are not presenting anything on that ten acres you pointed to. Councilman Lowry: Well, the rest down here. You don't own that too. Mr. DeLancy: We have the landowners' approval. Councilman Lowry: You do have that. Mr. DeLaner: We believe, as I point out, that once the City Attorney looks this over and advises the Council and the Planning Commission, that then the Planning Commission would take a little different stance. Now they might not take a stance that would be - well, we are going to give you - or we are going to recommend approval of everything that you originally had. But at least it would be more commensurate with a compromise position. To move us from 25 acres down to five of commercial, just isn't a tolerable level. I do believe that we - -- certainly I speak for the developer in saying we are willing to compromise. We are willing to negotiate, but that is not a tolerable level. So we would ask that it be sent back to the Commission, with an opinion from your City Attorney, along these lines. And then we would be happy to meet with the Commission, or planning people, anyone you choose. Councilman Lowry: At the last Council meeting, also, a mention was made that there is now the thinking that there should be a service road here. And the owner they had no objection to that. Mr. DeLp.ncy: Yes, that is correct sir. That is what I say. That is not a hard and fast -bound plan. All that we are saying is to take us from 25 acres down to 5, when we were annexed with the full intent of 25 - and the promise of 25 - just isn't just either. And so we are happy to try to . . . City Manager: How did they make that promise to you when the General Plan at that time did not permit that type of an activity. Mr. DeLancy: I don't know how they could, but we definitely have it in writing. How they could, I don't know. I can't address myself to what . . . Gary Croft: I have reviewed the documents at some length, and although there was discussion of the proposal, none of the agree- ments that he talked about were ever in writing, ever voted on, only discussed. None of the conclusions were ever reached by either the Council or the Commission in the past. In terms also in 884, he indicated development projects. He indicated they had to apply for a General Plan amendment. That is what is going on now, and 884 does not apply to that zone change. Mayor Thompson: Is this really germaine to the input for a General Plan. Is this really germaine. This particular develop- ment. Gary Croft: The development itself, no. Mr. DeLanc-.T: To the extent that it affects our property, it is certainly germaine, the same as the General Plan affects these other fellows. City Manager: He has got the right to ask for anything he chooses. To ask for it. And that is what he ought to be doing. But to bring in the other aspect . . . Mayor Thompson: You are asking then for . .what. Mr. DeLancy: That is the low density? Gary Croft: No, that is under the Specific Plan category. Planned Unit development category. One to five units to the acre, with related commercial use. Mayor Thompson: In other words, you wish consideration of that Planned Unit Development designation up there. Gary Croft: That was, incidentally, discussed at some length at the Planning Commission, and they rendered a decision as you have it. BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF ADJOURNED MEETING OF APRIL 19, 1982 (Adjourned from April 12, 1982) 1. The Beaumont City Council met in an Adjourned Meeting at 6:33 P.M,, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor Thompson presiding. 2. On Roll Call the Following Council Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 3- �,,OESOLUTION NO. 1982 -24 - A Master Resolution of the City Council of on1°'tJie City of Beaumont, California to Determine the Amount of Property -•' ,lax Revenue to be Exchanged between the County of Riverside and the �'�,,City of Beaumont Relating to Future Annexations to the City of Beaumont. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -24 by title only. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None, ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 4. Adoption of Negative Declarations re Annexation No. 27 and Annexation .✓ 28. ,,,On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts negative declarations regarding Annexation No. 27 (Cherry Highland Estates - Highland Springs- Deutsch) and Annexation No. 28 (East of Highland Springs Avenue between 5th and 6th - Baumstark). AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 5. Authorization for Mayor to Sign a Grant of Easement to Southern !California Edison Company for Electrical Service to the Highland /Springs -6th Street Lift Station. /On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City �,l Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the Mayor to sign a Grant of Easement to Southern California Edison Company for electrical service to the Highland Springs -6th Street Lift Station. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 6. Review of First Report, and Possible Action, on Master Sewer Plan Study. .Mr. Vincent Frasca, of Willdan Associates, presented his first report concerning the Master Sewer Plan Study now being conducted by Willdan Associates, with discussion between Mr. Frasca and the Council-with t e Council stating their views regarding this report, and Mr. Frasca C arifying Willdan's recommendations. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the concept of a pump station at Protrero Canyon. ' AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL AND BEAUMONT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AGENCY MINUTES OF APRIL 26, 1982 1. The Beaumont City Council and the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency met in a joint regular meeting at 7:30 P.M., Monday, April 26, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor/Chairman Thompson presiding. 2. The invocation was given by Councilman Lowry. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Councilman Shaw. 4. On Roll Call, the following Council /Agency Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 5. There being no additions, deletions or corrections, the Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of April 12, 1982 and Adjourned Meeting of April 19, 1982 were approved as submitted. 6. There being no objections, the Minutes of Planning Commission meeting of April 6, 1982 were accepted for filing as submitted. ;. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, Warrants as audited per Warrant List of April 26, 1982, in the amount of $53,189.01, and Payroll of April 16, 1982, in the amount of $27,289.71, were approved for payment as audited. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 11. RESOLUTION NO. BCI 82 -1. - Organizing the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency. On Motion by Agency Member Lowry, seconded by Agency Member May, the Peaumont Community Improvement Agency adopts Resolution No. BCI 82 -1. AYES: Agency Members May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Chairman Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 12. RESOLUTION NO. BCI 82 -2 - Formulating and Adopting Bylaws for the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency. On Motion by Agency Member Hammel, Seconded by Agency Member May, the $eaumont Community Improvement Agency adopts Resolution No. BCI 82 -2. ✓ /AYES: Agency Members May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Chairman Thompson, NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 13. RESOLUTION NO. BCI 82 -3 - Requesting the City Council of the City of Beaumont to provide the Administrative Service of the Staff of the City of Beaumont to Carry Out the Purposes of the Beaumont Community Tmp.r.ovement Agency. On Motion by Agency Member Shaw, seconded by Agency Member'May, the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency adopts Resolution No, BCI 82 -3. AYES: Agency Members May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Chairman Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Page 1 14. RESOLUTION NO. BCI 82 -4 - Approving and Authorizing a Cooperative Agreement to be Executed by and Between the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency and the City of Beaumont pursuant to Section 33220 of the California Health and Safety Code. On Motion by Agency Member Hammel, seconded by Agency Member Lowry, the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency adopts Resolution No. BCI 82 -4. AYES: Agency Members May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Chairman Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 15. RESOLUTION NO. BCI 82 -5 - Approving and Adopting Conflict of Interest Code Requirements Pursuant to Section 87300 et.seq. of the California Government Code. ? On Motion by Agency Member Shaw, seconded by Agency Member May, the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency adopts Resolution No. BCI 82 -5. AYES: Agency Members May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Chairman Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 8. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -25 - Approving and Authorizing a Cooperative Agreement to be Executed by and between the City of Beaumont and the t Beaumont Community Improvement Agency Pursuant to Section 33220 of the California Health and Safety Code. -' " V On Motion by Agency Member Lowry, seconded by Agency Member Hammel, the Beaumont City Council adopts Resolution No. 1982 -25. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 16. RESOLUTION NO. BCI 82-6 - Approving and Authorizing the Execution of an Agreement by and between the City of Beaumont relative to the Advancement of Funds for the Formulation of a Community Improvement /rogram, Project Area(s) and Plan(s). 01 Motion by Agency Member Shaw, seconded by Agency Member May, the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency adopts Resolution No. BCI 82 -6. AYES: Agency Members May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Chairman Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 9. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -26 - Approving and Authorizing the Execution of an Agreement by and between the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency Authorizing the City to Advance Funds to the Agency for the Formulation l ,of a Community Improvement Program Project Area(s) and Plan(s). } tt On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the V� Beaumont City Council adopts Resolution No. 1982 -26. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 10. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -27 - Requesting and Approving the Transfer of a Contract between the City of Beaumont and Willdan Associates to be ^� Encumbered by the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency. VOn Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman May, the Beaumont City Council adopts Resolution No. 1982 -27. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 17. RESOLUTION NO. BCI 82 -7 - Accepting the Transfer of a Contract and Approving Said Contract between the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency and Willdan Associates. On Motion by Agency Member Shaw, seconded by Agency Member May, the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency adopts Resolution No. BCI 82 -7. AYES: Agency Members May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Chairman Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 18. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -30 - Establishing Rates for the Abatement and Removal of all Dry Weeds, Dead Shrubs and Dead Trees, and Other Waste Matter Declared as a Public Nuisance and Rescinding Resolution No. 1977 -8. I' On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -30. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 19. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - The Draft General Plan. The Public Hearing was re- opened at 8:15 P.M. Nicholas Schnitzius, 205 West 4th Street: Yes, I would like to keep o the zoning M -1 where I am at. That is the reason I bought the pro- perty there two years ago and built a factory. It is located at 4th and Walnut. Mayor Thompson: Where is it on the map there. Mr. Schnitzius: It is right down here - 4th and Walnut. Now you are changing this all back to residential, and it has all been M -1 zoned through here. We have existing industrial business in there, and I don't understand why you want to change it. Most of the houses that are in there are sub - standard. A lot of them should be condemned. And the only place left out of all your industrial zone out here, having tried to buy property all through this area, the only place I could buy a piece of property that anybody would sell to me was in this area. City Manager: Was that the northeast corner of 4th and Walnut. Mr. Schnitzius: Right. And my next door neighbor, who is not present, he is working up in Lucerne Valley, also wants to keep his property industrial property. That is Jess Archer. He is next door to my property. Mayor Thompson: What is the name of your business. Mr. Schnitzius: Metal Spinning. Schnitzius Metal Spinning. City Manager: When you say next door. Next door which way. North, South, east? Mr. Schnitzius: There is only one way. West. He is right next door to me. City Manager: I thought you were on the northeast corner. Mr. Schnitzius: I'm sorry . . . Mayor Thompson: He is on the southwest. Mr. Schnitzius: I don't know. I am at . . . City Manager: I want to get it straight because when we refer this back I want them to react to your proposal, not somebody else. Councilman Lowry: Up is north on that map. So to your left is west. Mr. Schnitzius: Well, then we would be west, and we would be on the south side. City Manager: Southwest. Thank you. And then the other property is immediately west of that one then. Mr. Schnitzius: Right. Right next door to mine. Mayor Thompson: What was your neighbor's name. Mr. Schnitzius: My neighbor's name is Jess Archer. He had submitted plans to the City to build a factory there, which he hasn't put up yet, but he has the plumbing in for it, and the City lost his plans, so I don't know what is going to happen. Mayor Thompson: Okay. We have another person. Arvid Severson. 401 West 4th. Arvid Severson: I have recently purchased a piece of property, it is industrial property, out in that area. And I am presently attempting to get a business started. I moved into the area with the idea this was an M -1 area, with the intention that I wanted to get a factory going and, hopefully, employ some people. I would like to see that area stay as M -1. It is going to be a bit of an encum- brance if we change it to R -1 at this point. City Manager: What lot is yours, sir? Mr. Severson: On the southwest corner of 4th and Olive. The street address is 401 West 4th. I would like to request that that stay M -1 if at all possible. I think, in the long run, I think it is going to be a benefit to the community to have some industrial area out there that small businesses can be in, and allow us to, hopefully, employ some people. And I think that is going to help the community. Mayor Thompson: I think you'll notice that - what is that - purple, light purple - down on the bottom there. This area there. That is all primarily designated - I think that is light industrial up there on that . . . Mr. Severson: The purple is light industrial . Mayor Thompson: The yellow is . . Mr. Severson: . is R -1. But there are quite a number of R -1 . or light manufacturing businesses in this area at the present time. Mayor Thompson: They are all existing. Mr. Severson: Yes. And I think you will probably hear from quite a few of them tonight, because . . . they are mixed in with residential, and I understand the problem. But I think it is going to present a problem regardless of which way it goes, and I think, in the long run, if we look at it from a standpoint of what it is going to mean in terms of employment, I think it would be beneficial to consider that as an industrial area. Councilman Lowry: Had that always been - that entire area - M -1, or is it kind of split up - spotted R -1 and M -1. Are you familiar with what . . Unidentified: Excuse me, sir. If you will look on the map behind you on the southside Beaumont there. The .light brown there is light industrial. Right there where your finger is at. Mr. Severson: I think when you go into the dark brown you go into m-2. Mayor Thompson: I have a Mr. Floyd A. Wilson, 450 Egan. Floyd Wilson: I just come to say I would like to see this stay M -1. We certainly wouldn't have bought there if it wouldn't have been a manufacturing zone. City Manager: What is your property, Sir. Page 4 Mr. Wilson: 450 Egan. I wouldn't know how to find it on the map, but. . . Unidentified: Your property is located right here at B. It is located right up here. It is the old Aztec Bakery property.. Mayor Thompson: Excuse me. Mr. Wilson. How long have you been down there in that area. Mr. Wilson: We bought it in 1980. Prior to that we were over on 601 West 5th, and we sold that and bought over here. Mayor Thompson: We have one here for Gerry Brey. Gerry Brey, 408 Elm: The others are 451 and 495 B Street. I would like to see them stay M -1. This is also the reason why I bought the property. City Manager: Are there structures on all three of these? Mayor Thompson: You are representing Brey Electric. Mr. Brey: Right (to both questions). Councilman Hammel: You have been down there how many years. Mr. Brey: Since about 1965. I would appreciate anything you can do. Mayor Thompson: Mr. Helmut Hans, 411 Minnesota. Helmut Hans: I sold my house and put all my money in a building on 4th and Minnesota. 411 Minnesota. And I would like to have it that way. Mayor Thompson: What is the name of your business. Mr. Hans: H & F Engineering. Mayor Thompson: I am trying to see where that is. Right in there. Okay. Do you go around the corner. Mr. Hans: Yes. Mayor Thompson: Gary Capps. Gary Capps, 38654 Florence Avenue, Beaumont: Not in the City of Beaumont, I am in the County, but I have some property on Chestnut, a lot that I purchased about eighteen months ago. It was zoned R -3, and I bought it as an investment, and it will lose value, of course, if it is R -1. So I would like to request . . City Manager: What is the address there. Mr. Capps: There is no address, but I have a parcel number. City Manager: Or a relationship on the street. Mr. Capps: Okay. It is between 7th and 8th on the east side of Chestnut. It is between 716 and 738. Those are the two neighbors. I have plans to build, but with financing what it is, those plans were suspended. City Manager: Between 716 and . . . Mr. Capps: . . and 738. May I make one other comment. I would like to take this opportunity to compliment the job that has been done by Mr. Davis since taking over the City of Beaumont. Having lived here for forty years and read the paper, and followed the City government the last few years, I really think he should be commended for the job that he has done in getting the City government straightened out. Mayor Thompson: I have Cecil Baker, at 412 Elm. Pacte 5 Cecil Baker, C -B Cabinet Shop: I own, altogether, five pieces of property around. I will have to show you on the map. Some of it is just vacant. City Manager: What streets. Mr. Baker: 412 Elm is where the business is at. Then on 4th and Elm, I own that corner lot at 4th and Elm. Next door_ to Gerry Brey. Then on the five acres across the street. I want to keep everything like it was before. I have been there twenty years - it was 1962 when I got there. City Manager: Do you have property on both sides of Elm. Mr. Baker: Yes. Mayor Thompson: You mean it has been that zoning for twenty years. Mr. Baker: Across the street, that house, it has been rezoned. I want to leave it al]. the same. Mayor Thompson: These were the ones I had the names of. That is why we took them first. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to have some input on this particular . . . okay, I will start here and then we will work back. Leroy. Leroy Wilson, 1014 Euclid: I bought that R -3 lot, and I would like to keep it that way. And there are seven of us that live there on that street. We are all up here tonight, and we would like to see it remain R -3. Mayor Thompson: On this block? City Manager: Give it to me again so I can get it down. What is your address again. Mr. Wilson: 1014 Euclid. City Manager: You have a house at that spot. Councilman Shaw: What are you, R -3? Mr. Wilson: Yes. And we would all like to keep them R -3 lots. City Manager: Do the others also have homes on that block. In other words you are asking that the whole 1000 block of Euclid remain R -3. Mr. Wilson: Yes. It is already R -3. Now, all of them are not R -3. But the ones that are, we would like to keep them that way. City Manager: Could we get Mr. Wilson's . . Mr. Wilson has made an expression on behalf of some of his neighbors. Could you ask that they hold their hands up and just indicate that. Okay - in support of the whole 1000 block of Euclid. Harry Wieck, 902 California Avenue: I have property at 902 California Avenue that is now R -3, and I would like it to remain so. I just wanted to put my word in, along with the rest. Mayor Thompson: You sent us a letter, didn't you. City Manager: Yes, I have it here and will give it to the Clerk. Mr. Wieck: I didn't make a separate note of the property address, but it is 902 California Avenue. Francis Dowling, 1345 Orange Avenue: The property I want to speak to was the piece on Highway 60, which was recently annexed to the City, and at the time it was annexed into the City, Norm said that although we didn't have the zoning, that there was some commercial zoning right at the entrance there where we are operating the fruit market, and I notice on the map here, it shows it all in yellow, residential. It shows some red there, which would be on the piece adjoining me, that Mr. Thomas has, but at the entrance there -- I had commercial on that frontage there, fronting the highway prior to the time it came into the City, and I think I should have the commercial on that portion again. City Manager: Could we establish, Francis, about how many acres do you have there where your commercial site is located. Let's enter that as your request. How many acres are you asking for commercial where you have your present commercial operation. Mr. Dowling: I am not sure what the . . . City Manager: Well, just roughly. One, five, three, whatever. Mr. Dowling: I think I should have about three acres in commercial from . . . Mayor Thompson: You are basically talking about the area right in there. Councilman Lowry: All along 60. Where the existing fruit market is. How far is it extending eastward from that street that goes. into the fruit market. Your property - how far is it . . . Mr. Dowling: It goes down to here and here . . . Councilman Lowry: And how much is the commercial that you are asking. City Manager: Well, he is asking for approximately three acres more or less. Mr. Dowling: There is 58 acres in the total amount. Councilman Lowry: In other words, everything along 60, you are asking be made commercial. Mr. Dowling: Yes. Councilman Lowry: Everything along 60 on this property. About what depth. Mr. Dowling: I don't know what it was before on the depth. Gary Croft: The existing County shows it as agriculture, and it is operating as a fruit stand, which is permissible under plot plan approval. City Manager: May I suggest to you Francis, that if you had 300 feet deep from your fence line, it would probably take in the.buil.dings you have got there easily, and a total of approximately three acres, if you would make that your request. You know, this is only going to be approximate. So long as you get that approximation in there. I.f you could spell that out as your request - approximately three hundred feet deep from the fence line, in total approximately three acres, I think that would give you what you need. Mr. Dowling: All right. I will spell that out. As Norm said, 300 feet deep, and approximately three acres for commercial. Paul Secord: If I may comment briefly. Because I think, in fact, the General Plan really reflects the kind of land use that you want. In fact there is highway service shown there, and the intent was for that highway service span to run the entire length of the frontage on Highway 60. The idea was that highway service, commercial oriented uses were allowable all along that frontage. So, in fact, the General Plan land use actually reflects what you are concerned about. That is a stated policy, and it is described - a portion of the General Plan - a specific plan guideline. The reason it is not called out in a hard line is because the actual width or depth of the frontage, varies somewhat depending on what kind of uses. We didn't want to set an arbitrary limit of 150 feet . . . City Manager: You have your statement on record. You have also heard Mr. Secord tell you, basically, you. have got what you want, so you have got it two ways. Page 7 Mayor Thompson: Okay, Manny, you had something. Emanuel Baldi: I was here last meeting, and I want to make sure that - am I supposed to point out exactly where my property was. Because I don't think I did that and I don't want to be left out on.it. City Manager: I don't remember what I wrote down last time. Mr. Baldi: I just want to say - you guys are pinning these guys right down to the corners and the . . . and I want to make sure my property at 7th and Chestnut doesn't get left out. City Manager: Well, let's make it clear. What the Council has to do is refer it back to the Commission, and in order for the Commission to get something precise, it has to be precise when it goes back. Mr. Baldi: Okay. I want to go on record that the corner of 7th and Chestnut, on 8th Street . . City Manager: Yes, I think I have got that. Mr. Baldi: You have got that one. Okay, I want it to stay R -3. Mayor Thompson: What about down there in the . . . Mr. Baldi: All the lands I have got on the other side of Southern California. Al]_ M -1. Gary Croft: Okay. That is already shown. Mayor Thompson: The business over there on, what is it Egan. Mr. Baldi: Egan, California and Elm. Whatever it is. All of that. Mayor Thompson: What is that number on Egan. Mr. Baldi: 459 Egan. Gary Croft: That is on the west side, right. Mr. Bal-di: I have both sides of the street. I just wanted to make sure we get it straight. That I didn't get left out. Are you only going to consider only what the people that have come up and asked for to be considered, or what. City Manager: Well, what the Council does . . . the only thing they are going to send back, unless they come up with something different, is what has been requested. Mr. Baldi: What I am saying is whatever happened to those people that didn't come up here to speak for themselves. Are they going to be just left out. Mayor Thompson: May I try to answer, Norm. I am sure that Paul from Beland /Associates has been very attentive in the last meetings that we have had, and I think that what has been said at these various meetings have not fallen on deaf ears. However, I am sure that in evaluating the testimony, that he has heard at these various public hearings, that there will probably be some adjustment in the specific areas in the General Plan, but the overall land use will probably be very much similar to what has been presented, with minor adjustment. I am sure this is what will come out of the discussion that we have had here. I won't say for sure now. Mr. Baldi: How hard is it to amend the plan after it has been accepted, for a specific use. City Manager: It is very difficult. That was the intent of the State law when they created this thing, so that is why you want to make sure that you got something you can work with, and that is what I have been trying to tell people. Make sure you get your viewpoints known now, because it is too late later on. ,- - - - n Mr. Baldi: Well that is fine. I am saying . . all these people that are here tonight did not have -- were not at any of the meetings before, just like I wasn't at the meeting here before this. I would still like to go on record that it was not adequately publicized. So all the people in the whole area had an opportunity to be . . . City Manager: I really hate to disagree with you, Manny. But there cannot be much more so well publicized in this community then this General Plan was in the last year. Mr. Baldi: Nevertheless, it all came about that not that many people here tonight raising hell, because if they were - if they knew about it they would be here. City Manager: As yournext gentleman approaches, may I suggest to you, and to the audience, the Council cannot close the hearing tonight. The State has not responded yet, and they have until the end of this week, so this hearing is going to have to be continued at least once more, until the next meeting, May 10. So there is still time, and we will continue at least that long, maybe longer, until the Council desires it. Joe Anhalt, 713 Chestnut: It is R -3 now, and I would like to keep it that way. Douglas Penrod, Cherry Valley: I am a little bit confused. I own some property on Sunnyslope, and I always understood it was in Cherry Valley. If it is in the City of Beaumont,when was it put there. City Manager: It is not in the City of Beaumont. This General Plan applies to the Beaumont sphere of influence. That doesn't mean it is going to apply to your property if you develop or utilize that property within the County. If you ever become part of the City, then you are going to be guided by this plan. Mr. Penrod: My property is light agriculture right now, 15 acres, west of the street there, and I would like to remain light agriculture. City Manager: Well this certainly doesn't change your use. It allows you to do more than what you are doing. If you get this in the agriculture zone, it stays in the general land plan that way, you nor anyone else are going to use it for anything but agriculture, no matter what you might desire without a change of the General Plan, if you ever became part of the City. I don't know what it is in the County. Gary Croft: In the County it is 0 -3 units to-the acre. City Manager: So you got basically the same thing with the County. Really, in effect, it is not changing what you already have in the County. Mr. Penrod: How could you put part of Cherry Valley in your plan there. City Manager: This is the Beaumont sphere of influence as determined by the Local Agency Formation Commission, which has jurisdiction over such matters by reason of State law. City Manager: Could I read into the record - there is a letter here - that came in this week from Wesley Chambers. He is asking -- he says , I am the owner of Lot 10 Block 68 located on the east side of Magnolia north of 7th Street. The lot is presently zoned R -3 and he wants it to remain that way in the future. Mayor Thompson: Is there anyone else that has something in an area that we may not have touched on yet - haven't heard about. Is there someone here. . Unidentified: Can I ask a question. Why turn that M -1 zone back to an R -1 zone. Mayor Thompson: I think Paul better answer that. He worked with the Paae 9 citizens committee, and his company evaluated the information. Paul Secord, Beland /Associates: The question concerning the area surrounding Rangel Park, the reason for the designation in the General Plan as residential has to do principally with the existing uses which are there now. Those residential uses. There was a strong desire on the part of many members of the committee, as well as the County Planning staff, that that area remain a residential neighborhood. The area is actually shown as residential under the existing General Flan, and the zoning, which shows it for M -1 is an inconsistency, and the current situation between the General Plan that the City is operating under now and the current zoning for the area. That was the principal reason for the desire to show that area as residential. There was a fair amount of support ex- pressed from residents of that area through members of the committee. I will say there was a considerable amount of discussion concerning the appropriate General Plan designations for that area. (There is a discussion between the City Manager and an unidentified member of the audience at this point which is not included in the minutes because there is no direct input into the public hearing). Paul Secord.: I would like to make one other comment here. It was recognized that there are a number of industrial uses in that area, and the assumption was that those uses would continue to remain as existing non - conforming uses. The fact that the designation is changed doesn't mean that continuation of the existing uses that are there now can't go on. City Manager: Let us be clear on that point though, Paul. Because, under the law, if an existing use is there - yes, they have a non- conforming right. But if that building, as an example, burns down tomorrow, they could not rebuild. They are out of luck. We want the Council to understand that situation, and I want you out there to understand it, because, we can talk about non - conforming right. Yes, that right goes along until something happens to destroy it. A fire, as an example, destroys it. Paul Secord: That is correct. Councilman Lowry: May I ask a question . . . Mayor Thompson: What we are trying to do is to get input from the people that are involved that are affected, so that we may have more basis on which to make a valid decision as to what to do. We will have to send this back, I am sure, to the Beland /Associates, the Planning Commission, and, I am sure, after listening to the testimony and the comments at these various public hearings, that they realize that - well - maybe there will have to be some changes. Councilman Lowry: Now, may I ask a question, related to what Norm Davis said. Now, if this is all rezoned - Paul, I am speaking to you please - if it is all rezoned M -1, and it provides so in the General Plan, the present residents can stay as residents, even I their property becomes zoned M -1. Isn't that true. Paul Secord: Yes, that is also correct. Councilman Lowry: Also, doesn't their property increase in value by that very action. Paul Secord: Not necessarily. Councilman Lowry: You can usually sell M -1 . . . Paul Secord: I don't want to comment on the property values. I would rather just restrict it to the land uses. In fact, this dis- tinction was discussed at the Planning Commission as well. The topic was brought up, and there was a considerable amount of discussion concerning that which was made at the Planning Commission hearings as well. That is in the minutes of those hearings. Councilman Lowry: If a resident is there, and burns down, can it be built again as a residence in M -1, or does it have to be built M -1. Gary Croft: No, it is also a non - conforming use. It would be re- stricted. Mayor Thompson: As previously stated, the State has not completed their portion of the review of the General Plan, therefore, it has not come back to us. And of necessity this meeting will have to be adjourned to our next regular Council meeting. There will be another session, just like you have seen tonight. To give you the opportunity to have input so that Paul can, as the consultant, evaluate what your wishes are, and what is best - what they consider proper and better planning. Is there anyone else that has anything that you would like to add at this time. Unidentified: May I ask one further question. You mentioned that if a building burned down, and it were a non - conforming use, that it could not be rebuilt. What happens in the event that it is sold. City Manager: The use goes along with the land in that case. Mayor Thompson: Okay, is there any other person that has a question, who has some input. Leroy. Leroy Wilson: Yes, I would like to ask - what is the purpose of changing an R -3 to an R -1 lot. City Manager: That is a question that you can't talk about tonight. I can sympathize with yotr desire to ask. Mayor Thompson: Is there any other person that would like to speak to this issue tonight. Does the Council have anything that they want to add to this at this time. Okay, if not, we will adjourn this public hearing , or rather continue this public hearing until May 10, 1982, at 8:00 P.M., in these chambers. We will continue this. So you have at least one more opportunity, and maybe more to parti- cipate in the overall General Plan land use for the City. The Public Hearing was continued until Monday, May 10, 1982, at 8:00 P.M., at 8:50 P.M. 20. Report and recommendation from City Manager re Cable TV Franchise. The City Manager gave his report and recommendation to the Council regarding this Agenda item. j Representatives of the three applicants, Field Cablevision, Delaware - Orcal, Inc. and Beaumont Cablevision were heard by the Council. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the recommendation of City Manager, Norman Davis, as stated in his letter dated April 22, 1982, whereby the three cable companies will submit a resolution for providing these services, within thirty days. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 21. Planning Commission Report and Council Consideration of Change of Zone No. 1007. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont grants the following in regard to Change of Zone 1007: 1. Planning Commission recommendation for M -1 property north of First Street be approved. 2. The Southern California Gas Company and the Shuler property be zoned C -2. 3. The Schooley property be zoned C -1. from Beaumont Avenue to 290.17 feet westerly, and the remaining 300 feet westerly be zoned R -1. AYES: Councilmen May, Hammel, and Lowry. NOES: Councilman Shaw and Mayor Thompson. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 22. Request from Turner -Fagot Construction Co., Inc. for Extension of Building Permits. This agenda item was referred to the City Manager and the City Attorney for interpretation of the building codes, and will be continued until. the next Council meeting of May 10, 1982. 23. Planning Commission Report re: School Impaction Fee. This agenda item was referred to the City Manager to be brought back before the Council for an informal hearing on May 24, 1982. 24. Request for Ordinance Regulating Parking on Private Streets, etc. This agenda item was referred to the City Manager for research of the �.. existing ordinance adopted by the City of Banning, with a report to the Council. 25. Report of Examination of the Transportation Fund No. 28 for Fiscal Years ended June 30, 1981 and 1980 as Submitted by State Controller's Office. This report was accepted for filing by the City Council. 26. ORAL COMMUNICATION: There was no oral communication. ADD ITEM: On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont grants Councilman Lowry's request to leave the State for a period of ninety days beginning May 1, 1982. ' AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 27. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -31 - Authorizing Certain City Officers to Order the Deposit or Withdrawal of Monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund. l� On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -31. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. There being no further business to come before the City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:17 P.M. Respectfully submitted, D,,et)CITY CLW K, CITY OF BEAUMONT and SECRETARY, BEAUMONT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AGENCY Page 12 BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL AND BEAUMONT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AGENCY MINUTES OF MAY 10, 1982 1. The Beaumont City Council and the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency met in a joint regular meeting at 7:33 P.M., Monday,May 10, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor /Chairman Thompson presiding. 2. The invocation was given by Reverand George Krieger. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Councilman May. 4. On Roll Call, the following Council /Agency Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel and Mayor /Chairman Thompson. Councilman /Agency Member Lowry was excused. 5. There being no additions, deletions or corrections, the Minutes of Regular Council /Agency Meeting of April 26, 1982 were approved as submitted. 6. There being no objections, the Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 20, 1982 were accepted for filing as submitted. 7. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, Warrants as audited per Warrant List of May 10, 1982, in the amount of $323,231.65, and Payroll of April 30, 1982, in the amount of $21,902.46, were approved for payment as audited. 10. V Al AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilman Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. Filing of Disclosure Statements for Beaumont Community Improvement Agency Members and Staff Pursuant to State Law. On Motion by Agency Member Shaw, seconded by Agency Member May, the disclosure statements as filed by the following agency members and staff are filed for public record as part of the requirement for financial disclosure for the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency: 1. James B. Thompson, Chairman. 2. Richard Hammel, Vice - Chairman. 3. Fred Shaw, Agency Member. 4. William Lowry, Agency Member. 5. L. W. May, Agency Member. 6. Norman J. Davis, Executive Director. 7. Edna J. Burkett, Secretary. 8. Julia White, Agency Deputy Secretary. 9. Gary Phelps, Public Works Director and City Engineer. 10. Ronney Wong, Director of Finance. 11. T. Milford Harrison, Planning Director. 12. H. M. Dougherty, City Attorney. 13. Gary Croft, Chief Planner. AYES: Agency Member May, Shaw, Hammel and Chairman Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Agency Member Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. Review and Consider a Project Area and Preliminary Community Improve- ment Plan within the Beaumont Community Improvement Survey Area and Adoption of RESOLUTION NO. BCI 82 -8 - Approving the Selection of the Boundaries of the Beaumont Community Improvement Project Area; and Accepting and Approving the Preliminary Plan for the Beaumont Project Area. Marshall Krupp, Consultant for the Beaumont Community Improvc>m-�nt Agency addressed the Agency, explaining what was being presented to ttnm at this time, and pointing out on the map the proposed project ar_ Mr_. Krupp then answered questions from the audience. Page 1 On Motion by Agency Member Hammel, seconded by Agency Member May, the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency adopts Resolution No. BCI 82 -8, j' approving the selection of the boundaries of the Beaumont Community Improvement Project Area; and accepting and approving the preliminary plan for the Beaumont Project Area. AYES: Agency Members May, Shaw, Hammel and Chairman Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Agency Member Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. 9. RESOLUTION NO. BCI 82 -9 - Approving and Adopting Procedures for the Preparation, Processing and Review of Environmental Documents. .� On Motion by Agency Member Shaw, seconded by Agency Member May, the 'B Community Improvement Agency adopts Resolution No. BCI 82 -9, V approving and adopting procedures for the preparation, processing_ and v review of environmental documents. AYES: Agency Members May, Shaw, Hammel and Chairman Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Agency Member Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. 31. On Motion by Agency Member Shaw, seconded by Agency Member May, the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency directs the Executive Director to schedule one or two community information meetings to advise the community of the contents of the.preliminary plan and the contents of the community improvement policy. AYES: Agency Members May, Shaw, Hammel and Chairman Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Agency Member Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. 11. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - The Draft General Plan. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:07 P.M. City Manager: I would like to ask Paul Secord to indicate to you the response of the State Office of Planning and Research as regards their review of the draft general plan. ` Paul Secord, Beland /Associates: The EIR has now gone through a forty- five day review period as required by the State. This is a review which comes through the State clearinghouse, which approves all State agencies, and more or less, other agencies which might have an interest in the General Plan itself. There were four specific comments that unintelligible that process. One of the comments Taal from the Department of Conservation . . . . let me back up a little bl_t. In terms of the kinds of actions which are required for Unin.t,ellegible it is our responsibility as the firm who prepared the document, to respond to all these comments, and the lead agency, being the City, is required to include a detailed response to them, and that is some- thing that is part of our contract, and we would prepare. I didn't see anything in the comments that would substantially change'-any of the policy recommendations, major policy recommendations, or in any way alter the recommendations of the land use plan, or any of the ]_and use plan recommendations. None of the comments really dealt with any of the factors which had come under controversy over the last s ^ve.r_al meetings. As I said, there are four major comments. The first one came from the Department of Conservation, and it had to do with the apparent lack of,consideration relative to prime agricultural lands. I think, in part, these comments resulted from the fact that the people in the State Department of Conservation, when they look at a. statement in a General Plan that says the entire area is Class II Soils (prime) agricultural, that they see that as being essentially the same kind of agricultural land that you see in the San Joaal,in. Valley, or the Imperial Valley, and they are not specifically familiar with the kinds of conditions which apply to Beaumont. They have asked for more detailed information, j' arititative ii '(-_)rmation on the amount of agricultural lands, the dollar value of aaricultur--al lands within the area, and we can provide that. In fact, the most_ viable agricultural property in the community is included in th -i, . rural - residential agricultural area. Portions of the specific plan area, which are currently under agriculture are, for the most part, dry farming - barley - and only about half of that is actually under cultivation, and doesn't really represent an economically viable kind of use there. So, I think we can deal with this quantitatively. City Manager: Did you point out the problem to the State, also, that is created with the use of this land during certain periods of the year in terms of the City. How it gets buried under the soil that comes off of that land. Paul Secord: I am not sure exactly. . . City Manager: The dirt blowing into the City . . . Paul Secord: Right. As I say, I really don't see any major problem. There was a comment from Cal -Trans recognizing the fact that the General Plan could not serve as a complete environmental under_ the General Plan EIR - was not adequate as the complete environmental documentation for major projects. And they gave a series of recommendations - information that they would like to see - these are the traffic data for a specific kind of development proposal. This sort of data that they are asking for is the kind of information. that would be included in any specific plan submittal, to be done by a traffic consultant when a major development proposal was, in fact - came forward. We didn't see - and I don't think there would be any need from the standpoint of the General Plan - to generate a whole lot of traffic impact data for hypothetical developments, which may or may never, in fact, occur. That is more appropriately taken care of at the specific plan stage. That was the intent of the General Plan. There was a comment from the Air Resources Board asking for more detail on air quality. It has been our experience that, General Plan EIRs and comments, that the Air Resources Board always asks the local jurisdic- tions to do major air quality studies. The basic quantitative data that they have asked for is something that is easy for us to c=ompile and include in the report. In terms of the potential - in fact, the General Plan, on air quality, the air quality problems - those few problems that the area does (tape changed - discussion continues as follows) . . .and policy. The one comment they did make that could have an effect - they asked for a Statement of Consistency with regional growth projections. The SCAG 1982 projections have now come out. They were not available when we were preparing the plan. As a result of those projections, the kinds of development intensities that are recommended by the plan are within the SCAG 1982 projections, so there is no problem in making that Statement of Consistency with the regional requirements. There was also final comment from the Water Resources Board with a standard list of conservation matters that they asked to be appended to the document. They don't require any comment. We just include it with the report. Are there any questions concerning any of this material. I was pleased to find out there were no comments relative to basic land use policy - there were no comments concerning the housing element, which is traditionally something that the State has given a lot of consideration to. So, I was pleased that the comments were really very minor. And there were no comments from the County. City Manager: So, based upon these comments, what is your recommenda- tion to Council. Paul Secord: My recommendation would be that we prepare the quantita- tive data. I don't think . . . and include that in the final FIR, as would be required by the State. I don't think that there is any information in the comments that requires further consideration or any action. There is certainly nothing there that would alter any of the discussions, or any of the areas that have been under controversy in the last meetings. City Manager: You are saying the Council is in a position to ao a.head and close its hearings when and if - at any point that it chooes - once it has satisfied itself as regards to public. hearings. Paul Secord: That is correct. In fact, the review period is - so far as the State is concerned - the State Clearinghouse and governmental agencies are concerned - it is now closed. There is no requirement these comments go back to the Planning Commission or anythi.na like that Paqe 3 for consideration. It is entirely up to the Council. Mayor Thompson: There is no requirements that it go back. Paul Secord: No. Mayor Thompson: But with the public input that you had. City Manager.: We are not speaking of the public hearing. We are speaking only of this report here. Paul Secord: Just about the State comments. That is all I am talking about. Mayor Thompson: Okay. I have got the comments mixed up. Paul Secord: I was just talking about the comments from the State. That is all. Mayor Thompson: Do you have anything else on this Norm. City Manager: No, gentlemen, I think you should continue with the public hearing. I have several items I would like to read into the record later. But I would suggest that you hear from anybody who has not been heard from previously, and we will see where we go from there. Mayor Thompson: Okay. The public hearing is open. You have heard the report from Mr. Secord as far as the response from the State agencies have come. Anyone in the audience that hasn't been heard on this pro- posed General Plan. If they wish to have input, or wish to speak to a certain particular area, feel free to rise and give us your name and address, and we will go from there. Ernie Shamblean, 1278 California Avenue: I purchased an R -3 lot a couple of years ago in the 900 block of Edgar Avenue in the anticipa- tion of building a couple of units on it, and I would like it to stay that way. It would be on the west side of the street. Jess Archer, 217 West 4th: I purchased a lot at 217 West 4th that was zoned M -1, and I would sure like it to stay. Here is a sketch of roughly where it is at. Ray Schooley, 1104 Via Conejo, Escondido: I see one major big problem coming up with the General Plan that is proposed here. And, by the way, I think you have all done a real fine job on it. However, there is a definite lack, by looking at this map, of high density property. That, in the economy that we are in today, it is the only way that people are going to be able to afford to put a roof over their head. Whether they are renting, or whether they are buying - whether they are retired or whether they are a young couple just starting out - whatever the circumstances. It is going to be the vehicle of a town- house, a condominium. If they are renting, it is going to have to be a well - planned apartment that appeals to them, with rents what. they are today. You have a lot of mobile home zoning in there, but not everyone finds mobile homes to be the answer. I don't know what your intent is with the residential planned unit development designation, if, in fact, you have left that open - but if the project is well - planned and well designed and merits perhaps the bonus of a higher density, if that is your intent, perhaps some of that land can be used to take care of the necessary higher densities to make affordable housing in this town. But, in looking at the map, it is very obvious that there is only - I see only. two spots on there that are R -3 or higher density zoning that would take this type of development. Maybe Gary can answer that question for me, or perhaps you are going to keep the residential planned unit development zoning open ended so that you have that option without coming all the way back through this process to do a General Plan amendment to get these types of projects through. If that is the only type of housing that you can afford in this town. City Manager: Ray, this has been brought before the Council previously, and I feel that it is one of the concerns the Council ought to address when it makes its final decision as regards what the maximum allowable development or number of units may be within the PUD areas, and so, Paqe 4 hopefully, the Council will address that when they make their final decision. You are the second or third one who has. . . Ray Schooley: I would also request, too, that any zoning that has recently been adopted or approved be made a permanent part of this General Plan. So, once again, people that have planned projects and worked on them and had them approved through your government procedure do not have to go through all this again on General Plan amendments, to correct what they have already, perhaps, like in my case, spent a year working on. I would think everybody would think that to be pretty fair, because we have already been through hearing processes to get some of these changes, and not all of them are on this General Plan as proposed right now - that should, hopefully, be made a part of your approval of the final map. Mayor Thompson: Can you point out specific areas. Ray Schooley: Yes. Just south of First Street on Beaumont Avenue we recently went through some zone change hearings in that area where some C zone and some industrial zone - and it will take a while, I guess, to update the map. There is also several other areas, I believe, up on the north end of Beaumont Avenue where there has been some zone change. I see one of mine up there which is now commercial at the corner of 14th and Beaumont is shown on the map. But, I belic77e, further north of me there were some others that are not totally designated on there right now. I don't know specifically what they were, but I know there were hearings on them at the same time I was going through the hearing process. Mayor Thompson: I would like to ask Paul a question. When this input that you are getting, and have been getting for the last few weeks, when you evaluate this, do you then review the updated zoning that has happened more recently than what you probably had before you started, or at the time you started this . . . Paul Secord: Yes. In those areas which are inconsistent from -the policy map as approved by the Planning Commission, would be reconsidered. Mayor Thompson: Does that answer your question. Ray Schooley: Yes. I just wanted to be sure that, again, we didn't have to go through the entire process, again, when you understood that your property had been zoned by going through this process once already. I think once your map is finally adopted, that it will probably take General Plan amendment process, or procedure, to get changes at that particular time, which is a lengthy, drawn out procedure. I think that on the Planned Use Development, you have an excellent tool there to really control a lot of these projects, and get the type of architectural that you want in this town, and the type of open space. Let a lot of these developers put in their own improvements and take some of the burden off of the City. I think that you are going to find, that in order to make that feasible, and make these projects attractive, and take some of that burden off the City for the improvements that they put in, really and truly the only way to make it economically work is approve some higher densities where they are needed, so please don't overlook that. Thank you for your time. James Moseley, 1117 Beaumont Avenue: I own five lots there. 1117 and 1121. Two of them faces Beaumont Avenue, and two of them faces Euclid on the back side. I would like to get all five of them the same as Beaumont Avenue due to the fact that I have put them together over the years, and that was my intent. But having the low density on the back side, and not the same as that on Beaumont Avenue. James D. Miller, 1846 West George, Banning: My sister and I own a lot at roughly 4th and olive across from the processing plant, which, if I understand the map correctly, is suggesting to be changed to residential from the M -1, which is what it was when we purchased it. We do not own the whole corner lot there, but at the time we purchased it that lot was M -1, and the corner lot that finishes out that corner of the block was M -1, across the street was an M -1 lot, across the alley to the west, I believe, there is a building there that was at one time used for an organ repair, I believe. There is a woodworking shop back in there, I believe, I am not positive. There is an electric place and another place on the back of the electric, I forget what is in there. I believe that should remain commercial. That was what it was purchased for light manufacturing, and it certainly is not going to be consistent with my plans if that is zoned into a residential area with so much of the M -1 lot being around in that area. in the first place. I don't know what the plans would be, I would have a question of someone of the existing businesses that are there in that area, what is going to happen to them? Are they going to have to move out, will the lots be re- zoned, will it be a part of the general amendment procedure that was commented on a few minutes ago, or what would happen to those areas there. And if there is that much commercial, or light duty manufacturing technically, in that ;area, that area should remain as such to be consistent with the actual zoning and application of the land thereof. Charles Medina, 454 Wellwood Avenue: I have been tied in with the Rangel Park area in there . . . a lot of investments . . . . it starts way back in 1910 when my Granddad moved up in this area . . . little by little putting in one property going in through there, but yet the residents that have been there have been there quite a few years. I feel like the gentleman feels, if there is going to be an M -1, I feel the whole thing should be an M -1, not just part of it. There are still quite a few residents in there, and it has been in and out of manufacturing in there. There has been some new manufacturing in there. All I have seen is for sale signs in there. The majority of them really haven't kept them up. I realize there is a lot of graffi.tti down there that the kids spray and all that, but if you go down through there, there are some run down homes through there that do need work. Hopefully this redevelopment agency will come in and do something in there, but as for the majority of the people I have talked to in that area, that have their homes there, that are paid for, and still figure on staying in there, they will still like to keep it as an R -1. Now what took place years ago to make it M -1 is something different. In speaking with them, they would like to make it all R -1 as it was before. (Mr. Medina's input is incomplete due to the fact the microphone is apparently not working, and there is a great deal of background noise overriding Mr. Medina's voice). Mr. Simoff, 1385 Michigan Avenue: At the first meeting I say something about plan. I don't think . . . . that all territory of the City, all City, now become R -1. I have property on Magnolia, north of 7th Street, east side, second lot. I paid for , $20,000. South of my property, I don't see these people here south of 8th Street, three lots, $75,000 for high density. Now this is R -1, and I believe they could build duplexes. $75,000 in property (Again, Mr. Simoff's input is incomplete due to very heavy background noise overriding his voice). Again, I say, it must stay high density 6th Street will give you Mayor Thompson: Is there anyone else who has not had input in this particular hearing on this Draft General Plan. Anyone who has not had input that wishes to be heard. City Manager: Let me read these letters into the record. "I own the metal spinning shop at 205 W 4th Street, southwest corner of 4th and Walnut, and purchased the property two years ago as M -1. It has been since the 50s, and I would like it to remain so." He is asking that it not be changed. This is Nicholas W. Schnitzius. And here is another letter, also addressed to myself. "I am writing to you in mgards to my property located at 217 W. 4th Street." This is N r. Archer, he just spoke tonight. This is from Mr. Severson. Flas he presented himself before. "I am the owner of the property located at 401 W. 4th Street, southwest corner of 4th and Olive. This property and the surrounding area is presently zoned M -1. I request that it remain M -1 ". Signed Arvid L. Severson. Then a petition came in today, directed to the Honorable Mayor J. B. Thompson and Members of the City Council. "We the undersgined property owners, located in the 1000 block of Euclid Avenue, understand that our R -3 lots will be changed to R -1 lots in the proposed General Plan. We, therefore, respectfully request that our R -3 lots, which were purchased and valued as such, remain R -3 lots per the current General Plan. Please remit our request to the proper committee ". It is signed by Susan n-"- G Brown, Leroy & Rosaline Wilson, Robert McDougell, Robert Landre, Alice Rote, William and Ronalee Salinas, Gladys Westbrook, Marguriete Eveland, Elsa Berndt and Steve Pratzer, all of them in the 1000 block of Euclid. Mayor Thompson: Are there any questions from the Council. Okay. We may close the public hearing at this time and we may make a decision to accept what has been presented as such. We may make a decision to refer this back to the Planning Commission and Beland /Associates for evaluation of the input from the citizens on this particular plan. We can close the public hearing and refer it to the Planning Commission and Beland /Associates with specific instructions, limited scope. Or we may continue the public hearing if we find it necessary. We have those options. Councilman Shaw: Tom. We do have a say in the final adoption. I would like to put that in the record, that we do. Mayor Thompson: Yes, it does come back to us. City Manager: Yes, it is your final decision. You can do anything. You can change that thing completely up there so far as your final decision. Mayor Thompson: I have a question before we do anything here on the public hearing. Once we close the hearing, and it is referred - if it is referred - whatever we do with it. When it comes back there has to be another notice of public hearing. City Manager: No, there will be no more hearings. If you close the hearing, the hearings are closed. It goes back to the Commission, the Commission reacts, sends back whatever - to reconfirm this recommendation, or they make some changes, then it is up to you within reason you ca.n do anything you please at that point, but I would like to explore that just a little bit, once you have closed the hearing. Mayor Thompson: That would be germaine to the hearing, wouldn't it? City Manager: The exploring of what you can do, that is legitimate enough. Mayor Thompson: Well, before we close the hearing should we go ahead - would you. like to do that? City Manager: Let me just ask you all a couple or three questions here, just to clarify what we may do in terms of sending it back to the Commission, if that is what you choose, and that is what I would recom- mend you do, based upon the requests that have come to you, I am sure you all want to do this. Let me explore some of these areas, and Gary too, the two of you could comment. The areas of concern that have been expressed to the Council - I will just run down through them here one by one. The matter of the low density going from low density on the map in the little spot - the forty acres up there on Brookside to Residential- Agriculture. Does that concern have to be referred back to the Commission for their reaction. Gary Croft: No, that was fully explored at the Commission level. City Manager: Okay. So that is an item, gentlemen, that you do not need to refer but if you desire to make that R -A consistent-with the request that I personally made to you on behalf of the property owners that I spoke to in that area, and represented that that would be the City's position, then you may do that without referring it. Mayor Thompson: The area you are talking about is . . . City Manager: That is the little forty acre - you want to point it out Gary. That is low density on the map, and it was requested that it be made residential- agriculture. Another item which was spoken to again tonight, which has been spoken to previously, is the planned unit development area, which is the massive areas on the map there in yellow - the brighter yellow, and you will recall that Paul indicated to us previously that this - in terms of the presentation - the number of units per acre would be about five to the acre. Does this have to go back Paul for any reconsideration by the Commission as to whether or not it could be eight or ten or twelve or fifteen. Paul Secord: It wouldn't have to go back, but I would like to make one Pacfe 7 point of clarification on it. The actual maximum densities that would be allowed in thou areas. The five unitsper acre is an overall densi- ty that would apply to a given specific plan area. This would not preclude a given area having development in densities of twenty units per acre. It is an overall figure. The consideration of those density figures would not have to go back because they were considered in some detail by the Planning Commission. City Manager: So, just an example. If the Council decided that they wanted to change the figure in the General Plan, from what it appears in there, from five to - pick a figure of say nine to the acre, for example - they could do that. Paul Secord: Yes. Councilman Shaw: We do have some latitude on that then. Paul Secord: Yes. You can make any change. City Manager: The R -3 that was spoken to by so many people here. Does that have to go back for reconsideration by the Commission? Gary Croft: Yes. Because that was not explored, really, in any detail. So that would need to be considered by the Commission. City Manager: The .requests for the return to M -1, wherever it was asked for Would it have to be reconsidered? Gary Croft: No. That was explored at the Commission level, and they recommended leaving it in the residential. City Manager: Okay. The R -A to Commercial on the south side, which was a recent action of the Council, that would have to go back, because it was not . . . Gary Croft: Yes. It was only considered as a zone change at the Commission. City Manager: The commercial around Beaumont Avenue to Euclid, which was spoken to both for and against by different parties here, does that have to go back. That was originally considered by the Commission. Gary Croft: Yes, that was explored at some length by the Commission, and this is the recommendation. City Manager: It does not have to go back. Gary Croft: Yes. That is correct. It does not have to go back. City Manager: That would be at the Council's final discretion. So really, if I have touched all bases, I might ask you gentlemen, do you recall any other bases, as such, that were testified to, either Paul or Gary or the Councilmen, that ought to be considered here in terms of whether it has to go back to the Commission. Paul Secord: There is one other point, I think, that would probably have to go back to the Commission, and that is relative to an industrial designation next to the sewage treatment plant. Specifically in the area in there that is the treatment area for the poultry pro- cessing. There was a recommendation that that area be included to a light manufacturing. City Manager: All right, gentlemen, in that case, based upon that, unless somebody can think of something else, there are three things then, if you desire, you should send back to the Commission for their reconsideration, and that is the only term that you need to use. You can be specific in terms of the request made, or you can say the R -3 in total be reconsidered. Or what was previously R -3 that -is now being recommended for R -1. Then the R -A on the south side, and the R -A next to the sewer plant. So there are really only three areas that you need to refer back to the Commission then. Mayor Thompson: I have a question. On the M -1 zone in the Ra.ngel Park area, does that proposal, which you see on the board, create a spot P;:l ry rP R zoning. If that plan is adopted, and the zoning map is amended, or drawn to accommodate that proposal, does that create a spot zone. Gary Croft: No. A spot zone is generally considered a single parcel or two or three parcels together. But when you have an area encompassing four or five square blocks, that would not be considered spot zoning. A spot designation. I might point out, the existing General Plan currently calls that residential. It does happen to be improperly zoned industrial. Technically, our current zoning map is inconsistent with our adopted General Plan. This is simply reaffirming the resi- dential. Councilman Shaw: What is the general consensus of the people in that area. They would like to remain residential, right? Gary Croft: The residents would like to remain residential. It may be possible to prepare a more detailed exhibit for the Council that would clarify who the individuals are that own investment for industrial purposes, and those who want residential. A more detailed definition or line could be drawn for future consideration. Councilman Shaw: Well I think it would be an imposition, I mean, to find -- that those people that have lived here for a good many years into a different zoning. I mean, after all, I know if I lived in that particular area I wouldn't want something like industry or something slapped up along side of me. Gary Croft: I grew up in Los Angeles in an area that went industrial. I am familiar with that situation. I can share sentiments from both sides. Mayor Thompson: So we have how many areas to consider. City Manager: Really three areas to refer back to the Commission for consideration. You probably ought to refer the whole area of former R -3, or presently zoned R -3, back for reconsideration, at least in the areas -- it would be up to Gary to bring out the precise areas that were asked for by the residents here who have spoken as regards changing from the proposed R -1 to an R -3 designation. The R -A south of town at First Street down there along Beaumont Avenue to a Commercial designation, and the R -A next to the sewer plant from R -A to an M -1 designation. So those are the three things that you ought to ask for reconsideration by the Planning Commission. Then, 4Oiether they say yes or no, then you come back and you make the final decision, whether, again, it is yes or no. Mayor Thompson: Okay, you have heard testimony. Do you have anything else that you would like clarified. Do you have any other input that you would like to add or questions that you would like to ask. City Manager: If you feel secure in your minds that you have got all the public input that you need, well then you can, at this time, close the hearing, and refer it to a point where you can get yourself in a position of taking an action. That is where you are. Mayor Thompson: Okay, we have had numerous public hearings, public meetings, on this proposed General Plan draft, draft of the General Plan, and we have heard from many facets of the community. We have asked questions of the consultant and the planner, and I think the subject has been well explored publicly. I think everybody has had an opportunity to have input. I will call one last time. If anybody has not been heard, and wishes to have input better say so now. John Thomas, 21202 Kroll Lane, Huntington Beach: Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council, and Norm Davis, I just wanted to ask a question, first of all for clarification. First of all, Gary is pointing to a piece of property we own and have been in the process in the last two years of master planning out. The question I wanted to ask for my own clarification is this. Since the majority of that property is classified as a residential planned unit development, what is the over- all maximum density that is given to that type of planned unit develop- ment. Is there a set number, or is that number still flexible and is to be chosen by this City Council? Mayor Thompson: We will have to refer your question to either, Gary or Paul. Paul. Who would prefer to answer that? Paul Secord: The overall density as currently shown for specific plan residential planned unit development is five units per acre. That would be overall density for the entire property. That would not mean that, once again, that you couldn't have a development that would be a substantially higher density then that specific portion of it. That overall five units per acre includes street areas, and open space areas, and if you had an elementary school, that would be included in the equation as well. So, in fact, dependent on the size of the specific plan area, and the types of improvements that you are considering, that would actually specify the actual densities that you would be allowed. John Thomas: My only concern in this area is basically this. We have prepared, through Touus Corporation and Webb Associates a specific plan as to how we want to develop the property, and we, in turn, have sub- mitted these maps which have been at the City Planning Department I guess for the last year and a half, and I have attended the citizens committee meetings on the type of development which is to occur in. this area. The maps and the site plans that we have for the development of this piece of property is approximately 7.5 units per acre. My only concern at the present time is with all the planning that we have-- done on the piece of property. With all the final site plans that we have prepared, and have submitted to the City in the last year and a half, will this type of maximum density of being five units per acre, we would have to completely redo all of our site planning. And that is the only thing I am concerned about right now, if the City Council approves that minimum density of five per acre, then we, in turn, will have a specific plan map that we can't follow through with, and that we have been ready to -- actually go ahead with . . . (Tape changed, discussion continues as follows) City Manager: . . . .change this five unit per acre designation to something higher, in your case you said seven. You have also heard. Paul tell the Council that issue does not have to go back to the Commission for further consideration. The Council can make the final determination if they choose to pick some other figure at the time they make their decision on the . John Thomas: Yes. I just wanted you to be aware that we have done a lot of work, and that our work has been in the City, the Planning Department, the citizens committee, for a year and a half, and I .would like -- I do not want to be limited to a maximum of five. I would like the City Council to consider another type of density unit. Preferably 7.5 or 8, or perhaps maybe a range based upon the plan rather than a set maximum number. Paul Secord: Can I ask a question for clarification. The equation here - seven units per acre. Does that include commercially designated property as shown on your plan. Was that area as well included in your equation for five units per acre, or did that apply just to the residential area. John Thomas: That applied just to the residential area. Paul Secord: In fact, under the specific plan, the entire specific plan area, which in your case includes fairly substantial amount of highway service commercial, would be included in the equation as well. And I suspect, due to the amount of commercial there, that the overall densi- ty would, in fact, probably would be five plus. I think your project would probably be in the ranges that are currently recommended by the plan. Ray Schooley: Paul brought up an interesting item there. Pity commercial property, right here, which is six acres, is part of this parcel to the rear of it designed for planned unit development. I know that all of the studies that I have been working on for townhouses or condominiums work out to about twelve to thirteen units to the acre overall-, after you put in your open space and your tennis courts and swimming pools etcetera. So I would like to know, seeing as though that is already zoned commercial, if I would also be entitled to this so- called number for those six acres of allowable units on the rest of my property. it is really a problem when you try to come up with a . . . Dnrr. 1 n Councilman Shaw: In other words, you are asking for a trade -off_. Ray Schooley: Yes. It is a serious problem when you are trying to come up with a product that the public can afford, and work some trade -offs that is good for the City at the same time. It is a dilemma that every developer finds himself in today. I don't think five units per acre is going to make it for the developer. I mean you can zone it that way, but if you don't get any affordable housing built as a result of that, what has been accomplished. I think you should probably leave it somewhat openended. That you make the ultimate decision based upon what the developers are willing to do as a trade -off for you and to help the City to make our project more beautiful, etc. And if it doesn't make sense, if people can't afford it, it can't be built. And it won't bring taxes to the City either. That is a big decision. Mayor Thompson: I don't have an answer for you, and I don't think anybody else does either. I don't even think Paul would have one at this particular point. Ray Schooley: Maybe that is why, perhaps, the ultimate decis.i_on for density should be left up to the Council based on a case by case, plan by plan situation to determine what is best for the City. What the people can afford, as well as what the developer can make Councilman Hammel: Well then you wouldn't need a master plan. Why not just forget about it. Ray Schooley: Yes you do because the way you come up the PUD process is that it is openended enough to do some trade -offs and give you the power to say to the developer, we like your project. We like the aesthetics of it. We think it would be an asset to the City. We like the fact that you are putting in some parks, some open space, some tennis courts that we don't have to worry about. That you are giving a lot of amenities for the people to use on -site to take the pressure off of some of the other public facilities. In turn, you will say, Mr. Developer, we will give you the density that you require to make this feasible and affordable housing for the public, and, in turn, for the extras you would put into the project. That is my understanding of what PUD is all about. You ask me for something, and I, in turn, ask you for perhaps an increase in density to make it all work for everybody. Councilman Shaw: In essence, what you are saying is if you use the commercial area, you want something that would compensate you in the residential area as far as units are concerned. Mr. Schooley: Well, I only brought the subject up because Paul did. I am trying to find out really where I stand with regard to what we can put in there that is affordable. Otherwise, we will never get the financing and never get off the ground. City Manager: Probably five would be a fair statement due to the fact if it is separately zoned it would not compute out with the whole acreage, the planned unit development area would be exclusive of the prior zoned commercial area. Is that true or not. Paul Secord: Yes, that is true. In fact, it was his desire to include . in a specific plan In a case like that it would have to be considered on an individual basis, but in a case like that you would have a pretty strong position (Mr. Secord's comments, and comments from an unidentified person are almost completely blocked out by background noise.) Paul Secord: That is correct. He would be developing it as a given specific plan as a whole unit. Mayor Thompson: I can't give you an answer. Mr. Schooley: I can understand. I am just asking you to consider this. To leave the power within your vote up here at the Council_ level_ to see each project and see what the trade -offs are. This would r(,ally - it is of as much benefit to the City as it is to the developer. It is Paae 11 almost to be a process asked for a better - much better overall planned project and therefore density increases are granted as a trade -off. If it is a nice project. Give us something extra. Mayor Thompson: We have had a lot of points that will have to be con- sidered I am sure, so we have had the public input, we will now have to evaluate it and under those circumstances we will close this public hearing at 9:05 P.M. The Public Hearing was closed at 9:05 P.M. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont refers the Draft General Plan to the Planning Commission for reconsideration as follows: 1. All property presently appearing as R -3 zone to be reconsidered as R -3 in the General Plan. 2. The R -A at First and Beaumont Avenue to be reconsidered for commercial. 3. The R -A around the Sewer Plant to be reconsidered for M -1 zone. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilman Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. On Motion by Mayor Thompson, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont directs the Planning Staff to do a i blow -up in consideration of that area commonly referred to as Range]. C Park area considered for R -1, for the present land use in that area, iving a different color for different land uses, also considering � potential vacant residential and potential vacant industrial. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilman Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. 12. URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 546 - Amending Subsection (D) 303 of Ordinance No. 515 (Uniform Building Code) and Declare this Ordinance as being Urgency Pursuant to Section 36934 of the Government Code for the State of California. This agenda item was referred back to the City Manager and the City Attorney for clarification. 13. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -28 - Approving the Prepared by the Greater Riverside Arts On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded Council of the City of Beaumont adopts the Riverside County ARts Plan as prep Arts Foundation. Riverside County Arts Plan as Foundation. by Councilman May, the City Resolution No. 1982 -29 approving ared by the Greater Riverside AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilman Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. 14. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -29 - Expressing the City of Beaumont's Concern Over the Frequency of Major Traffic Accidents in the Area involving Commer- * cial Trucks; Expressing Concern over Hazardous Driving Practices of Truckers on Local Highways; and Support Current Efforts to Alleviate present Conditions. / On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -29 expressing the City of Beaumont's concern over the frequency of major traffic accidents in the area involving commercial trucks; express.i.nq -on {Vern over hazardous driving practices of truckers on local highways: and support current efforts to alleviate present conditions. - __ _ 11 AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilman Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. 15. DECISION PENDING: Appeal filed by Best View Land Development Company of Planning Commission Decision. On Motion by Mayor Thompson, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont denies the appeal filed by the Best View Land Development Company of Planning Commission decision, and the provisions of the Planning Commission conditions be implemented. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilman Lowry. ABSTAIN: Councilman Hammel. 16. Rescinding Previous Action of Council to Set Public Hearing on Tract No. 18414. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont rescinds their previous action. to �11- " set the matter for hearing before the City Council. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilman Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. 17. Recommendation to Request January 1, 1982 Population Certification. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded. by Councilman May, the City ,,Council of the City of Beaumont recites the findings of the State s ?' Department of Finance estimated pursuant to Sections 2227 and 2228 of the Revenue and Taxation Code that the City of Beaumont has a population of 7,212 and authorizes the City Manager to request certification by the Controller of the State of California of this population figure for the City of Beaumont as of January 1, 1982. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilman Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. 18. Request for Acceptance of Population Figures for Inclusion in SCAG 82 Growth Forecast Policy Document. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the population figures as provided by SCAG as submitted for inclusion in the SCAG 82 Growth Forecast Policy Document. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilman Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. 19. Request from Weldon Blain for City Abandonment of Certain Strip of Land Adjacent to his Service Station on 4th Street. This agenda item was referred to the Planning staff for a report to be returned to the Council on June 14, 1982. 20. Authorization for Mayor to Sign Proposal from Book Publishing Company for Ordinance Analysis and Report and Code Structural Plan for City i of Beaumont. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the Mayor to sign t-be proposal from Book Publishing Company for Ordinance Analysis,:a.r)d Report and Code Structural Plan for City of Beaumont. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel and Mayor_ Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilman Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. 21. Consideration of Claim Filed by Jimmie T. Duran Against the City of Beaumont. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont rejects the claim of Jimmie T. Duran }� Against the City of Beaumont and refers it to the insurance company. V AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilman Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. 22. Study and Recommendation Concerning Installation of Stop Signs at Intersection of First and Michigan. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont directs the City Manager to draw up / a resolution to install stop.signs at the intersection of First and Michigan adequate to alleviate the situation, to be returned to the City Council at their regular meeting of May 24, 1982. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilman Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. 23. Authorization for City Manager to Sign Application for Title III -B Funds for Senior Citizen Program. (RFP AAA 82 -7). On Motion by Councilman. Hammel, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City ! Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the City Manager to Sign Application for Title III -B Funds for Senior Citizen Program. j AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. ! NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilman Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. 24. Request from Beaumont Taxi for Franchise in City of Beaumont. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City 1' Council of the City of Beaumont awards a franchise to Beaumont Taxi for the operation of a taxi service within the city limits of Beaumont,.in accordance with Ordinance No. 293. VV AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilman Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. 25. Request for Interim Zoning - Plot Plan No. 1017. Universal Medical Development. Location: S.W. Corner Highland Springs Avenue and 8th Street. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont grants interim zoning on the southwest �p corner of 8th Street and Highland Springs Avenue as shown on Exhibit 2. V AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilman Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. 26. Structural Report Concerning Gymnasium at Civic Center. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City f Council of the City of Beaumont directs the City Manager to obtain estimates from structural engineers for conducting a structural j analysis of the gymnasium; and it is further directed that the gymnasium be closed pending the results of the analysis. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilman Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. Page 14 27. Submittal of Financial Report for Period Ending March 31, 1982 for Filing Pursuant to Government Code. The Financial Report for Period Ending March 31, 1982 was accepted for filing as submitted. 28. ORAL COMMUNICATION: There was no oral communication. 29. Request for Approval of Temporary Maintenance Worker in the Public ;corks Department. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves a temporary position of maintenance worker for the Public Works Department. / AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. V NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilman Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. ADD _ITEM Request for authorization to expend funds for Title Search re Flamingo Motel Condemnation. r' n Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman May, the City t � Council directs that any funds to be expended in regard to this request shall be taken out of the Building Department budget. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilman Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. There being no further business to come before the Council, the mr'�rtinn_ was adjourned at 11:37 P.M. Respectfully submitted, CITY CLER Page 15 BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF MAY 13, 1982 1. The Beaumont City Council met in a Special Meeting at 3:02 P.M., on Thursday, May 13, 1982, with Mayor Thompson presiding. 2. On Roll Call the following Council Members were present: May, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. Council Members Shaw and Lowry were excused. 3. Adoption of Interim Zone Use - Annexation No. 27 - (Cherry Highlands Estates - Deutsch- Highland Springs). f� On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman May, the City ouncil of the City of Beaumont adopts Exhibit "A" as presented to the Council for Interim Zoning for Annexation No. 27. AYES: Councilmen May, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilmen Shaw and Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. 4. Recommendation on Remodeling and Upgrading Swim Pool Filter System. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the recommendation of the City Manager to accept Alternate No. 2 of the bid submitted by California Pools, and awards a contract to California Pools for ",,,Alternate No. 2 for a fully automatic sand filter system, and further 10J approves the use of all unspent pool budget line item dollar amounts for payment of this contract award, with the balance of $477.88 being drawn from the Reserve for Contingencies in Buildings and Grounds, Budget Item No. 10- 025 -037. AYES: Councilmen May, NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilmen Shaw ABSTAIN: None. Hammel and Mayor Thompson. and Lowry. 5. Designation of Acting City Manager During Temporary Absences of the City Manager from the City. On Motion by Mayor Thompson, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont confirms the City Manager's appointment V of Michael Deursch as the Acting City Manager to serve only in th^ absence of the City Manager during short periods of time. AYES: Councilmen May, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilmen Shaw and Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. The agenda being completed, the Special Meeting was adjourned at 4:19 P.M. Respectfully submitted, R • BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF MAY 24, 1982 1. The Beaumont City Council met in a regular meeting at 7 :34 P.M., on Monday, May 24, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor Thompson presiding. 2. The invocation was given by Reverand Bob Whited. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Councilman Shaw. 4. On Roll Call the following Council Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 5. There being no additions, deletions or corrections, the Minutes of Regular Council and Beaumont Community Improvement Agency Meeting of May 10, 1982, and Special Council Meeting of May 13, 1982 were approved as submitted. 6. There being no objections, the Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 4, 1982, and Special Planning Commission Meeting of May 13, 1982, were accepted for filing as submitted. 7. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, Warrants as audited per Warrant List of May 24, 1982, in the amount of $56,956.95, and Payroll of May 14, 1982 in the amount of $25,363.08, were approved for Payment as audited. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 8. URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 546 - Amending Subsection (D) 303 of Ordinance ,,-515 (Uniform Building Code). On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City j•J�' Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Urgency Ordinance No. 546 amending Subsection (D) 303 of Ordinance 515 (Uniform Building Code) by title only. The Ordinance was read by title only by the City Clerk. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 9. ORDINANCE NO. 547 - FIRST READING - Regulating the Division of Land. R On Motion by Councilman May, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council V the City of Beaumont postpones the first reading of Ordinance No. 547 til such time as an in -depth evaluation and report is received from the anning Commission with a progress report within sixty days. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 10. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -33 - Declaring the Intention of the City to Make Certain Provisions of the Vehicle Code Applicable to the Privately Owned and Maintained Streets within the Valley Mobile Home Community. /On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -33 declaring '.,,,"the intention of the City to make certain provisions of the Vehicle Code applicable to the privately owned and maintained streets within the t Valley Mobile Home Community. V Page 1 AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 11. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -34 - Commending the Golden State Mobile Home Owners League, Inc. and Proclaiming May 19, 1982 as Mobile Home Day in the 1 \l City of Beaumont. l� This agenda item was deleted from the agenda because the date is already past. 12. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -35 - .Establishing a Project Area Committee for the ✓Beaumont Community Improvement Project Area and Appointing Members Thereto. This agenda item was continued until the regular meeting of June 14, 1982. 13. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -36 - Requesting U.S. Customs and Immigration Services at Ontario International Airport. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City u'? Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -36 requesting r l U.S. Customs and Immigration services at Ontario International Airport. 1� AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 14. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -37 - Establishing Stop Signs at First and Michigan Avenue. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City ouncil of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -37 establishing . stop signs at First and Michigan Avenue, as corrected. f AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 15. Certification of Environmental Impact Report re General Plan. 16. Consideration of Adoption of General Plan. (These two agenda items were heard together). On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City r- Council of the City of Beaumont approves the change of a 40 acre area ! south of Brookside, east of Cherry Avenue, including and surrounding the 1 / Cherry Highlands Estates, from low density to rural residential. V AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont increases the number of units per acre allowable in PUD /SP area from five to eight units. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council '- of the City of Beaumont approves changing the land use designation from low density residential to medium density residential in areas currently i' zoned R -3, and Parking Zones, south of 11th Street. AYES: Councilmen May, NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. Page 2 On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the change of low density resi- dential to light industrial in the Rangel Park neighborhood. AYES: D �10ES ABSENT: �j ABSTAIN: Councilman Hammel, Councilman Shaw. None. Councilman May. MOTION CARRIED Lowry and Mayor Thompson. Motion by Councilman Shaw that the commercial designation on Beaumont Avenue remain as shown on the present zoning map died for lack of a second. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the requested change to expand the commercial designation on Beaumont Avenue between 6th Street and 11th Street from each alley to the next street on both east (Magnolia) and west (Euclid), and the existing one lot deep commercial designation from 11th Street north to the existing boundaries. * *This motion is shown as corrected by the City Council at their regu- lar meeting of June 14, 1982. AYES: Councilmen May, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: Councilman Shaw ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the expansion of light industria. designation north of the Sewage Treatment Plant, as a true rectangle from the south side of the Sewage Treatment Plant. r AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adds a General Plan policy on aircraft noise. �~ AYES: Councilmen May, NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the inclusion of a 6" gas line on the General Plan Land Use Policy Map. ,YES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. A motion by Councilman Lowry and second by Councilman May to certify the environmental impact report was withdrawn. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont certifies the Environmental Impact Report; and adopts the General Plan as defined in previous actions (� /' and including the direction of the Council to prepare the implementing resolution as part of the action to be adopted immediately upon prepara- tion by the City Attorney. AYES: Councilmen May, NOES: Councilman Shaw. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 17. Acceptance of Proposal from Book Publishing Company for Final Editing and Printing of Ordinances for the Municipality of Beaumont and Authorization for Mayor to sign same. Page 3 On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the proposal of Book Publishing r Company for final editing and printing of ordinances for the municipa- lity of Beaumont; and authorizes the Mayor to sign same. j AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 18. Informal Hearing re School Impaction Fee. Mr. James Lucas, representing the Beaumont Unified School District addressed the Council concerning a school impact fee. L'` This agenda item was continued until the regular meeting of June 28, 1982, with instructions to the City Attorney to review and rewrite Resolution No. 1980 -51 and return it to the Council at that time. 19. Proposed Resolution by Field Cablevision for Cable TV Franchise. This agenda item was referred to the City Attorney for preparation of ✓ a franchise document, to be returned to the Council on June 28, 1982. 20. Oral Discussion of County Lease for Court Room Facilities in the Police Department Building., On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City `AC" Council of the City of Beaumont grants a lease for the term of six Vmonths based upon the terms contained in the letter dated December 18, 1981, subject to the recommendations of the City Attorney concerning a hold - harmless clause. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 21. Declaration of Intent to Enter into Contract with County for Fire Services, Fiscal Year 82 -83. %? On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Council of the City of Beaumont declares i� ^' 1contract with the County for fire services irection to the City Manager to report to / dual administrative charge involved in the Councilman Shaw, the City is intent to enter into a for Fiscal Year 82 -83, with the Council on the apparent contract. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 22. Request to go to Bid on Sewer Jet Cleaner. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City /Council of the City of Beaumont adopts the recommendation of the City Manager to go out to bid on the Sewer Jet Cleaner. „J AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 23. Recommendation Regarding Purchase of Uniforms for City Personnel. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Be T �,�,gcce is the recommendation of the ity Manager to purchase / or fie City's personnel, with the stipulation 1) /' that they upkeep the uniforms themselves. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Page 4 24. Employment of Acting City Manager during Vacation of City Manager. �i a1 On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City x,41 Council.of.the City of Beaumont.approves the recommendation of the %City Manager concerning the employment of an Acting City Manager with l/ the stipulation that a contract for Mr. Wells' services be entered into for the period of May 24 through June 7, 1982, for a sum of $1,700.00. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 25. Acceptance of Bid on Third Street Sewer Project. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City /Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the low bid of Merlin Johnson, { > and awards the bid for the Third Street Sewer Project to Merlin ' Johnson subject to the approval of Riverside County Community Development Block Grant office, and submission of all required documents. AYES: Councilmen May, NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 26. Submittal of Financial Report for Period Ending April 30, 1982 for Filing Pursuant to Government Code. The financial report for period ending April 30, 1982 was accepted for filing. 27. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -32 - Decision on Appeal Filed re Change of Zone No. 1007 (Schooley). On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -32 granting ppeal from Planning Commission Denial of Portions of Change of Zone L.`.- 1007 filed by Joe Kirklin. AYES: Councilmen Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: Councilmen May and Shaw. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. MOTION CARRIED. 28. ORAL COMMUNICATION: There was no oral communication. There being no further business to come before the Council the meeting was adjourned at 10:34 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ME ME Page 5 BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL AND BEAUMONT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AGENCY MINUTES OF JUNE 14, 1982 1. The Beaumont City Council and Beaumont Community Improvement Agency met in a regular meeting at 7:30 P.M., on Monday, June 14, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor Thompson presiding. 2. The invocation was given by Councilman Lowry. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Mayor Thompson. 4. On Roll Call the following Council /Agency Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 5. The Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of May 24, 1982 were corrected as follows: Agenda Item No. 16, Motion No. 5 on Page 3, should be corrected to read as follows: On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the requested change to expand the commercial designation on Beaumont Avenue between 6th Street and 11th Street from each alley to the next street on both east (Magnolia) and west (Euclid), and the existing one lot deep commercial designation from 11th Street north to the existing boundaries. The Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of May 24, 1982 were approved as corrected. 6. The Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 18, 1982 were continued for acceptance until the regular Council Meeting of June 28, 1982. 7. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves warrants as audited per Warrant List of June 14, 1982, in the amount of $379,468.53 and Payrolls of May 28, 1982 and June 11, 1982, in the amount os $24,181.35 and $23,843.70 respectively, for payment as audited. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 8. a. The Draft Community Improvement Plan of the City of Beaumont Community Improvement Agency was presented to the Agency Members, by Marshall Krupp, of Willdan Associates, with an explanation regarding the action necessary by the Agency. b. RESOLUTION NO. BCI 82 -10 - Preliminarily Approving the Beaumont Community Improvement Plan and Project Area Subject to Further Review and Public Hearing; and Directing the Secretary of the Agency to Transmit Required Redevelopment Documents to Appropriate County and State Agencies. On Motion by Agency Member Lowry, seconded by Agency Member Hammel, The Beaumont Community Improvement Agency adopts Resolution No. BCI 82 -10 preliminarily approving the Beaumont Community Improve- ment Plan and Project Area subject to further review and public hearing; and directing the Secretary of the Agency to transmit required redevelopment documents to appropriate County and State Agencies. AYES: Agency Members May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Chairman Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. _ 9. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -35 - Establishing a Project Area Committee for the Beaumont Community Improvement Project Area and Appointing Members mss" Thereto. The names of the Project Area Committee members selected by the City Council are as follows: Jack Mobley Two Year Term Lyle Millage Two Year Term Bill Bebee Two Year Term Irish Mitchell Two Year Term Bill Jett Three Year Term Charles Manning Three Year Term Willard Love Three Year Term On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -35 estab- lishing a Project Area Committee for the Beaumont Community Improvement Project Area and Appointing Members Thereto. ` l AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 12. r 10. 11. Y Let the record show that the appointment of these members do not in any way affect any other matters that the City may be involved in or under- taking in the future. It only affects the Community Improvement Agency and the activities that are occurring within the Community Improvement Agency. PUBLIC HEARING - 8:OU P.M.. 1982 -83 Proposed Budget and Relationship of Revenue Sharing Funds to that Budget. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:10 P.M. The budget message to the City Council from the City Manager was read by the City Manager. The City Manager then briefly read exerpts from the budget summaries which had been given to the Council Members. Due to the incompleteness of financial information from the State, no public input was requested, and the Public Hearing was continued until 8:00 P.M., on June 28, 1982, at which time the Finance Director should have obtained the latest information from the State during a meeting scheduled for June 16, 1982. Request for Approval to Contribute Back to the Taxing Entities the Annual Two Per Cent Increase on Base Year Assessed Value. On Motion by Agency Member Shaw, seconded by Agency Member Lowry, the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency approves the request to adopt in principle the concept to contribute back to the County the annual two per cent increase on base year assessed value. AYES: Agency Members May, Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None_ AB�TAJ:N: none. Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Chairman Extension of Contractual Services of Mr. Hal Wells for Period June 9, 10, 11 and 14, 1982. 1 11-1 On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the extension of contractual services of Mr. Hal Wells through the period of June 9, 10, 11 and 14, 1982. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Page 2 13. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -38 - Finding and Declaring that the Interests of the Motoring Public and of Residents within Valley Mobile Home Community, a Mobile Home Park in the City, will be Best Served by Making Certain Provisions of the California Vehicle Code Applicable to Certain Private Roads within said Valley Mobile Home Community. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -38 finding and declaring that the interests of the motoring public and of residents within Valley Mobile Home Community, a Mobile Home Park in the City, will be best served by making certain provisions of the California Vehicle Code applicable to certain private roads within said Valley Mobile Home Community. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 14. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -39 - Setting Forth an Appropriations Limit for 1982- 1983 Consistent with Article XIII B of the California Constitution and Giving Notice of Availability of Information Supporting said Determinatior On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -39 setting forth an appropriations limit for 1982 -83 consistent with Article XIII B of the California Constitution and Giving Notice of Availability ' of Information Supporting said Determination. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 15. Request for Specific Appropriation of Funds for Capital Projects Fiscal Year 1981 -1982. General Fund and Sewer Construction (Trust) Fund. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts the recommendations contained in letter of June 7, 1982 for change of budget line items as recommended. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 16. Request for Authorization for Director of Finance to File Article IV TDA Claim for Fiscal Year 82 -83 on Behalf of the City of Beaumont. 'On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the Director of Finance to File Article IV TDA Claim for Fiscal Year 82 -83 on behalf of the City of Beaumont. a AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. �-° NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 17. Request for Transfer of Funds for Purchase of New City Manager and Staff Cars. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City !' Council of the City of Beaumont approves the transfer of funds for purchase of the new City Manager and staff cars as recommended in letter dated June 2, 1982. AYES: C Councilmen Shaw, H Page 3 18. Request for Authorization for Director of Finance to Attend the 1982 Legislative Seminar on Local Government Finance. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the Director of Finance to attend the 1982 Legislative Seminar on Local Government Finance. / AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 19. Request for Authorization for Finance Department to Hire Part Time Person Through the High School Work Experience Program for Balance of Fiscal Year 1981 -1982. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont grants the request of the Finance ' Department to hire a part time person through the High School Work Experience Program for the balance of Fiscal Year 1981 -1982. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 20. Request from Weldon Blain for City Abandonment of Certain Strip of Land Adjacent to his Service Station on 4th Street. 1 / This request was ordered filed by the City Council. 21. Request from Beaumont Precision Machining, Inc. for Installation of Street Light on Existing Pole in Alley between Euclid and Edgar, Parallel to Fifth Street. _-- y This request was ordered filed by the City Council. 22. Request from Baldi Bros. Construction for Abandonment of a Portion of *,Egan Avenue. ✓�� r This request was referred to the Planning and Engineering Departments for a report to the Council at their regular meeting of June 28, 1982. 23. Council Decision re Banning Water Company Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity to Extend its Service Area. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -40 opposing I� f the application by the Banning Water Company for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity to Extend its Service area and instructs the i" City Manager and City Attorney to prepare said resolution for signature by the Mayor. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 24. Request for Circulation of Petitions Concerning an Initiative Consti- tutional Amendment re Public Utility Rates for the November Ballot. / This request was ordered filed by the City Council. 25. Authorization for Mayor James B. Thompson to be Absent from the State for a Period of Ninety Days. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City r Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes Mayor James B. Thompson to be absent from the State for a period of Ninety days beginning June 19, 1982. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Page 4 26. Contract Addendum to Sewer Master Plan Study for Sewer Cleaning Services. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves Addendum No. 1 to Sewer Master Plan Agreement and authorizes the Mayor to sign the addendum. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. % NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 27. Letter from Riverside County Transportation Commission Concerning the 1980 -81 Certified Financial Audit for Transit Services was accepted for filing. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, �. Y T J �L Page 5 BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL AND BEAUMONT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AGENCY MINUTES OF JUNE 28, 1982 1. The Beaumont City Council and Beaumont Community Improvement Agency met in a regular meeting at 7:33 P.M., on Monday, June 28, 1982; in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor Thompson presiding. 2. The invocation was given by Reverand Cliff Howrey. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Councilman Shaw. 4. On Roll Call the following Council /Agency Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 5. There being no additions, deletions or corrections, the minutes of regular Council /Agency meeting of June 14, 1982 were approved as submitted. 6. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 18, 1982 were accepted for filing as presented; the minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of June 1, 1982 were returned to the Planning Commission for a determination of the use of the word inappropriate in place of appropriate. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 7. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves warrants as audited per Warrant List of June 28, 1982, in the amount of $72,254.46; and Payroll of June 25, 1982, in the amount of $24,162.39, for payment as audited. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 8. Draft Ordinance Granting Cable TV Franchise. This agenda item was continued until the regular meeting of July 12, 1982 for the preparation by the City Attorney of a franchise contract. 9. ORDINANCE NO. 548 - FIRST READING - Adoption of the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Building Code Standards. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont passes Ordinance No. 548 for adoption of the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Building Code Standards for its first reading by title only. r �- �, Councilmen May, None. None. None. Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 10. Consideration of the Draft Environmental Impact Report on the Beaumont Community Improvement Plan and Project Area. The City Manager explained this was a draft and that changes could be made at any time. The action tonight is to enable the consultant to transmit the draft environmental impact report to the appropriate County and State agencies. Paqe 1 AYES: J� NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Councilmen May, None. None. None. Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 10. Consideration of the Draft Environmental Impact Report on the Beaumont Community Improvement Plan and Project Area. The City Manager explained this was a draft and that changes could be made at any time. The action tonight is to enable the consultant to transmit the draft environmental impact report to the appropriate County and State agencies. Paqe 1 10. _RESOLUTION NO. BCI 82 -11 - Approving the Draft Environmental Impact Report on the Beaumont Community Improvement Plan and Project Area and Directing Staff to Transmit the Required Notice of Completion. ,,On Motion by Agency Member Shaw, seconded by Agency Member Lowry, the ��.i Beaumont Community Improvement Agency adopts Resolution BCI 82 -11 approving the Draft Environmental Impact Report on the Beaumont Community Improvement Plan and Project Area and Directing Staff to Transmit the Required Notice of Completion. AYES: Agency Members May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Chairman Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 12. Declaring Vacancy on Project Area Committee and Appointment to Fill Vacancy. -F On Motion by Agency Member Shaw, seconded by Agency Member May, the �- Beaumont Community Improvement Agency accepts the resignation of Jack Mobley from the Project Area Committee and appoints Randy Kilday to fill the vacancy for the two year unexpired term of Jack Mobley. AYES: Agency Members May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Chairman Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 13. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -41 - Approving and Adopting the General Plan. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City r7l Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -41 approving r and adopting the General Plan. }- AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. i -' NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 14. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -42 - Amending Sewer Charges Pursuant to Ordinance No. 416 and Repealing Resolutions No. 1971 -27, 1973 -7, 1975 -15, 1978 -18, .- 1978 -24, 1978 -27 and All Parts of Resolutions in Conflict Herewith. This agenda item was continued until the next regular Council meeting on July 12, 1982 for further clarification by Jacobs Engineering con - cerning the fee structure formula. 11. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - 1982 -83 Proposed Budget. The Public Hearing was re- opened at 8:10 P.M. The City Manager explained the projected carryover figure previously indicated was incorrect, and explained the reasons for this error; and stated further that budget adjustments will be necessary to correct- the budget. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts the budget adjustments as documented on Budget Item 11 -A, 1982 -83 Budget. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. The City Manager then advised there would be other budget adjustments necessary due to the revenue loss from the State in the amount of just over $85,000, of which the City had just been made aware today, as well as other budget adjustments due to allocation to wrong line item: The City Manager then answered several questions contained in a letter to the Council from Mr. Irish Mitchell, and answered additional question: from Mr. Mitchell asked during the public hearing. There was no one else in the audience with questions concerning the Pa QE? 2 proposed budget at this time. The Public Hearing on the budget was recessed until 9:30 P.M. to allow the Council to complete their agenda. 15. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -43 - Providing for Mitigation of Local School Impaction. Motion by Councilman Lowry to repeal Resolution NO. 19807-51 died for lack of a second. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -43 providing for mitigation of local school impaction, with the provision that the fee be changed to $650.00 per dwelling unit. AYES: Councilmen Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: Councilman May. ABSTAIN: Councilman Hammel. ABSENT: None. MOTION CARRIED 11. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - 1982 -83 Proposed Budget. Due to the lateness of the hour, the Public Hearing on the 1982 -83 proposed budget was continued until June 29, 1982, at 7:30 P.M., in the City Council chambers. 16. Recommendation for Acceptance of Low Bid for Truck Mounted Sewer Jet Cleaner. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Mayor Thompson, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the bid of FMC -BEAN and authorizes the purchase of Model No. 6540 -1500 for the bid price of �. $38,206.53. AYES: Councilmen Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: Councilman May. ABSTAIN: Councilman Hammel. ABSENT: None. MOTION CARRIED 17. Report re Request for Abandonment of Portion of Egan Avenue. 02' The City Council accepted the report and referred the matter to the applicant to file his application. 18. Interim Pre - Zoning of Properties Proposed for Annexation to City, Annexation No. 28 (Baumstark). On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City iI Council of the City of Beaumont pre-zones Annexation No. 28 as shown �! on the map marked Exhibit "A" to Zone C -2. r AYES. NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Councilmen May, None. None. None. Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 19. Recommendation re Financial Audit for 1981 -82, Employment of Thomas, Byrne and Smith. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the audit proposal of Thomas, jf Byrne and Smith and awards them a contract for audit services in the ,=maximum amounts of $8,800.00 for the 1981 -82 fiscal year report, and ,,. $1,200.00 maximum for the Revenue Sharing Audit review work. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Page 3 I 20. Request for Authorization for Mayor to Sign Notice of Completion on Lift Station Project (Sewer Collection System No. 1979 -1). On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont makes a finding of satisfactory com- pletion and accepts the Sewer Collection System No. 1979 -1 project; and authorizes the Mayor to Sign the Notice of Completion on behalf of the City. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 21. Submittal of Financial Report for Period Ending May 31, 1982 for Filing Pursuant to Government Code. (� Financial Report for period ending May 31, 1982 was accepted for filing by the City Council. 22. Budget Transfer to Pay cost of Pool Filter. �!On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves a budget transfer of $115.38 from reserve for contingencies, Budget No. 10- 025 -037, to 10 -081 -037, to pay for the pool filter. f f � ' s'• AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Councilmen May, None. None. None. Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 23. Agreement between City of Beaumont and M & M Auto Wrecking Yard for Removal of Abandoned Vehicles. On Motion by Councilman May, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the agreement with M & M Auto Wrecking Yard for removal of abandoned vehicles and authorizes the ^� City Manager to sign same. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: Councilman Lowry. ABSENT: None. There was discussion concerning re- appointment of two Planning Commission members whose terms will be expiring. No action was taken. 24. ORAL COMMUNICATION: There was no oral communication from the audience. There being no further business to come before the Council the meeting was adjourned until 7:30 P.M., June 29, 1982, in the City Council Chambers at 10:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, City V D -rr— A BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL AND BEAUMONT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AGENCY MINUTES OF ADJOURNED MEETING OF JUNE 29, 1982 (Adjourned from June 28, 1982) 1. The Beaumont City Council and Beaumont Community Improvement Agency met in an adjourned meeting at 7:30 P.M., on Tuesday, June 29, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor /Chairman Thompson presiding. 2. On Roll Call the following Council /Agency Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor /Chairman Thompson. 3. PUBLIC HEARING - 1982 -83 Proposed Budget. (Continued from June 28, 1982). The Public Hearing was re- opened at 7:31 P.M. Department Heads were requested to address the Council first if they had questions or requests concerning their departmental budgets. Prior to Chief Robert Bridges addressing the Council concerning the Police Department budget, the City Manager requested that the record show the Police Department budget has been allocated $471,660 in General Fund money and $172,276 Revenue Sharing money. Chief Bridges then addressed the Council requesting additions to his budget. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the addition of one patrolman position to the Police Department budget. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: Councilman Hammel. ABSENT: None. Mr. Irish Mitchell addressed the Council requesting clarification on the category of Reserve for Contingencies for Appropriations, with both the City Manager and the Council responding. Individual departmental budgets were reviewed and discussed, with no actions taken at this time. The Public Hearing re the 1982 -83 Proposed Budget was continued until Tuesday, July 6, 1982 at 7:30 P.M. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City ^. Council of the City of Beaumont approves the continuance of the work experience program for the Finance Department clerical assistance -"' -for Fiscal Year 1982 -83, as per the recommendation of the Finance Director and City Manager. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned until 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, July 6, 1982, at 11:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Susan Wamsley Frye Deputy City Clerk I BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL AND BEAUMONT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AGENCY MINUTES OF ADJOURNED MEETING OF JULY 6, 1982 (Adjourned from June 29, 1982) 1. The Beaumont City Council and Beaumont Community Improvement Agency met in an Adjourned Meeting at 7:30 P.M., on Tuesday, July 6, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor /Chairman Thompson presiding. Due to a conflict of meetings scheduled in the Council Chambers, the meeting was then adjourned to Room 6 (Community Room) of Beaumont Civic Center. 2. On Roll Call the following Council /Agency Members were present: May, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor /Chairman Thompson. 3. LM 5. Reclassification of Position of Intermediate Account Clerk to Grants Account Clerk. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the reclassification of Susan Frye from Intermediate Account Clerk to Grants Account Clerk as recom- mended in letter dated July 6, 1982 from the City Manager, effective July 1, 1982. AYES: Councilmen May, NOES: None. ABSTAIN:- None. ABSENT: Councilman Shaw. Recommendation on Insurance This report was accepted by Council meeting of July 12, The City Council adjourned P.M. The City Council reconvened Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. Coverage for 1982 -83 Fiscal Year. the Council and held until the regular 1982. to an Executive Session re Personnel at 8:15 to regular session at 9:00 P.M. Let the record show the discussion in Executive Session concerned the request from the Police Department re employee salaries. No firm de- cision was made other than to refer the matter back to the City Manager for further clarification and consultation with the organization representing the policemen in the City. There was no acceptance or rejection of any one or all of the requests, leaving room for further negotiations. PUBLIC HEARING - 1982 -83 Proposed Budget. (Continued from June 29, 1982) The Public Hearing was re- opened at 9:05 P.M. Individual departmental budgets were reviewed with consensus agreement made on minor changes. Council requested the City Manager and Finance Director to bring back revised summary pages reflecting adjusted and corrected totals. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City f mod~ Council of the City of Beaumont, by Minute Order, directs the City Manager to implement a feasibility study to develop a Sewer Assessment District for the Sewer Lift Station. AYES: Councilmen May, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman Shaw. Page 1 The City Manager was requested by the Council to insert a letter of explanation to all sewer customers with the next billing explaining the reason for the sewer charge rate change, and, additionally, to give the newspapers an in -depth report for publication. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -42 - Amending Sewer Charges Pursuant to Ordinance No. 416 and Repealing Resolutions Numbers 1971 -27, 1973 -7, 1975 -15, 1978 -18, 1978 -24, 1978 -27 and All Parts of Resolutions in Conflict Herewith. li' ,­'On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -42 as amended. AYES: Councilmen May, Hammel and Lowry. NOES: Mayor Thompson. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman Shaw. MOTION CARRIED On Motion by Mayor Thompson, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the addition of a Senior Account Clerk to the Finance Department budget to be hired at Step 1. ,r, -AYES: Councilmen May, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. I� - NOES: None. ABSTAIN: Councilman Lowry. ABSENT: Councilman Shaw. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the Public Hearing re the 1982 -83 Proposed Budget was continued until the regular meeting of July 12, 1982, at 8:00 P.M. AYES: Councilmen May, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. _r NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman Shaw. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Theresa Thompson, Deputy City Clerk Page 2 BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL AND BEAUMONT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AGENCY MINUTES OF JULY 12, 1982 1. The Beaumont City Council and Beaumont Community Improvement Agency met in a regular meeting at 7:34 P.M., on Monday, July 12, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor /Chairman Thompson presiding. 2. The invocation was given by Reverand Harry Lansman. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Councilman May. 4. On Roll Call the following Council /Agency Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor /Chairman Thompson. 5. There being no additions, deletions or corrections, the minutes of Regular Council /Agency meeting of June 28, 1982, Adjourned Meeting of June 29, 1982 and Adjourned Meeting of July 6, 1982, were approved as submitted. 6. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont transfers jurisdiction of Conditional ,,,,-Use Permit No. 1002 (included in minutes of Planning Commission meeting of June 1, 1982) Applicant: First Southern Baptist Church, �( 650 E. 14th Street, to the Council, and sets the date of July 26, 1982 for public hearing. AYES: Councilmen May, NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the balance of the minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of June 1, 1982, and the minutes of Planning Commission meeting of June 15, 1982, for filing as presented. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 7. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves warrants as audited per Warrant List of June 30, 1982, in the amount of $64,897.99; warrants as audited per Warrant List of July 12, 1982, in the amount of $126,351.76; and payroll of July 1, 1982, in the amount of $27,400.73, for payment as audited. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 8. ORDINANCE NO. 548 - SECOND READING - Adoption of the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Building Code Standards. On Motion by Councilman.Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Ordinance No. 548 adopting the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Building Code Standards, at it second reading by title only. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Page 1 9. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -44 - Supporting the Percy- Kramer -Winn Proposal to Sell Surplus Federal Property. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City "Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -44 supporting the Percy - Kramer -Winn Proposal to Sell Surplus Federal Property. The resolution was read in its entirety by the City Clerk. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel and Lowry. NOES: Mayor Thompson. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 10. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -45 - Resolution of Intention of the City of Beaumont to Grant a Non - Exclusive Cable TV Franchise to Field Cablevisionof Riverside, Inc. 11. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -46 - Resolution of Intention of the City of Beaumont i to Grant a Non - Exclusive Cable TV Franchise to Delaware Orcal Cable, Inc. X RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -47 - Resolution of Intention of the City of Beaumont to Grant a Non - Exclusive Cable TV Franchise to Beaumont CableVision. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolutions No. 1982 -45, 1982 -46, and 1982 -47. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 12. Proposed Cable Television Franchise Ordinance for Format Discussion and Decision. The proposed cable television franchise ordinance was discussed con- cerning wording and format, with representatives of the three cable television companies participating in the discussion 13. PUBLIC HEARING - 8:OO P.M. - Proposed 1982 -83 Budget. (Continued from July 6, 1982). The Public Hearing was re- opened at 9:17 P.M. A brief summarization of the budget discussions and changes was given by the City Manager. Irish Mitchell, 402 East 6th Street, addressed the Council asking questions concerning warrants that were paid during fiscal year 1981 -82, specifically those paid on the purchase of the 6th and Orange Street land. Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, to accept the proposed 1982 -83 budget, as submitted. AYES: Councilmen Hammel and Lowry. NOES: Councilmen Shaw, May and Mayor Thompson. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. MOTION FAILED. The Public Hearing was closed at 9:58 P.M. 14. Declaring of Vacancy on Senior Citizen Advisory Commission and Appoint- ment to Fill Vacancy. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the resignation of Jess Wood from the Senior Citizen Advisory Commission, and appoints Ms. Dovie Bunch to fill the vacancy on the Senior Citizen Advisory Commission. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. + --"' lm - W'I--- 15. Authorization to Pay Animal Control Services billed by County of Riverside. On Motion by Councilman May, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes payment to the County of Riverside for animal control services in the amount of $174.72, to be taken from Reserve for Contingencies, 01- 900 -999; and further directs that the owner of the animal shall be billed for these costs. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 16. Authorization for Transfer of Public Works Pick -Up Truck to Sewer Department; and Authorization for Transfer of Funds. Motion by Councilman Hammel to authorize the transfer of Public Works Pick -Up Truck to Sewer Department was rescinded by Councilman Hammel. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the transfer of Pick -Up Truck No. 3280 to the Sewer Department; and further authorizes the transfer of funds from the Sewer Department to the General Fund, r` ' Accounts No. 10- 405 -999 to 01- 009 -799. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 17. Recommendation on Insurance Coverage for 1982 -83. (Continued from July 6, 1982). Mr. George Sturgess, of MacClean Insurance Agency, Beaumont, addressed the Council requesting that MacClean Insurance Agency be appointed as Agent of Record to handle insurance for the City. This agenda item was continued until the regular Council meeting of July 26, 1982. 18. Report re Planning Commission Actions on July 6, 1982. For Information only. j 19. This report was accepted for filing for information only pending receipt of the minutes of July 6, 1982. The meeting was adjourned to an Executive Session re Personnel at 10:30 P.M. The meeting was reconvened to Regular Session at 11:03 P.M. Let the record show the discussion in Executive Session was in regard to budgetary amounts of Department No. 110, the City Manager Department. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the proposed 1982 -83 budget as submitted. AYES: Councilmen May, NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. ORAL COMMUNICATION: Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. There was no oral communication. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:05 P.M. Respectfully submitted, BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL AND BEAUMONT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AGENCY MINUTES OF JULY 26, 1982 1. The Beaumont City Council and Beaumont Community Improvement Agency met in a regular meeting at 7:33 P.M., on Monday, July 26, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor /Chairman Thompson presiding. 2. The invocation was given by Pastor Balleau. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Councilman May. 4. On Roll Call the following Council /Agency Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor /Chairman Thompson. 5. There being no additions, deletions or corrections, the minutes of Regular Council /Agency Meeting of July 12, 1982 were approved as submitted. 6. There being no objections, the Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of July 6, 1982 were accepted as presented. 7. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves warrants as audited per Warrant List of July 26, 1982, in the amount of $242,939.57 and Payroll of July 15, 1982, in the amount of $28,364.49 for payment as audited. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 8. Dedication of Pennsylvania Avenue Water Line to Beaumont- Cherry Valley Water District. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont dedicates the water line on Pennsylvania ,,-*"*to the Beaumont - Cherry Valley Water District, transferring ownership �-� of said water line from the City to the Beaumont- Cherry Valley Water rf District, and requests the Water District to accept said water systems in writing, and further authorizes the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said document. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 9. Acceptance of Laura Stewart Funds and Allocation of Same. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the Laura Stewart fund gift and allocates $2,641.52 to Budget Item 01- 700 -300 for the purchase of one walkie- talkie with charger, and one remote radio unit. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 10. PUBLIC HEARING - 8:00 P.M. - ORDINANCE NO. 549 - FIRST READING. Grantinc a Cable TV Franchise to Field Cablevision of Riverside, County, Inc. 11. PUBLIC HEARING - 8:00 P.M. — ORDINANCE NO. 550 - FIRST READING. Grantir a Cable TV Franchise to Delaware Orcal Cable, Inc. 12. PUBLIC HEARING - 8:00 P.M. - ORDINANCE NO. 551 - FIRST READING. Grantinc a Cable TV Franchise to Beaumont CableVision. The three public hearings concerning awarding of cable television fran- chises, were combined into one public hearing, since the subject matter was the same on all three hearings, with the exception of the company involved. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:00 P.M. Mayor Thompson: Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in opposition to the granting of a cable television franchise. Cliff Howrey, 1280 Orange, Beaumont, California: This is not necessarily in opposition, but merely a question. Is there any data that has been shared as to programming that will be on this cable program. Will there be, for example, my question is - is it an adult type of programming - X -Rated - that type of situation. Mayor Thompson: I will take your question, and, I can't answer it precisely, but . . . Rev. Howrey: The reason for asking that question is - understanding that this would probably be run on public property - and I would be in opposition if that kind of program is going to be dealt with on public utility property. Mayor Thompson: I will try to answer your question in just a minute, as soon as I get some more information. Oscar Leeb, 167 East Sixth Street: I would be in complete opposition to such a program too, if such is the case, which was just mentioned. Mayor Thompson: Is there anyone else who would like to speak in oppo- sition. Opposing the granting of such a franchise for cable television service in the City of Beaumont. The proponents that were named are here in the audience tonight, and at the last meeting I believe that the representative of Delaware - Orcal spoke, and, I believe, the re- presentative of Beaumont CableVision spoke. So, I am going to ask . City Manager: Mayor Thompson, if you wish I might just read from each one of these applications what they propose to provide in the way of program service. The City Manager then read from each application submitted to the City regarding programming offered. Mr. Soper, Delaware Orcal Cable: I guess I can speak on behalf of three of the groups here this evening, because both of the gentlemen that spoke said they were against X -Rated movies. Well, so are we. We don't carry X -Rated movies on any of our channels. We carry basic cable stations, and then if anybody wanted HBO or the movie channel, they have a choice. There are no X -Rated movies involved. Mayor Thompson: I have a question for Dick Glascock. Let me ask this question, or maybe make a statement. In the event that a cable company wishes to present programming of the adult X -Rated nature, what are the basic requirements for the - what do I want to say - presentation of that type of program. What I am getting at is if this type of program is advocated by a cable company, would it come in as a separate channel - the utilization of that channel to be determined by each subscriber. In other words, it wouldn't be generally available under the present package. Basic subscriber package. Dick Glascock, Field Cablevision: Well, from a business standpoint, yes - it would have to be controlled. You have a drug store. I am sure you have got some things that are done that way. And, again, from a cable standpoint you do too. At this point it is on - none of our systems have that kind of programming. We are just - super con- servative and wouldn't even entertain the thought of running Escapade and some of those other things. The movies that are on HBO and the movie channel, and those kind of paid TV packages are R- Rated. There is Fort Apache, The Bronx, those kind of things - and you watch them or you change the channel. We go one step further. We make and pro- vide, what we call a PG key, and I have one at my house. They can put a key lock in there and turn off even HBO and R -Rated movies that you do not want your teenaged or younger kids to watch. And that is at no cost to the subscriber that wants it. Mayor Thompson: The reason I am asking these questions, and this was Darren 7 7 brought up, is that in many instances the public thinks, erroneously probably, cable television as providing your late night X -Rated movies, which is not really the case anymore. Dick Glascock: No that is not the reason we are in business, at all. We're normal entertainment, if you will, and the after -hour stuff we just haven't gotten into. We have not had - the people that have requested it - of course we work off of a percentage of (tape changed - discussion continues as follows: Councilman Lowry: May I ask a question, you say - all three of you stated that your owners are very conservative. Suppose the station is sold to some other owner, and they go in for this. Are you held by the list you have given us here to not diverge from that. Mayor Thompson: Maybe I can answer that. According to the franchise contract before this can happen - if there is a major ownership change, it has to be approved by the Council, and at that time . . . Councilman Lowry: O.K., you are all corporations aren't you? Dick Glascock: I think we could come in and probably add a channel without the approval of the City of Beaumont, but, again, from a business standpoint, are you going to satisfy fifty customers and jeopardize 2,000. And that is really what it comes down to. If a minor percentage of the City of Beaumont wants X -Rated movies, and wants to buy X -Rated books - do you have an X -Rated bookstore in town. No - because the percentage of people who want to buy that program just aren't here. We don't have it in Redlands - we don't have it in the Yucaipa system - we don't have it in the Sunnymead system. It is just not the kind of business we want to be in. Councilman Lowry: The point I was bringing up, Tommy, is that since they are corporations, someone buys out the stock - the majority stock - they can change the entire character of a company and still be the same company. Mayor Thompson: They can, but before this can happen, there is a section in here that says that we must approve it. Dick Glascock: Yes. A significant change in ownership requires us to come back here and get your permission to authorize that change. Definitely. Which, again, opens up, as we did in the application, to come in and look at the background of the new owners - to -be, and what their financial position is. This is like a marriage, it is a joint venture between us and the City of Beaumont. The City Council, as well as the people of Beaumont, have to be happy or else we are not going to make it as a business. Councilman Lowry: Are we discussing the franchises tonight - or is this just a public hearing only - I mean so far as the Council is con- cerned. We are not at a point where we want to discuss any changes or . . . Mayor Thompson: Not yet. We are still in the public hearing for public input right now. Is there anyone else that wishes to expand on what Mr. Glascock has said? If we are not answering the questions that have been raised, let us know and we will try to get a little more definite answers for you. City Manager: Mr. Mayor, I would hope that any company that submitted his application here without the figures being included, have had a look by this time at the insertions here to be sure they are correct, because we don't want to ask anybody to have to live by something that might have been an error by the secretary in taking from these docu- ments here and putting them here. Are all three in agreement with what is in here, if they know what is in here. Mayor Thompson: You heard the question gentlemen as far as the Section 4 of the Ordinance, which deals with the charges for services. Have you looked at the individual rate schedule. Councilman Lowry: In regards to that, Field on sheet one, at the very bottom, aerial or underground, 175 feet or less, just has a dollar mark. Does that mean it is free. There is no fee shown. Page 1 under Field Cablevision. T%___ 7 Mayor Tompson: What is your aerial or underground installation charge. Dick Glascock: Under 175 feet it is free. Mayor Thompson: 175 feet or less, no charge. Councilman Lowry: There is no charge on the over 175 feet either. Dick Glascock: There is no charge over 175 feet at the time of initial cable installation. Mayor Thompson: Now after the initial cabling term or period, when in- stalled at other times, aerial or underground over 175 feet is time and materials. Councilman Lowry: What is the rate. Dick Glascock: Well, it would be time and materials. If you lived five miles away, you have to help us bear some of the cost of getting it to you. City Manager: This is the installation charge. Dick Glascock: The installation charge. The basic monthly service charge is the same. But if it costs us $10,000 to get to your house, we would need some help from you to get that job done. Councilman Lowry: In other words it is your cost. Is that what you are saying. Dick Glascock: That is correct. Councilman Hammel: O.K. Will there be a refund to these people at a later date if someone hooked up on this same line because they would build a house between that distance in there. In other words, you are stating that if the public pays for 1,000 feet of cable line that you put in, that you need some help. Now within that 1,000 feet there are no homes other than the ones that you serve. Now suppose you get one in later on - two years - three years. Don't you think these people ought to get a refund who paid you, and helped you pay, for the 1,000 feet getting to them. Dick Glascock: Yes, and we do that. Councilman Hammel: Then you should state it in the contract. Dick Glascock: We do that - we give them an estimate of the cost of materials and labor will be, and there is a paragraph that states that if anybody later on becomes attached to that same line, it will be prorated. In the City of Beaumont, at this point in time under the City boundaries, that is not the case. Our engineers have found there are only three houses that come out over 175 feet. They are like 200 or something. Mayor Thompson: Is there any this particular document many certain section on there, and Is there any other person out the public input. Does the G these different companies for - you gentlemen, I am sure, have read times. We have your input as to a we will discuss that in just a minute. there with input. O.K., you have heard Duncil have any questions pertaining to cable television. Councilman Hammel: This is addressing all three of you. Inasmuch as you are going in on our Ordinance 549, and we have, in Section 3 of the ordinance, you are asking for a term of 15 years from the acceptance of the franchise and a guarantee. With the fast moving times of today, which you gentlemen know better than I, in television and all kinds of gadgets. Also, I realize the expense on your part, which you will have to get cable television in here. I feel, for the future, for the future of Beaumont, that if you have a ten year contract, with a renewal clause, that would be acceptable. Why should you have 15 years for cable tele- vision, and have a contract for 15 years. You are reaching out for a long term here. Kids can almost be raised in school. Mayor Thompson: Does Council have any other questions that they want to present. Paae 4 At this point there was general discussion by the Council of certain sections of the proposed ordinance granting franchises, and Ordinance No. 529. Mayor Thompson: One of the questions raised is about the fifteen year term of the contract. Is there anyone out there who would like to respond to that. Mr. Soper. Cecil Soper, Delaware - Orcal: Mr. Mayor and Councilmen. We have entered into franchises in other places which are less than fifteen years. I am not sure who initiated the fifteen years - whether we did, which would be a smart move on our part - or whether you did, which it wouldn't be an unwise position, but, as you said earlier, to amortize a large capital investment, you need many years in which to do it, but if you gentlemen, in your wisdom, decided that it be preferable to have a ten year franchise period, subject to a clause that it could be negotiated for extension, we have no trouble living with that sir. Jim Monroe, Beaumont CableVision: Mr. Mayor, I might point out that in Section 5 of Ordinance 529, it stipulates that under Sub - section A, that the franchise granted by the Council under this ordinance shall be for a term of fifteen years. City Manager: This was based on the recommendation from the League of California Cities. Councilman Hammel: I know, but this doesn't mean that we can't change it. Jim Monroe: The standard term is generally fifteen years, and it is a highly capital investment. Dick Glascock, Field Cablevision: Fifteen years is required because of the amortization and depreciation in excess of the million dollars that we are investing in Beaumont. What does protect you, if the Cable system is not living up to its expectations, as are some of the neigh- boring systems, is that it is not exclusive, and you can't go in . . . Councilman Lowry: May I ask you a question. I noticed that you offered twelve channels, will you add additional channels over the life of your system. Dick Glascock: What we are doing in ours - we structure, basically, two price ranges. What we did is we come in with just a real basic minimal service - which is what we call the lifeline - which is twelve channel service. Then the second rate is basically senior citizens discount, which is 10% off of anything. And in the full basic fifty -four channel service at $7.75, which is cheaper than the other two applications. Councilman Lowry: Than you are offering more than the other two. Dick Glascock: More for less. Councilman Shaw: Under Section 7, it says should the grantee desire to upgrade the franchise, the grantee shall pay the entire cost. No expense shall be born by the subscriber. Dick Glascock: That is correct. Which is one of the things I think you were concerned about the other night. The two words that we did not get in here that I would have liked to see, Norm, was under the transfer that cannot be unduly be withheld, or something. That is the one thing we discussed. Those four magic words didn't make the final typing. And I don't know that that means anything, but our legal people say it does. City Attorney: Well, a little bit, but, I don't think they can arbitrari- ly just deny this. Councilman Lowry: It is already covered in the ordinance. Dick Glascock: Like I say, it is just a couple of words that the attorneys just feel better with. There followed a general discussion between the Council, City Attorney and Mr. Glascock regarding the wording of Section 14 of the Ordinance granting the franchises. Dick Glascock: Other than that, we are ready to go. The construction of the system is basically, so far as we are concerned, underway. We have done the full application.with the General Telephone, and we are rolling and will possibly deliver September 15. This ordinance becomes "law" September 9 if you go thirty days from the second reading. We hope to have subscribers by October 15. City Attorney: I don't think you could arbitrarily refuse a transfer. We have worked this over time and time again, and everytime there is something. I think you have enough safeguards in the law anyway. Mayor Thompson: Is there any further input from the public about the proposal to grant a franchise for a cable television service within the City limits of Beaumont. Is there anyone out there who would like to have input as far as the granting of a franchise for cable television in the City of Beaumont. If we hear no further input, does the Council have any further questions. Since we have no further input from the public, no further from the Council, we will close the public hearing on Ordinance No. 549, 550 and 551. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:41 P.M. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City. b,uncil of the City of Beaumont passes Ordinances No. 549, 550 and 551 for.'... eir k first readings by title only. Motion by Councilman Hammel to amend the motion to change the term from fifteen years to ten years with an option for renewal died for lack of a second. The three ordinances, No. 549, 550 and 551 were read by title only by the City Clerk. Vote was taken on the original motion without amendment. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: Councilman Hammel. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 13. PUBLIC HEARING: 8:00 P.M. - Conditional Use Permit No. 1002. Applicant: First Southern Baptist Church, 650 E. 14th Street. The public hearing was opened at 8:49 P.M. Gary Croft, Chief Planner, gave the Council the background information concerning this Conditional Use Permit, and answered questions from the Council. Mayor Thompson: I have a question of Cliff Howrey, who is representing the First Southern Baptist Church. Does the existing walkway and hand- rail in front of your structure project into the right -of -way, the City right -of -way. Cliff Howrey, First Southern Baptist Church: I don't know. Mayor Thompson: Gary, is that a reasonable - because of the proximity of the curbline, and proximity of the curbline with the walkway from the front of the building and the handrail. Gary Croft: It would appear from the photo, that, yes, the handrail would probably encroach into the public right -of -way. As I indicated, it would be eight feet from the face of the curb. It appears like it is about five feet back. Mayor Thompson: I have one other question. Is the existing sign that is on the eastern portion of the building, does it project into the City right -of -way because of its location. Gary Croft: Yes, they went out to measure it. I didn't happen to be involved in the group that went out and measured, but as I understand it, it is about six feet behind the curb, projecting in about two feet into the right -of -way. Mayor Thompson: The reason I am asking on this is that if the Condi- tional Use Permit is granted, it affects the entire property, and if we condone continued encroachment without an encroachment permit, we are in error ourselves. Am I correct on that? City Manager: Well, basically, you are not supposed to allow encroach- ments within the City right -of -way. There is a provision in the ordinance that you adopted to allow that to happen based upon an application. Mayor Thompson: This is existing for three years. I remember when this happened. I was not on the Council, but at this time we may have a problem on encroachment, at least I think so, notwithstanding the 30" pipeline. Cliff Howrey, First Southern Baptist: I guess, like all of us in these times . . .(Tape changed - discussion continues as follows) . . . we do appreciate the Planning Commission making that suggestion to the Council, primarily from the standpoint that we, like you, are trying to be as economical and frugal as we can. One thing that Gary didn't bring to your attention, that we would be happy to, as we develop property to the east, and hopefully as property would be developed to the west, we would make that somewhat of a - I don't know if I am using the correct term - tie that in as a serpentine type of a situation where we would put curb and gutter, and sidewalks, and make that a flow. I think that was brought up in a Council meeting, similar to what they have down at Palm Springs and other areas, and that is a requirement there. On the other hand, if the Council feels that is what needs to be done, we will change our whole landscaping approach and put a stem wall in, and put a sidewalk in. We don't want to rattle the cage. But we were trying to saving $800 to $1,000, to be honest with you. Councilman Shaw: But you can appreciate our opposition to this. Should we give a variance here - then other people are going to want the same thing. City Manager: There is one other factor, gentlemen, the attorney would say here about the feasibility or the City attempting to make a requirement - waiving City sidewalk on City property, and saying no, don't the Church sidewalk, which is steering the public on and creating a terrific liability to the Church. I am not sure what advisability of a requirement of a put it there, use to Church property, Cliff Howrey: Another factor too, is, as we, and all of you who live in our City know, that the drainage that comes from the water pumphouse there on 14th Street, would make it almost impossible when they are draining, which seems to be most of the time, and during the inclement weather, to even use such a sidewalk, because, in fact, there is a river running down the street there, and it would be safer to walk in the middle of the street, then it would be to walk on that sidewalk. That was one of the appeals that we made to the Planning Commission, and again, I realize your situation, but that . . . Councilman Lowry: How deep does that water run. You have been there many times probably. Cliff Howrey: Normally, there was water running down there today, during the summer months it is probably an inch or two. But during inclement weather . . . Councilman Lowry: Goes over the curb in other words. On your property. Cliff Howrey: No it is five or six feet away from there, where they put the markers, out in the middle of the road. Be it as it may, we are here to cooperate with you, and we want you to know that, but we would ask for your consideration, and if that isn't possible, then we will sure work with you. Mayor Thompson: The reason I was asking the question I did, under condition of approval 3 -b, the Planning Commission says sidewalk shall be constructed along 14th Street in accordance with standards approved by the City Engineer. That is why I was asking the question. One other question too, 3 -c, all trash shall be stored in closed containers located within acceptable wall enclosure. What does that mean. Page 7 Cliff Howrey: They want a bin - we have a metal bin - trash bin. They evidentally want some kind of enclosed situation to prevent debris from blowing - that kind of thing. They talked to us about that, and we are in the process of going into some long range planning right now, and we are looking at that in a five year - ten year - twenty year program of expansion, and we will be bringing those plans to the City someday in the future. We asked them if we could put up a chain link type of situation now, because of the fact that we are not sure where the permanent block type of situation will be located, and they said that would be fine. Councilman Lowry: May I ask a question relative to the lot to the east of the church . . . . . time that the . . . . Cliff Howrey: When the permits were taken out. No. It was near that same time, Councilman Lowry, but it was after the fact. Councilman Lowry: I see. That explains why we didn't require you to curb and gutter that also. Cliff Howrey: And we realize that will be a factor, and we want to do that. Mayor Thompson: I have a question for Gary. On conditions of approval, No. 8, What is that last date there. Gary: 1992. Mayor Thompson: This permit shall become null and void on July 1, 1992? Gary: Normally, with conditional use permits, they have a life span of a certain number of years, five, ten, fifteen years - and in this parti- cular case it was felt that it would be appropriate to review it, if in fact they want to continue with the type of operation that they are setting up, within ten years. Bascially, what that amounts to is applying for a new conditional use permit, and having a complete review, and new approvals, possibly new conditions. Mayor Thompson: This use that they are asking - what is the zoning designation - accepted kind of use. Gary Croft: Any residential zone, and some limited commercial zone. Most commercial zones are considered, really, are considered appropriate. Mayor Thompson: Are they considered appropriate? Gary Croft: Are usually considered appropriate. That is one of the reasons the conditional use permit is required as opposed to a plot plan procedure, or a simple permit, or business license. Mayor Thompson: Unlike commercial utilization of a conditional use permit, there is no annual review on this? Gary Croft: Right. Mayor Thompson: On commercial there is normally . . . Gary Croft: Well, it can be written either way. The conditional use permit could be written either way. If it is considered a particularly obnoxious business, in terms of the possibility of getting out of hand and not being easily controlled, then an annual review may be appropriate. Most businesses it would go five or ten years, and then require a new conditional use permit - this is the normal way it is handled. Historically here, virtually all of them require annual reviews. Mayor Thompson: Does anyone else have any questions that Gary might be able to answer for you. (Pause - no one responding). The reason this came to Council is to affirm or modify the procedure of the Planning Commission. Am I correct on that? City Manager: To change any condition or . . . Mayor Thompson: Or modify - or to let them stand. Anybody else have anything on this. Page 8 Councilman Lowry:, Gary Croft: Yes. adequate. What it recoating. And, s( Councilman Lowry: Gary Croft: Yes. I The only two recommended changes were 2 -A and 3 -B. 2 -A was modified because the existing paving was needed, however, was a general sweeping and, possibly, 3, that was why condition 2 -A was modified. They okayed the striping? Mayor Thompson: Okay. We have heard the proponents for this conditional use permit. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak in opposition to this conditional use permit. Anyone wishing to speak in opposition to the granting of such a conditional use permit. Anyone in the audience who would like to speak opposing the granting of this conditional use permit. Does anyone else have any questions they would like answered by either the proponent or the planner. Any other questions If we hear no more input pro or con on this particular application, we will therefore close the public hearing at this time. The time is 9:15. The public hearing was closed at 9:15 P.M. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City ,,/Council of the City of Beaumont moves that the conditions of approval �± as shown in the Planning Commission Minutes of June 1, 1982, as furnished by the planning staff, be accepted, with the exception of the deletion -of 2 -A, and that 3 -B be enforced including the removal of the encroaching r'�,.•'r structures in the public right -of -way. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. l L On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Negative Declaration for E.A. No. CU -1002. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont grants Conditional Use Permit No. 1002 subject to the conditions of approval previously approved. ` AYES: Councilmen May, NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 14. Request from Dionne Green,.Jazzercise instructor, for Reduce3Business License. This agenda item was continued until the regular meeting of August 9, w. 1982, to allow the City Manager to ascertain why the fee was set at $72.00, with no penalty being assessed on the business license. 15. Request from Dionne Green re Use of Gymnasium. This agenda item was continued until the regular meeting of August 9, 1982. 16. Recommendation on Insurance Coverage for 1982 -83. (Continued from July 12, 1982) . On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont awards the contract for insurance ;v. coverage to Curtis- Kieley, Inc. for $5,000,000 umbrella coverage, in accordance with the City Manager's recommendation dated July 6, 1982. Page 9 AYES: Councilmen Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: Councilmen May and Shaw. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. MOTION CARRIED. 17. Application for Special Permit to Keep Two Wolf- Hybrid Dogs within the Beaumont City Limits. This agenda item was continued until the regular meeting of August 9, 1982, pending a decision by the State regarding a State permit. 18. Sewer Master Plan Update Report and Presentation. A presentation was given by Willdan Associates concerning the Sewer Master Plan. , Due to the lateness of the hour, this agenda item was continued until -___a later date, to be arranged between the City Manager and the Consultant, for a continuation of the presentation and report. 19. Acceptance of Contract with Norman Davis for Services as City Manager, and Authorization for Mayor to Sign same. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City . Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the contract with Norman Davis for services as City Manager, subject to the changes which the City F Attorney has been directed to prepare, and further authorizes the Mayor to sign the contract on behalf of the City. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry. NOES: Mayor Thompson. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 20. Consideration of Lease Renewal with Beaumont- Cherry Valley Recreation and Parks District for Space in Civic Center Building. L, This agenda item was continued pending the receipt of a structural report concerning the gym. 21. The report of Planning Commission Actions of July 20, 1982 was accepted for filing. 22. ORAL COMMUNICATION: a. Request from Ms. S. L. Nelson to Connect Property Outside City Limits to Beaumont Sewer System. Continued until next regular meeting of August 9, 1982. 23. Request for Authorization to Provide legal services for Police Officers in case of Cupp vs City of Beaumont. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes that legal services shall be provided for the police officers involved in the case of Cupp vs City of Beaumont, the attorney to be selected at the discretion of the City Manager, based on terms most favorable to the City. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 24. Action on City Attorney Contract. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the City Manager to enter into an agreement with the City Attorney under the condition that his monthly retainer fee be raised from $750.00 to $800.00 per month, and / all other conditions remain the same. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ADD ITEM 25. Letter from Mr. Bob Bruce regarding Senior Citizen's Advisory Commi- sion. It was determined that the City Manager and one of the Council Members will meet with the Senior Citizen's Advisory Commission at their next regular meeting on August 4, 1982, to discuss this matter further. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 12:17 A.M. Respectfully submitted, Flw A' �.. � E NA J. MRKETT, City Clerk Page 11 I BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL AND BEAUMONT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AGENCY MINUTES OF AUGUST 9, 1982 mi, 1. The Beaumont City Council and Beaumont Community Improvement Agency met in a regular meeting at 7:34 P.M., on Monday, August 9, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor /Chairman Thompson presiding. 2. The invocation was given by Michael Duersch, lst Councilor in the Bishopric of the Beaumont Ward of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Councilman Shaw. 4. On Roll Call the following Council /Agency Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor /Chairman Thompson. 5. The minutes of the regular Council meeting of July 26, 1982 were corrected to reflect the correct spelling of Pastor Balleau's last name as being Balleau rather than Ballough. There being no other additions, deletions or corrections, the minutes of Regular Council Agency Meeting of July 26, 1982 were approved as corrected. 6. There being no objections, the Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of July 20, 1982 were accepted as presented. 7. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, warrants as audited per Warrant List of July 26, 1982, in the amount of $118,215.08 and Payroll of July 29; 1982, in the amount of $30,310.96 were approved for payment as audited. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 8. ORDINANCE NO. 549 - SECOND READING - Granting a Non - Exclusive Franchise to Field Cablevision of Riverside County, Inc. to Construct, Operate and Maintain a Community Antenna Television System within the City of Beaumont in Accordance with Ordinance No. 529 Subject to the Terms and Conditions Set Forth. 9. ORDINANCE NO. 550 - SECOND READING - Granting a Non - Exclusive Franchise to Delaware -Orcal Cable, Inc. to Construct, Operate and Maintain a Community Antenna Television System within the City of Beaumont in Accordance with Ordinance No. 529 Subject to the Terms and Conditions Set Forth. 10. ORDINANCE NO. 551 - SECOND READING - Granting a Non - Exclusive Franchise to Beaumont CableVision to Construct, Operate and Maintain a Community Antenna Television System within the City of Beaumont in Accordance with Ordinance No. 529 Subject to the Terms and Conditions Set Forth. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City f, Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Ordinance No. 549, Ordinance No. 550 and Ordinance No. 551 at their second reading by title only. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ;f ABSENT: None. 11. URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 552 - Amending Section 13 of Ordinance No. 492 and Repealing said Section 13 as Contained in Ordinance No. 492 per- taining to Wild Animals. The Urgency Ordinance was read in its entirety by the City Attorney. Page 1 On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Urgency Ordinance No. 552 with changes as follows: Line 22, Page 1, the word may to be changed to "shall ". Line 22, Page 1, after the word snake, the words "other reptiles ", shall be added. If i Line 23, Page 1, after the word amount, the words "in the amount of $1,000,000 "shall be added in place of the words "to be determined 1, by the City Council. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel and Lowry. NOES: Mayor Thompson. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 13. ORDINANCE NO. 553 - FIRST READING - Finding and Declaring that the Interests of the Motoring Public and of Residents within Valley Mobile Home Community, a Mobile Home Park in the City, will be Best Served by Making Certain Provisions of the California Vehicle Code Applicable to Certain Private Roads within Said Valley Mobile Home Community. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont passes Ordinance No. 553 at its first ,,,,'reading, by title only. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 14. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -48 - Requesting the Creating of One Additional Seat on the Executive Board of the California Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions for Representation of Special Districts. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -48 re- -r questing the creating of one additional seat on the Executive Board �= of the California Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions for Representation of Special Districts. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 15. Request from Dionne Green, Jazzercise Instructor, for Reduced Business License Fee. (Continued from July 26, 1982). On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City 2r Council of the City of Beaumont reduces the business license fee for Dionne Green to conduct Jazzercise classes in the City of Beaumont to � $60.00 a year. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 12. PUBLIC HEARING - 8:00 P.M. - Change of Zone No. 1005. Applicant: AB- KOB-DEV. Location: East of Beaumont Avenue between Cougar Way and Brookside Avenue. Change of Zone from R -1 to C -2, R -T and R -3. w The Public Hearing was opened at 8:00 P.M. Gary Croft, Chief Planner, City of Beaumont: The subject property annexed to the City just over two years ago. At the time the proposal was to change the zone from R -1, which zoning it received upon annexa- tion as per the Ordinance, to R -3, C -2 and R -T. At the time they started an application and scheduled the first public hearing, at which time it was noted that the project was inconsistent with the then existing General Plan which, basically, limited the area to residential uses with a maximum density of three units to the acre. The P;4 a,- 9 applicants then , in September, made an application to amend the General Plan, along with the zone change. And that application was filed with the City, however, it was pointed out that, at the time, there was an attempt to do a General Plan for the entire City at the same time, and the applicant submitted a letter requesting at that time that the item be continued and handled following the overall General Plan for the City. Subsequent to that, they did submit another letter requesting that be dropped. That was after, again, a change in administration in the City. We had a different City Manager and Planning Staff in the City. No action was taken on that letter, and the action on the General Plan proceeded as you are all aware. The applicants have appeared both before the Planning Commission and your City Council in regards to their pro- ject and the General Plan, and the General Plan was finally adopted in June, and the hearings were then scheduled on July 20 for this particular zone change. At that zone change, the staff recommended against the application as submitted, citing that the General Plan did allow some commercial in conjunction with the overall residen- tial use, but that as. proposed, the amount of zoning requested would be inconsistent with that General Plan in its goals and policies. The Commission heard the action at their hearing on the 20th, however they made a recommendation to overrule the recommenda- tion of the - or to deny the recommendation of the staff, and to approve the zone change as per the original exhibit, which included approximately 23 acres of commercial. To get an idea of the comparison of that, in terms of acreage, the existing K -Mart Center including the Stater Brothers and all the shops and the vacant parcel on the corner of 6th and Highland Springs, is less than one - half of that acreage. It is less than 12 acres for that entire center. This would be approximately double that in size. That was the way, then, that the Commission approved it to include that commercial. If you would look at the exhibit on the board, it - basically, the strip running north and south on the left edge of the map. Running parallel to Beaumont Avenue, running from Brookside southerly to just north of the existing fruit and vegetable market, and running approximately 600 feet in depth from that. The staff recommendation, as you see in Exhibit "B" in your packet, which was to simply include approximately five to six acres at the intersection of Brookside and Beaumont Avenue. Councilman Hammel: I have a question. In other words, the Planning Commission overruled staff's recommendation in regards to this piece of property. Gary Croft: Yes, that is correct. City Manager: How would this proposal fit the Community Development Agency concept for the City of Beaumont. Gary Croft: As I understand in reading the Community Development proposal, one of the major goals of that is to revitalize the existing commercial in the central core of the City. From a planning point of view I would see this as having a very negative effect because the size of the center would be such that it would draw a tremendous amount of the business out of the core, and would make it very diffi- cult for business within the central portion of the City to revitalize. It proposes not only to serve the existing development within the project, but also the entire Cherry Valley area, and given the size of the project, even phased over a time, it would additionally serve really most of the City to the South of it that would be contiguous to Beaumont Avenue. The existing center of the City, Beaumont and Sixth Street, would have a very difficult time competing with a new center to the north of this magnitude. Much the same as currently the K -Mart Center is drawing a tremendous amount of business, and for any new business to establish itself here in the central portion of the City would be a difficult project at this time, and as the City grows, of course, then there will be - the thresholds will rise so that new commercial can come in. But to establish another existing center, I think, would thwart the redevelopment plan. Councilman Hammel: In other words, it is your sincere and honest opinion that this would be devastating for the downtown area at this time. Gary Croft: Yes. Page 3 Councilman May: Do we have any idea.how many people live in Cherry Valley., What the population is? Gary Croft: The approximate number is somewhat less than the City. We have a little over 7,000 here. I have heard estimates of appro- ximately 5,000 in Cherry. Valley. I don't have the exact figures with me. Councilman Shaw: How many units are supposed to go into that area, approximately. Gary Croft: I would have to rely on the developer to give us that information. Mr. Kulikov is here, and he could indicate on the portion that he owns. And then Steve Pleasant is here representing the other parties who are involved in this project. But I don't know the exact figures. They are proposing overall densities of approximately seven to eight units to the acre, so seven or eight hundred units. In the City currently we have approximately 2,500 units or 3,000 units. Mayor Thompson: In other words, the ratio of population to units is what approximately. Gary Croft: It depends on whether it is families or seniors or . . . but you can figure two to two and one -half per unit. City Manager: I think the census gave 2.9 people per unit in Beaumont. Councilman Shaw: And you feel that the population of that magnitude shouldn't support a center up there. A commercial area. Gary Croft: No, I don't think it would support a center of the size that they are talking. Not at this time. There needs to be a tre- mendous amount of growth in Cherry Valley. Cherry Valley itself, they are under the General Plan which basically requires densities not to exceed one unit per half acre. And much of Cherry Valley is one unit per acre, so that even fully developed, Cherry Valley will not be a tremendous population center. They propose, and try to maintain the rural lifestyle. In fact, that would be the reason that Mr. Kulikov annexed to the City because making the same proposal to the County, it was also inconsistent with the General Plan, and would not have been accepted over the counter. Therefore, by annexing to the City, he is attempting to increase the density, and he has gone through the General Plan process to achieve that goal. Councilman Shaw: If my recollection is correct, wasn't there supposed to be a family park, mobile park in that area too? Gary Croft: Yes. The portion that is not included in this - in the quarter section - the southeast quarter - approximate 40 acres - was designed to be a family park. However, I understand the property has been listed for sale, and how they expect to develop it would be up to whoever would own the property. Councilman May: Gary, are you including Highland Springs Village in your count of Cherry Valley. Gary Croft: Yes, that is included in the Cherry Valley area. Basically the County defines Cherry Valley as everything north of Brookside, which is essentially the way we count it. Mayor Thompson: Thank you Gary. We will get back to you. The nor- mal procedure on Public Hearings is to present opponents, then proponents. You are representing the City and should be neutral. I have been informed by the rest of the Council that they don't want to stay here until midnight tonight, so what we are going to do tonight is hear the applicant next on this, and then we will have rebuttal, and then the applicant will have one final time on that. Gene Thompson, Chairman, Planning Commission: Question in regards to format. Staff has presented their position, and since the Planning Commission did deny the staff recommendation, I would like to, at this time, state our position before the applicant, because I am really not for or against. I did vote to approve the application Page 4 R I I of Mr. Kulikov and AB- KOV -DEV. But I would also like to speak as to the Other side of the staff opinion before the applicant. City Manager: Just by way of procedure, I would hope that this City never gets into the position of having the Planning Commission come in here as an applicant. They have made their applicancy or lack of applicancy in whatever their recommendation is. If they begin to take the position of coming to the hearings of the City Council, I think you are really going very amiss and far afield. You will never find another jurisdiction ever doing this sort of thing. That doesn't mean, or should not mean, that any member of the Commission that wants to come in as individuals should not be precluded from appearing as an individual, but to take a position as the Commission, or talking on behalf of the Commission? I think that would be very amiss and far afield. Mayor Thompson: Basically, what you are saying then is the minutes from the Planning Commission speak for themselves. In other words, they have no connotation or connection in regard to planning staff, even though they were divergent in their opinions. City Manager: They have made a recommendation to Council, that recommendation stands on its own. And, if we get into a position - I say we, I mean any jurisdiction - gets into a position where the advisory body feels so strongly that they have to come in and do battle in behalf of the position they have taken, then you have destroyed the whole procedural position of the agency. I think it would be most unfortunate if that starts to happen. Mayor Thompson: Then it is up to me to make a decision as to whether to . . . Gene Thompson: Let me also clarify something. First off, I am not an applicant or an opponent or proponent of the Kulikov project. I would like to make something clear in regards to the minutes, and that is what I was approaching as the Chairman. While the minutes do comply with the State regulations in regard that they do not have to be verbatim, there was other discussion that went on during the Planning Commission meeting, which I think should be brought out. Now, in that respect, maybe the Chairman should be - is at fault in regard to not getting that position in - and that is the reason that I think I should be down here. I am not down here to do battle with the City Manager or the City Council. Far be it from that. However, we do have some disagreement in regards to some of the things, but I think that these items should be in the public hearing - which it is a public hearing. City Manager: The minutes of the Planning Commission are not really a part of this public hearing. I am sure the City Attorney will tell you that the minute you opened this public hearing, this is all brand new. Nothing is supposed to have entered any one of you gentlemen's minds that cause a precept determination on this case. You are a judge sitting here, in the first instance, taking testimony, and you are going to close this hearing and you are going to make a decision. There should be no prejudgment. And there should be no determination of trying to get all of the facts that occurred at the Planning Commission before you. Because that is what this hearing is all about. The Planning Commission really has nothing whatsoever to do with this decision. They had their set of facts. They made a determination. Now that determination has come to you as a recommendation. Now you hear the facts. You take that recommendation. You take any other set of facts coming from staff or whoever. It doesn't make any difference who - and then you make a determination. Mayor Thompson: Under these circumstances, it might be better, if you wish to speak, to speak as an individual. Before we get into that we will have to talk with Mr. Kulikov, since he is a proponent of this . . . Gene Thompson: But I am neither a proponent or opponent of this project. Just wishing to bring some facts that were not in the minutes. Mayor Thompson: Then you can speak at the termination of Mr. Kulikov's presentation. Roy Kulikov, AB -KOV Corporation: We are developing the particular area south of Brookside along Beaumont Avenue. We have been in line to help develop this particular area for approximately three years now. The research and development that we have done indicates that it is the correct area for our business enterprise. I would like to say that we are not in the business to lose money. If we were to build a shopping center there now, we would lose money. But we are looking to the future. We are looking at ten years and beyond. And between Yucaipa and Hemet, we hope to make Beaumont and the Cherry Valley area one of the most nicest retirement communities around the Pass. And we are going to gamble on it. In order for us to build this nice community, we have to have a certain amount of commercial to strengthen the financial end of it. Financial insti- tutions will finance the entire project providing that you have enough supporting commercial to make it worth their while. So that is why we made the request for the approximate 23 acres. On Page 33 of the information that I have submitted to become a part of this hearing - we gave the same information to the Planning Commission - is a letter that I had sent to the City at that time, and some statistics as to our plans. We are not going to build a shopping center if we can't make any money. We have it in three phases. And since this has taken so long, we feel we are going to move this up another three years, possibly even more, before we fill the area by any kind of a shopping center. On Page 35, I have the dates on the income revenue that was asked by the City at the time, that we approximate. Phase one would be completed by 1984, now we think it is going to be about 1987. Phase two would be completed by 1986, now 1988. Phase three by 1989, about 1993. So we are looking to the future gentlemen. We are not going to destroy the downtown area now, as has been suggested. In regards to . . . may I change the subject just a little bit about . . . I have got a copy of the minutes from July 20, 1982 before the Planning Commission, and the very last page - this is in regards to the City Manager's comments about . . . the very last item I would like to bring out was a statement made by the City Manager, Norman Davis. He opposes the project, but all his statements are there - the opposition. And I notice there are no proponents. And we had some good discussions on why this would benefit Cherry Valley and Beaumont area. But there is nothing in the minutes that are for the project, and everything in the minutes against the project, and I was hoping that, like the City Council meetings, they are word for word, in the minutes. Mayor Thompson: The City Council minutes are not word for word either. The only thing that we try to take down on a verbatim basis are the testimony in a public hearing. Mr. Kulikov: My apologies. Mayor Thompson: The rest of the Council minutes are not verbatim either. They comply with the requirements of the State. Mr. Kulikov: My apologies. I was just going by the minutes I read in the past in my files. City Manager: But did you point out Mr. Kulikov that those statements of mine were not part of your hearing. They were made after the decision had already been made on your case, so they in no way entered your case whatsoever. It was a policy statement of the ad- ministration to the Planning Commission. That is all it was. Mr. Kulikov: But from my standpoint, Mr. Davis, if the City Council had to go only by what was written before them from the Planning Commission, they get a one -sided view, and to me it seems unfair. That is the only comment I have. City Manager: That is what your whole reason for being here tonight, is to give your side and your side only, as far as you are concerned. Mr. Kulikov: That is right. City Manager: No, you have deviated now. Mr. Kulikov: No, not really. I am trying to clarify a point that seems to have been a bone of contention at the beginning here. I have submitted a bound application where we have been cooperating with the City. I think it was about 70 pages or more. It seems that some of our documents get lost from the City files when we would check, especially about the shopping center. And we checked the City files as administrations would change, and our files are empty at the City. So for that reason I bound these together to let you know. The documents speak for themselves. So we respect- fully submit our request that we can go ahead with the project. It is something that will bring millions of dollars to the Beaumont area, and will benefit the entire area to put Beaumont on the map so far as an excellent retirement community in our opinion. Mayor Thompson: According to the recommendation - according to Exhibit "A ", the proposal was C -2 on Beaumont Avenue and Brookside, the southeast corner of Brookside and Beaumont Avenue. The C -2 zone listed here is 23.32 acres. I see 25 acres throughout the different correspondence. Which is correct - 23 acres or 25 acres? Mr. Kulikov: It is more accurate at 23.32 acres. We made an appro- ximate figure of 25 acres. Mayor Thompson: Will you look on Page 84 of the bound book that you have. For the benefit of the audience, would you read the copy of that letter from David B. DeLancy, and explain what that means. Mr. Kulikov: David Delancy is our attorney, and during several of the meetings, when we had the General Plan being discussed, there seemed to be a difference of opinion as to the amount of shopping needed to substantiate the project. And it reads "May 24, 1982. City of Beaumont, Attention: Mr. Gary Croft, Planner. Regarding Titleex FHA Insurance Requirement. Dear Mr. Croft: Mr. Kulikov informs me that you have had discussions as to the amount of commercial zoning needed for his project, Cherry Valley Acres (you have the map and projection on file). We have checked with FHA and they concur with their previous expression that 15% of the gross residential area that is under residential development may be commercial." We feel our client's map approximates that requirement and respectfully request consideration for the 15% commercial area as previously discussed. May we hear from you in this regard at your earliest convenience. Sincerely yours, David DeLancy. Mayor Thompson: Okay, what is the figure - 15% of what - the base figure that you take 15% of that comes out that amount commercial acreage. Mr. Kulikov: In our long range plans, we have an option to purchase Charles Ciraolo's forty acres adjacent to our property, and with our property, and with DEVCO, there is approximately 140, and if we get the ten acres on the corner - depending on how it comes out - there will be 150 acres. So, we are at approximately 15% of the total area that will be developed. Mayor Thompson: Are there any other questions of Mr. Kulikov at this time. We may get back to you in just a minute. Steve Pleasant, CM Engineering: Representing 40 acres of the project, DEVCO Development. I really have no other comments other than the staff is in support of the zoning requested, and we concur with staff and the Planning Commission action on it. Do you have any questions. Mayor Thompson: I have a question. I don't see it anywhere in here in any of your sketches. But quite a few years ago - wait a minute there was one here. It is on Page 51, or Page . . it is the drawing - the architect's drawing or rendition of the proposal. Beaumont Avenue - we show, according to your drawing, we show one - two - three - four ingresses on Beaumont Avenue. Anywhere down the line has anybody told you - or mentioned to you the fact that the Deodar trees on Beaumont Avenue are not to be disturbed. There will be no ingress or egress on Beaumont Avenue. That there will be a frontage road beyond those trees, so that they are maintained and saved. Steve Pleasant: We have discussed that point in the hearing back before the Planning Commission and also with City Council, and I indicated my support for such a proposal. We felt that was an asset to the project. Primarily, Beaumont Avenue affecting the commercial P;; cra 7 area. The specific plan was prepared some time ago, prior to the City embarking on the plan that they have now. We, I think, selected a way where - not specifically how many access points or what the final solution would be, but it would be resolved at the specific plan stage. We indicated that we could limit the number of entrances. But also at that hearing we indicated that for the commercial to extend along Beaumont Avenue, we are talking about 600 feet, but I would hardly call that strip development commercial where we are controlling access providing a master planned overall type of deve- lopment of commercial and residential, that we could control the number of access points, and it would be - it might not be a - as I envision - it would be a landscaped access drive perhaps not like a full public street, but I don't have the final solutions now. You would have quite a bit of pavement out front. At all costs you would want to preserve the trees. That is an amenity of the area. That is the symbol so to speak. We would have to work with staff and your honorable body in coming up with these solutions. But that is something that is in the future at that point. So, yes, I say yes we support the limiting of the access and saving the trees. In the commercial we would be able to work around that. Councilman Lowry: I shop at a little market up there along Beaumont Avenue, which I guess it is below Cougar Avenue. That must be zoned C also for them to be operating there. The little barn there. Councilman Shaw: They have a little farm in back there too. Gary Croft: It is zoned R -1. It came in under the same annexation. When it was in the County, it was not zoned commercial, it was zoned agriculture, and it went in with a plot plan approval for a permanent agriculture stand on a farm. The inspectors are very lax in checking on what is produced on the farm, and what is sold on the site, but it is really there as an agriculture stand of a permanent nature, and not as a commercial use. Councilman Lowry: How much area is involved in that. Gary Croft: Their actual development is probably less than an acre in terms of commercial use, and then they have approximately total acreage of ten acres. Councilman Lowry: By a grandfather act, they more or less have permanent rights . . . Gary Croft: They are a non - conforming use, and, as such, fall under in our rules in 490 related to non - conforming uses. The amount of agriculture clearly doesn't support the amount of commercial in the establishment, and that is the problem that the County had in approving it. Dowlings is another similar one, but it more closely conforms to what the County had in mind in that they have a very large orchard behind them, but many of these agriculture stands of a permanent nature tend to grow beyond what their original approval was at the County level. Councilman Lowry: What is our position now that the land is annexed as far as that land is concerned. Gary Croft: Basically, they are zoned R -1 and are a non - conforming use. And until . . . they fall under the same plan category and . Councilman Lowry: Well what do they have - twenty years, thirty years . . . Gary Croft: Thirty Years. Councilman Lowry: Thirty years that they can occupy that. That is the point that I was trying to bring out. Gary Croft: It is thirty years of non - conforming from the date that they became non - conforming - which was when they completed annexation. Councilman Lowry: How can they establish how much that area they can for thirty years use as C -1 or C -2. Gary Croft: It would be the existing developed area. The building and the parking. Page 8 City Manager: If it burned down, or should fall down by reason of earthquake they could not rebuild. Gary Croft: Any natural disaster or otherwise abandonment of the project for a year. There are various rules - could stop the project. Mayor Thompson: Are there any other questions. Could we have a proponent now. Irish Mitchell, 402 East 6th Street: Two councilmen were here at the time they applied for annexation. At the time of the annexation it was expressed that they were interested in having commercial development in this area, and it might be seven or eight years but they wanted to have it established and so it might discourage any other commercial development on the other side of Brookside up in the Cherry Valley area. There are around eighteen to twenty -two acres just off of Cherry Valley Boulevard they are looking very strenuously at getting in on zoning through the County to make that a shopping center. Now the whole question lies here. If this is granted as a commercial, it would have a deterrent in having another shopping center built within a mile or mile and a half of this City that would pull away sales tax revenue from this particular area. I believe all you gentlemen realize that almost the life's blood to the City at the present time is sale tax. Now putting in the commercial in that area is not going to be a detriment to any- one else, because it will not develop until such time as other developments come. As far as the community improvement, I do not see where it will affect the community improvement in the downtown area, because that would be a different type of a development and improvement. You cannot expect to make a shopping center in a downtown area. You don't find them any other place. I do not know what you gentlemen have in mind, I was not at the hearing at the Planning Commission, but I do recall when they first came in, they said they needed the commercial, everyone decided at the time that it was feasible to annex that area for commercial use at some time in the future, to keep from losing any more commercial out of the area. Thank you. Mayor Thompson: May I make one remark, Mr. Mitchell to one of your statements. Commercial development on that particular corner would be a deterrent for further commercial development in the Cherry Valley area that would draw sales tax away from the City. Is that basically what you said. Mr. Mitchell: Yes. It would have a tendency to hold the commercial within the Beaumont City Limits. Mayor Thompson: It doesn't really track what you just said. Because it would not be a deterrent per se. An example of that is the shopping centers that were built on four corners at Sanderson and Florida in Hemet. They do not deter other commercial developments in the area. Mr. Mitchell: I did not say deter - I said it would have a tendency to have the first developments in the Beaumont area, and it would not encourage the ones in the outside area, bearing in mind, of course, that we are living in Beaumont, we are not living in Hemet. There is a hell of a difference between the two towns. Gene Thompson, 295 West 12th Street: Now, hoping to bring a couple of more facts to the public hearing. At the public hearing at the Planning Commission meeting, it was also discussed that while the City of Beaumont is really, at this time, engaged in a project in looking towards the east in regards to an annexation, the City Council would like to turn its head to the west, and take a look to the west of this application. We considered not necessarily the City Limits itself, we considered the sphere of influence within the City. Now, you are apparently undergoing annexation - or attempting to annex the Deustch property, which is located directly to the east of this property. We were looking basically to the west. The Planning Commission was looking basically to the west of this area as a potential for it coming into the City. It is not in the City now, but it will eventually, I feel, it will eventually come in as the other projects have. We considered that, and we also considered the idea of the General Plan stating that they would like to redevelop their downtown area. Well that is a noble concept. If you use that General Plan and take it to the next step, if that General Plan had been in effect three to four years ago, I doubt very seriously if you would have had K -Mart Shopping Center come in here, because they said they wanted to redevelop the downtown area, the K -Mart Shopping Center would not have been allowed to come in under the General Plan. Now this gentleman is asking for approxi- mately 23 acres. In the area zoned around his project, you have R -3, R -T, RMH and directly to the south you have Mr. Shelton's project, which is R -3 also, which was just done the first of July. So you will eventually have the base for a shopping center. Now Mr. Mitchell has alluded to the fact that in the downtown area I don't think that you are going to get a commercial area of this nature down there, and you are seeing that now. You are not seeing that now. I doubt very seriously if you will see that in any es- tablished township. What you are seeing now in Beaumont, you are seeing a revitalization of that downtown area through the manu- facturing zone. The town was a commercial through there before the freeway came, and then the freeway came and split the town, and you saw a decline in the township. Now, over the last four to five years you are seeing a revitalization of that through the manufacturing - through the circuit factory - through the machine shops - and things like this - and this is good - it brings a lot of cash flow to the area, which is definitely what a township needs. We did not feel that it would detract - the Planning Commission did not feel that it would detract from that area, because it would be built in stages, and I can't find the page I was looking for - in the first phase of this project, you find tennis courts, recreational facilities, and I think you find a restaurant and a motel. Now I really defy you to go out and find me some tennis courts and some other recreational facilities in this town that are going to be in opposition to it, or is going to have competition. You are going to point out Parks and Rec - but what do you have - you have two courts out there. In this area you are going to find this. You are going to find some kind of recreation. And I think in the first stage, that will be a magnet to draw in other residential areas to this shopping center and, as you know, the shopping centers need the residential areas, which we have, which the Planning Commission and the City has agreed to zone R -3, R -MH, R -T. Eventually, again, getting back to my first statement, is that that west side will come into the City. Currently it is in the County. It is just a matter of time. Mr. Kulikov has mentioned that it is going to take ten to thirteen years. I defintely give it all of that. But I think by the time that this project is here, we are going to see it. And I doubt very seriously, I don't think that the Planning Commission, given their sentiments right now, will allow any other base commercial to come in on any of these other lots. I know that the City Manager is going to say, well he set the trend. I don't think so. I think this gentleman here has a project that will definitely fly with the time alloted that the residential will build up in, and I think that once we get it, we will have a good project. Now I just hate to see going down here and going by recommendation of staff of six acres, then what are you going to have up there - you are going to have a fat Circle K. That is not good. I think you should have a legitimate shopping center. Mr. Kulikov, at the Planning Commission, stated that he could live with fifteen acres. Well, the Chairman was getting ready to make a motion and someone else made a motion to approve the total C -2, and so we went along with it. But I figured if the gentleman says he could live with fifteen acres of this, I think that fifteen acres is a little bit more viable project at this time - where in the future if he wants to build it up, then yes, you can go to this other seven acres. But just to have the C -2 area in the old town, and envision a shopping center of any magnitude - any decent shopping center, I doubt very seriously if you are going to get it. I know during the General Plan discussion, that the Planning Commission stated that they felt the commercial strip should stay on Beaumont Avenue. The City Manager stated that it should go all the way over to Euclid and Magnolia, and then have someone come in, hopefully, and buy up all those houses and build a shopping center down there. I think that if anybody really thinks about it - that is really not going to happen. Lets be realistic about that. Gentlemen, a developer is going to come in. He is going to find bare land and he is going to build on that much sooner than he is going to build on any lot that you have in town that is already existing with a building. Page 10 Mayor Thompson: Does anybody have any questions. Gene Thompson: Let me make one other thing clear. One of the other reasons that we were concerned about the minutes, or the minutes should be a point of concern, is that we gave a lot of discussion to it, and we also discussed the idea of - or the Planning Commission also discussed an idea of the frontage road. Now you are going to lose some acreage on that because we know exactly what the County says in regards to that, and we agree. We feel that the trees should be saved, and have limited access. So you are looking at 23 acres total commercial, but how much of that, when you get right down to it, that you are looking at actual commercial pads itself. You have to take into consideration the parking ordinances that we have in this town it is going to require for the square footage of these types of developments. And you have to take in that consideration, plus your 5% landscaping minimum. I doubt very seriously that he is going to do 5 %. I am almost positive he is going to do more. So, actually, when you get right down to the total commercial building pads itself, I think you have to really take a look at it and find out just exactly how much is going to go to parking, how much is going to go to commercial, and this will be done under the specific plan as required by the General Plan. Mayor Thompson: I have a question, Gary. Basically, staff recommended - what was the total figure that they recommended for commercial out there. Gary Croft: Approximately 5 -6 acres. Mayor Thompson: 5 -6 acres. Would that be net acreage. He raised a point, which I had not even thought of. What is the net acreage that would be used for commercial, exclusive of street - right -a -way, I mean street ingress. Gary Croft: It would vary depending on the design of the streets that would be developed, but probably in the neighborhood of 4 -1/2 acres out of the six at the minimum. And, in giving our existing development plan requirements for parking - and this is true of almost any jurisdiction today, normally you can figure about one -third of the project property would be developed into structures and two - thirds into parking and landscaping. You will recall the old ordinance several years ago was 50 -50, and that ratio proved unworkable because of the number of vehicles that people drive, and virtually all jurisdictions break out with a ratio of about one -third building, two - thirds parking and landscaping. It varys slightly, but that is a good rule of thumb. Councilman Hammel: How big would you say is the entire shopping area where K -Mart is, approximately. Gary Croft: Including the acre at the corner undeveloped, it is 12 acres, give or take a half an acre. Mayor Thompson: Is there any other person in the audience that would like to speak to this. Emeline Schuelke, 1316 Palm Avenue: Although the staff recommendation is not to zone the property for commercial use at this time, or at the present, but rather to consider it for commercial when their project site plan is actually presented before the City Planner and this Council. This is something I don't think I heard come up in the last - from the last few people - but, in looking at it from a financial standpoint on the developer's side, I would say that also it is very hard for a developer to go out and hire architects and have spent thousands of dollars on blueprints for a project that is zoned R -1, and take the chance then of coming to a City and hoping that the City will change the zoning to what their needs are - or to fit their blueprints. I think when I thought about it before, I thought also that if we are going to help our developers feel en- couraged to work in our City, and to use their developments out here, that we need to work with them also on helping them not spend so much money. If they make money, like Mr. Kulikov said, they are not here to lose money. They are here to make money, and you know that if they make money, the City will make money. And, I know Page 11 myself, if I were to start a project, I wouldn't want to go forward in spending all the money for blueprints, and all the engineering and surveying and all that, and then hope to get a zone that will fit my needs. I think that I can see that staff saying - wait until we have a project before us, and then approve it. But on a financial standpoint that wouldn't be feasible for the developer. I think the project is not going to be developed immediately. It is going to phased out over a certain amount of time. I feel that we need to give credit to the developers also that they have some intelligence as to when some of their stores should be put up. When some of the housing should be put up because commercial also warrants population in order to make it feasible business. As far as being a detriment to the downtown area, I think it would encourage the downtown area to take a look at themselves, and maybe motivate them to upgrade what they have to compete. Right now they have no competition, and I love Beaumont. I have lived here all my life, and I stand to gain nothing from what I am saying. I would just as soon see Beaumont remain empty up there, but either we are going to have houses on top of each other up there, or we are going to allow some housing and some commercial which would be kind of refreshing not to have to drive out of town for some of the things that we need here. When you look at other areas you see that their development in commercial is just as fast growing as their development of residential. And these are my opinions. Thank you for listening to me. Mayor Thompson: Is there anyone else out there that would like to speak on this subject. Charlie Rigley, 1162 Magnolia Avenue: Just a piece of information that I feel, that in my mind would be necessary before I could make a decision that you are being asked to make, and that is with regard to the developers, what is their track record for completion of developments that they have started. Mayor Thompson: May I address that. In considering amendments to the zoning ordinance, those that consider the plans that are pre- sented to substantiate the request for a zone change - in the past I - (tape changed - comment continues as follows) - those pieces of paper are not necessarily what you will find on the finished product. So, basically, what the question is - is do the Planning Department, the Planning Commission, the City Council feel that the proposal, if it is built, will be the best utilization of the land. Land planning, land utilization - and that is basically what it is. To be honest with you, I dont' expect Mr. Kulikov and Mr. Pleasant - I don't expect them to build that out there for the simple reason that once the zoning happens, the next thing you are probably going to see is a for sale out there. So, does that answer your question. Mayor Thompson: Do we have anyone else that would like to add input. Gene Thompson: That last statement that you made I really would not like to see a decision based on that statement alone. Mayor Thompson: No it is not based on that statement - from past track records on many proposals like this that come in with beauti- ful pieces of paper haven't materialized as presented. Gene Thompson: The thing is this project must stand on its own merits, and it can't really stand on the track record of other people, certainly the other gentlemen around in the area have to be taken into consideration. Mayor Thompson: Maybe I didn't say this correctly. The request at the public hearing is for the utilization of the land in that area. Would Mr. Kulikov and Mr. Pleasant's project be acceptable on that land - or Joe Doe from down the street, five years from now that has a development plan approved for that particular piece of property for that zoning designation. That is basically what I was intending to say, but maybe I didn't. Is commercial on the corner of Beaumont Avenue and Brookside a viable land use there, provided the other development goes with it. Gene Thompson: You have to consider the project on its own merits, but you also have to consider the surrounding area. We all know it is not a viable project at this time. We all know that the other DnrTo 1 7 areas will build in the future, and then at the time as more build, the project will become more and more viable, and certainly if the othe area comes in it will definitely become viable. Now I have one more question, and then I will get out of your hair. A question to the City Planner. You stated that you consider one -third of the area to be the actual commercial built, and the other two- thirds would be the parking and the roads and the landscaping, so actually if we have 23 acres we are talking a little less than eight acres, the actual commercial. Is that correct. Gary Croft: Yes, it is correct. Their proposal is about eight acres of building. Gene Thompson: So, actually, we are talking about eight acres. Councilman Lowry: Maybe you can answer. I am looking at this Exhibit: "B ".here and these lines - are these divisions of the lot lines as they are established - do you know that. Gene Thompson: This is what he I doubt very seriously - I don't they Gary, as they are now. has proposed along for his proposal. think they are the lot lines, are Gary Croft: The lot lines are found on Page 55. There is a Proof os Survey done on top of the parcel map. Councilman Lowry: It is essentially then the same. Mayor Thompson: Is there anyone else that would like input on this subject. Proponents. Is there anyone in the audience that is opposed to this particular project. City Manager: Let me speak as the Director of the Community Develop- ment Agency. I have heard a great deal of discussion about projects here. And, like you have already stated, this is not really a project, it is merely a change of zone and ought to be looked at only as a change of zone. As the Director of the Community Improvement Agency, for the City of Beaumont, I must bring to your attention, we have roughly eighty plus acres within the commercial area of the City of Beaumont that are not developed, or almost not developed at this point. And it was stated by people who came to the microphone that there is no chance that this area would ever be developed into a viable shopping center, and yet I submit to you that one of your major objectives in the creation of the Community Development Agency as the City Council was to create an organization that could work with any particular developer, if one ever did come to this community, put parcels together, and create just such a parcel of land, whether it be twenty acres, or ten or fifteen, or whatever. And keep that business within the present community commercial area. Someone came to the microphone and said this has never happened in any other area, and it won't happen here. I have to submit to you that that is really not the case. Redlands, as an example, allowed - twenty or twenty -five years ago - allowed the center to develop out on Brookside in the Redlands area, and after that one center was deve- loped, they made the decision - that Council made the decision that never again would they allow anything to go into the outlying areas. The result was that they forced commercial development back into the downtown area. Major commercial development. The Harris Co. and all the allied shops that went in there. Maybe it isn't the Harris Co. - I can't really recall. One of the big ones. And then of course all of the allied shops in the mall there in the heart of the downtown area. Not only did it bring that into the downtown area, and produce that terrific development in the downtown area, but it revitalized the balance of the downtown area, preserves those shops in the old area only a block away, and the result is that Redlands has become a very viable downtown business community. The exact opposite happened in the City of Riverside, and to a major degree in the City of San Bernardino. Those cities allowed the shopping centers to escape to the outlying areas, and put the death knell on their downtown areas. Almost completely in terms of the City of Riverside, and to a lesser degree in San Bernardino, because at least San Bernardino got started early and they brought back in a high commercial, in terms of the - not commercial businesses, but commercial development in terms of banks and these types of facilities Page 13 into the downtown area that did revitalize the downtown area to a degree, and then, subsequently then, back into the downtown area came the mall development of San Bernardino. So you see, if a City, through its development agency, does hold stringently to policy guidelines, they can produce the desired goal. It has happened in many communities, and it will continue to happen in those communities that allow itself to function the way they set out to function, and create what they want to create. If they start allowing these sorts of things, which as Gary has said, would permit a major, almost a regional shopping center in nature, which would, and could, and probably would I ought to say, totally destroy the downtown area of Beaumont, because there is not going to be any growing up, and the more you deteriorate the downtown area, the less chance you have of revitalizing it. I would suggest very stongly to you, as you consider what you are doing here, that either you go ahead with these sorts of developments and disband the agency, or you hang on to the agency and you control these sort of developments. It has to be one way or the other. It can't be both. Mayor Thompson: Basically, isn't the question here not so much whether C zone, commercial zone, is in that area, as to how much. City Manager: I think that is the precise question, yes. Mayor Thompson: Hasn't the Council already established by action previously that commercial zoning will be tolerated, or encouraged, developed on the edges of the City. On First and Beaumont Avenue, that was a commercial area that was put in by this Council. Councilman Lowry: It wasn't anything of this scope though. Mayor Thompson: Not of this scope, but it was approved at First and Beaumont Avenue. So the question is not really whether commercial, but how much. City Manager: I think you are absolutely correct. It is the question of how much. The Duestch property, if they annex to the City, have a projection in their plan of somewhere - do you recall Gary - was it fifteen, sixteen acres total. Gary Croft: Fifteen acres. City Manager: So, you see, if we were talking comparability, we might have eighty or a hundred acres of commercial out there, and even then it wouldn't be comparable, but it would be major regional shopping center type complex, so this is the question I think we have to ask ourselves. Are we going to permit these kinds of spot City creations all over, in the Pass area here, with the result that none of them ever really become viable institutions in terms of commercial activities. That is really the big question. Mayor Thompson: Anyone else that has items that they would like to present opposing this particular development. If we have no more opponents, opposition, negative input on this request, Mr. Kulikov, you are the applicant and you have had your input. Mr. Davis, as Director of the Community Improvement Agency, has had his input opposing your proposal. You have an opportunity now to answer some of his questions, or make comments on his things, and then we will terminate the public hearing whether we adjourn it or close it will be determined on what is said at this time. Roy Kulikov: I appreciate the information that Mr. Davis brought out in regards to destroying the downtown area. Gentlemen, at this time, I have followed development for thirty years, and if you read the Los Angeles Times on experts that have followed the development of the economic situation in the United States, you will find ninety - nine and nine - tenths of them will admit they were wrong, or the economy proved they were wrong. It is not necessarily a rule of thumb that it will destroy the downtown area. In fact, in my observation, developments go on the outside of the area and fill up, and then the downtown area is filled in like the Bunker Hill project in Los Angeles. Councilman Lowry: With public money. ParrA 1 d Mr. Kulikov: Yes, that seems to be the indication of the way it is going to go. Now I am a developer. If you offered me several lots downtown, and knowing it took me three years to get to this point through the City agencies, just to get to this point on raw land, what kind of a headache would I have to try to come downtown. That is just from a developer's point of view. I would stay away from it because it is just a lot of trouble, a lot of political problem, a lot of money problems, a lot of hang -ups, a lot of lawsuits. So we feel that our project is projected on bringing new money into the area with retirement communities. We feel it is a natural, it is going to go from Yucaipa to the Duetsch property to Banning. Now I say this, either Beaumont has a shopping center there on the north end of town or Cherry Valley will, or Duetsch Company will have it right by Banning, or someone else will on the other side. So I feel that our project is going to benefit the Beaumont area with what we have got planned. Any questions. Mayor Thompson: You have heard the pros and cons of this request. Steve Pleasant: Excuse me. I represent a separate project adjacent to the overall project. The 40 acres of DEVCO. I would just like to indicate that, again, there has been very little discussion on the project, but we would support staff's recommendation and the Planning Commission recommendation for R -3 on the property. I would like to conclude, and I don't profess to be an expert on location of commercial property and development patterns, but I attended a study session of the City of Redlands Planning Commission some two or three months ago, where they are considering the General Plan. I happened to be there that night on an industrial project. There was one developer there requesting commercial in an outlying area of Redlands, and at that hearing they did discuss the policy that Mr. Davis indicated to try to keep the commercial downtown. But, discussion in that hearing was tending to be favorable to outlying commercial, because they felt that perhaps it was somewhat anti- quated. It had been in force for some time. The proposal was for an existing dairy property that had an existing sales operation and wanted to expand the commercial to make it more viable. Redlands, at the present time, has a very viable downtown center, and they were spreading out, but again, this is a truly different situation than what you have in Beaumont. You have to draw the people in. You keep them out by not providing a commercial area for them. Councilman Lowry: Did you say you supported staff's recommendation. Steve Pleasant: No, I do not support -- I support staff's recommen- dation on our forty acres - yes - but we have no objection to the commercial proposed by AB -KOV. Mayor Thompson: On Page 55 of this Proof of Survey - Parcel One, Parcel Two and Parcel Three . . . Gary Croft: And there is a Parcel Four also. Mayor Thompson: Parcel Four - just north of Mr. Ciraolo's property. The Proof of Survey encompasses all this area that is outlined in black here. Except Parcel One is to . . . Gary Croft: The original parcel map that was done in the County on this property created four parcels, which a parcel map is allowed to do. And they included Parcels One, Two and Three, which you see in the lower portion of the map in the lighter type, and then the balance is Parcel Four. They then came in and did a Proof of Survey, which is roughly equivalent to a parcel map, on the old Parcel Four, which included - which was then divided into four new parcels. The ones that are in the circles. Those are the four parcels that are in the Proof of Survey, which divide the old Parcel Four. Mayor Thompson: The whole thing is old Parcel Four. Gary Croft: Yes. In the Parcel Map you can see numbered there eighty - eight seventy -six in the lighter type. Mayor Thompson: What brought it to my mind is the parcel to the east. Is that the forty acres up there. Page 15 Gary Croft: Yes. It is really Parcels One and Parcel Four. Mayor Thompson: One and Four - that whole area there. Gary Croft: Well, it is a little more complicated than that. They own Parcel One, if I recall right, and have the option on Parcel Four east of the road running north and south. Councilman Lowry: Can that be divided now, again? Gary Croft: Not by a Parcel Map process. Not by these people. Under State Law you are only allowed to create four parcels via the Parcel Map process, unless it is a commercial or industrial project - zoned such - then you can create more than that. That is a special thing - but no - to divide that into two parcels they would have to do a tract map. City Manager: Well isn't Parcel Four in two ownerships then? Councilman Lowry: Yes. Gary Croft: No. They only own Parcel One. Unidentified: Parcel One has an option on Parcel Four. City Manager: But what I am saying though. If you look up there, Gary, the long piece, which is what - about 22 -24 . . . Gary Croft: 25 acres. City Manager: 25 acres. The lower half of that long piece is joined to Parcel Four in this map here. Gary Croft: It would require a land division before the development could occur. A tract map would be required if these people are the owners of the property. City Manager: Is it possible, if Parcel Three there were made also commercial, which is what the request is, that anybody in the future could come in and present a tract map splitting that down into multi- ple numbers of commercial lots. Gary Croft: Yes. They could create any number of commercial lots as a commercial parcel map with the commercial zoning on it. Whether that would be approved would be up to yourselves - the Commission and yourselves . . . City Manager: How much jurisdiction does the Council - or any entity have - in terms of denying a map just because they want to deny it. Gary Croft: It is normally rather difficult. Extremely difficult. Maybe I ought to put it that way. You have the opportunity of modifying it. Of setting conditions on it. Restricting access - those kinds of things. City Manager: As long as the requirements are State Law in that, it is almost impossible . . . Gary Croft: That is right. If it meets the ordinances of the City, and the Subdivision Map Act, which is the State Law, it is virtually impossible to deny a land division. That is the main reason for having it, incidentally. The land can be divided with the Map Act alone. But the City adopts an ordinance to set conditions, and to set improvement standards. And that is the main reason we have our land division ordinance within the City. But under our ordinance, both the existing one and the one that is under discussion by both the Council and the Commission, it could be divided into any number of commercial parcels. Councilman Lowry: When you enter into a contract, you quite often make a contract to put up a bond. Is it possible to make a deve- loper, when he puts up a plan like this, saying this is my intent, put up a bond that he is going to follow through and do this. Page 16 M Gary Croft: No. You can only do bonds when you come to actually putting in improvements. City Manager: There can be absolutely no conditions attached to zoning. Gary Croft: Improvement plans, subdivisions, can be conditioned, but zoning is unconditional. Mayor Thompson: The basic question restated is the corner of - parcel in question - do you feel you want commercial on it, and if so, how much. That is basically what it amounts to. Gary Croft: Yes. It is really a question that has already been indicated of how much commercial would be appropriate to the project. 25 acres commercial. If the ten acres to the south - that would make 35 acres. The entire Riverside Plaza, which you are familiar with - the Harris Company and Montgomery Wards and Builders Emporium, is 35 acres. That is how much, if the entire area were to go. So it is a relative thing as to how much commercial is considered appropri- ate. The Commission has recommended considerably more than what the staff has recommended as you have heard. Mayor Thompson: We have heard the proponents and the opponents. I think Mr. Kulikov and Mr. Pleasant were supposed to be the last. We are through with public input now because everybody has been heard. Opponents and proponents. Do you have anything else you want to bring to the hearing. If the Council needs no further information under those circumstances, we will close the public hearing and we will exercise our option, under the ordinance, to render a decision within the prescribed time. The normal time on that is forty days from the closing of the hearing. The decision shall be rendered by September 13, 1982. The public hearing was closed at 9:25 P.M. 16. Request from Dionne Green, re Use of Gymnasium. (Continued from July 26, 1982). This agenda item was continued until August 23, 1982 pending receipt of a structural report. 17. Application for Special Permit fo Keep Wolf- Hybrid Dogs Within the Beaumont City Limits. With the adoption of Urgency Ordinance No. 552 (Agenda Item No. 11 ✓` of this Agenda) the applicant shall make his application to the State for a permit. No further action will be taken by the City Council. 18. Request from William Salinas for Reimbursement for Expense Caused by Sewer Back -Up. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont denies the request from William Salinas for reimbursement for expense caused by sewer back -up, and directs the City Clerk to send a Notice of Rejection. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 19. Sewer Master Plan Update Report and Presentation and Community Improve- ment Agency Update Report. (Continued from July 26, 1982). This agenda item was continued until September 17, 1982 at 1:00 P.M. 20. Request from Ms. S. L. Nelson to Connect to City Sewer System. (Continued from July 26, 1982). No action was taken on this agenda item. The City Manager was directed to obtain the necessary figures and information for Ms. Nelson re- t' garding the possibility of annexation. 21. Endorsement of Operating Procedure of Senior Citizen's Advisory Commission. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont endorses the operating procedures of the Senior Citizens Advisory Commission. AYES: V NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. None. None. None. 22. Adoption of Assurance of Compliance with Civil Defense Regulations. On Motion by Mayor Thompson, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts the Civil Defense Assurance of Compliance and authorizes the Mayor to sign same. AYES: Councilmen Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman May 23. Recommendation on Disposal of City Truck. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City / Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the recommendation of the City Manager and declares the 1971 Chevrolet pick -up truck, VIN No. " y CS141Z665542 surplus, and authorizes the sale of said pick -up to the Beaumont Unified School District for $800.00; or by sealed bids. 24. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Disposition of BOMAG Asphalt Recycler. On Motion by Mayor Thompson, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont declares the BOMAG asphalt recycling machine surplus to the needs of the City, and authorizes the City Manager to offer it for sale to the City of Banning at a cost of $5,700.00, with the funds to be allocated to Budget Line Item 01 -310 -300 for structure improvements in the City yard if the sale r materializes. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 25. Request for Bdmbursement of Items Purchased and Turned Over to Police Department. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the request for reimbursement of $14.84 to Officer John Hackman, to be charged to ine Item 01- 205 -254. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 26. Request for Budget Adjustment. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the request for a budget C % adjustment from Account No. 226, Office Supplies, to Account No. / 303, Furniture and Fixtures, in Fund No. 01 -140, for the additional amount needed to purchase a 4- drawer legal size locking file cabinet. Page 18 fi AYES: Councilmen May, NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 27. Acceptance of Notice of Completion of Palm Avenue Sewer Extension and Authorization for Recordation of Same. 28. Recommendation on Wage Negotiations with PERC, KOPS and Management - Executive Group. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the wage negotiations X11 with the City employees as stated in City Manager recommendation of August 9, 1982, and further authorizes the necessary funds to be transferred from the Reserve for Contingencies 01- 900 -999 to the budget line items necessary to effectuate the approved action. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 28 -A. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts the City Manager's / recommendation dated August 9, 1982 regarding the Memorandum of Understanding with the Management - Executive Group and the Management Employee Benefits for 1982 -83. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 29. Acceptance of Resignations of Senior Advisory Commission Members. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the resignations of Robert Bruce, Jack Dawson and Raymond Coe from the Senior Citizens Advisory 1 " Commission with regret, and directs the City Manager to have City plaques prepared for presentation to each to honor their years of service. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 30. Appointment of Senior Advisory Commission Members. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont appoints John Minjares, Sr., Marian Ricker and Cleo West to fill the vacancies on the Senior Citizens Advisory Commission for two year terms, and reappoints Lila McKinney and Grace Begley to new two year terms commencing July 1, 1982. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Paae 19 On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the Notice of Completion of the Palm Avenue Sewer Extension and authorizes the recordation of same. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 28. Recommendation on Wage Negotiations with PERC, KOPS and Management - Executive Group. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the wage negotiations X11 with the City employees as stated in City Manager recommendation of August 9, 1982, and further authorizes the necessary funds to be transferred from the Reserve for Contingencies 01- 900 -999 to the budget line items necessary to effectuate the approved action. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 28 -A. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts the City Manager's / recommendation dated August 9, 1982 regarding the Memorandum of Understanding with the Management - Executive Group and the Management Employee Benefits for 1982 -83. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 29. Acceptance of Resignations of Senior Advisory Commission Members. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the resignations of Robert Bruce, Jack Dawson and Raymond Coe from the Senior Citizens Advisory 1 " Commission with regret, and directs the City Manager to have City plaques prepared for presentation to each to honor their years of service. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 30. Appointment of Senior Advisory Commission Members. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont appoints John Minjares, Sr., Marian Ricker and Cleo West to fill the vacancies on the Senior Citizens Advisory Commission for two year terms, and reappoints Lila McKinney and Grace Begley to new two year terms commencing July 1, 1982. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Paae 19 BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL. AND BEAUMONT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AGENCY MINUTES OF ADJOURNED MEETING OF AUGUST 16, 1982 (Adjourned from August 9, 1982) 1. The Beaumont City Council and Beaumont Community Improvement Agency met in an adjourned meeting at 7:10 P.M., on Monday, August 16, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor /Chairman Thompson presiding. 2. On Roll Call the following Council /Agency Members were present: Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor /Chairman Thompson. Council /Agency Member May was absent until 7:24 P.M., after which time he participated in the meeting. On Roll Call the following Planning Commission Members were present: Livingston, Seaburg, Medina, Chairman Thompson. Commissioner Schuelke arrived at 7:28, Commissioner Berg arrived at 7:29 and Commissioner Remy arrived at 7:42. 3. Authorization for Councilman L. W. May to Leave the State for a Period of Ninety Days. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City / Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes Councilman L. W. May to leave the State for a period of ninety days. (/ AYES: Councilmen Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman May. 4. Budget Transfer to Allocate Funds to Reserve Pistol Range. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the transfer of $5,000.00 from the Appropriation for Contingencies, 01- 900 -999 to 01- 205 -301, �Z Poli' Budget, improvements other than buildings, which will provide money for firing range construction at Bogart Park. AYES: Councilmen Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman May. 5. Authorization for Placement of Order for 1983 Vehicles with State Purchasing Department. yOn Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the City Manager to place an order for three vehicles with the State Department of General Services to be included with their bid package on September 1, 1982. V AYES: Councilmen Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman May. 6. Joint Meeting of Council and Planning Commission to Review and Discuss Fee Schedules in Proposed Ordinance No. 547 (land division ordinance), V and other Planning and Building Fee Schedules. Page 1 Chief Planner Gary Croft opened the discussion outlining the three basic approaches in setting fee schedules for planning purposes: a. Token Fee. b. Agency Average. c. Cost Approach: 1. Full Cost. 2. Percentage Cost. A general discussion and review of the proposed fee schedules by the City Council, Planning Commission, City Manager and Chief Planner followed. No action was taken. Respectfully submitted, III -B!" Page 2 BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL AND BEAUMONT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AGENCY MINUTES OF ADJOURNED MEETING OF AUGUST 17, 1982 (Adjourned from August 16, 1982) 1. The Beaumont City Council and Beaumont Community Improvement Agency met in an adjourned meeting at 1:10 P.M., on Tuesday, August 17, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor /Chairman Thompson presiding. 2. On Roll Call the following Council /Agency Members were present: May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor /Chairman Thompson. Councilman Hammel was absent. 3. Community Improvement Agency Update Report. Mr. Marshall Krupp, Director of Community Development Services for �1 Willdan Associates, the consultant for the City for the Improvement Agency, presented a verbal update report concerning the Community l/ Improvement Agency. 4. Sewer Master Plan Update Report and Presentation. Mr. Vince Frasca, of Willdan Associates, consultants for the Sewer Master Plan, continued his presentation to the Council regarding the status of the Sewer Master Plan. (This presentation was given partially on July 26, and was continued until this meeting). On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City pi -? Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes Willdan Associates to 1'7�' proceed with Alternative No. 1 of the Sewer Master Plan. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman Hammel. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Mayor Thompson, the City 91 Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the City Manager to CX contact the property owners, Mr. Parker and Mr. Danner, for the proposed treatment plant Site No. 1. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman Hammel. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 3:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, (Ira DEPUTY CITY CLERK BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL AND BEAUMONT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AGENCY MINUTES OF August 23, 1982 1. The Beaumont City Council and Beaumont Community Improvement Agency met in a regular meeting at 7:33 P.M. , on Monday, August 23, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor /Chairman Thompson presiding. 2. The invocation was given by Reverand W. W. Brewer, 1st Assembly of God. 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by City Manager Norman Davis. 4. On Roll Call the following Council /Agency Members were present: Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor /Chairman Thompson. Councilman May was excused. 5. There being no additions, deletions or corrections, the Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of August 9, 1982, Adjourned Meeting of August 16, 1982 and Adjourned Meeting of August 17, 1982 were approved as submitted. 6. Motion by Mayor Thompson to transfer jurisdiction of Plot Plan No. 1010 for Richard Whitman was withdrawn by Mayor Thompson. There being no further objections, Minutes of Regular Planning Commission meeting of August 3, 1982 were accepted as presented. 7. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, warrants as audited per Warrant List of August 23, 1982, with the deletion of Warrant No. 023517, in the corrected amount of $45,941.97, and Payroll of August 12, 1982, in the amount of $28,592.96, were approved for payment as audited. AYES: Councilmen Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman May. 8. ORDINANCE NO. 547 - Regulating the Division of Land. (Continued for Sixty Days from May 24, 1982). FIRST READING. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont continued the first reading of Ordinance No. 547 regulating the division of land until the regular Council meeting of September 27, 1982, pending the completion of the review by the Planning Commission and submittal of the updated )' l draft of the proposed Ordinance. AYES: Councilmen Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman May. 9. ORDINANCE NO. 553 - Finding and Declaring that the Interests of the Motoring Public and of Residents within Valley Mobile Home Community a Mobile Home Park in the City, will be Best Served by Making Certain Provisions of the California Vehicle Code Applicable to Certain Pri- vate Roads within Said Valley Mobile Home Community. SECOND READING. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City D3 Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Ordinance No. 553 at its second reading, by title only. AYES: Councilmen Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman May. P A rfrn 1 10. URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 554 - Adopting by Reference Article 4, Chap- ter 6, Part 3 (Sections 5470 to 5474.10 of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California) and Providing for the Amendment to Ordinance No. 370 and Resolution No. 1978 -28 and Ordinance No. 416 and Resolution No. 1978 -27. (Pertaining to the collection of Sewage and Sanitation Fees). J On Motion b Councilman Lowry, y y, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the n� + City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Urgency Ordinance No. 554 at its first reading. !� The Ordinance was read in its entirety by the City Manager. AYES: Councilmen Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman May. 11. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -49 - Amending Ordinance No. 530 by Revoking Reso- lution No. 1981 -60 and Amending Section 6: Fees, of Ordinance 544, to Provide a Fee Schedule for Permit and Inspection of Encroachments, Including, but not Limited to, Curbs, Gutters, Sidewalks, Match -up Paving, Signs, Utility Connections and Cable TV Installations and a Bond Schedule to Assure Performance. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Mayor Thompson, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -49 amending Ordinance No. 530 by Revoking Resolution No. 1981 -60 and Amending Section 6: Fees, of Ordinance 544. The resolution was read in its entirety by the City Manager. AYES: Councilmen Shaw, NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman May. Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 12. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -50 - Requesting the League of California Cities to Request the President and the Congress of the United States to Continue Revenue Sharing. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Clv� Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -50 re- r` questing the League of California Cities to Request the President and Congress of the United States to Continue Revenue Sharing. The resolution was read in its entirety by the City Manager. AYES: Councilmen Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman May. 13. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -51 - Requesting the League of California Cities to Seek the Revocation of the AB -8 Deflator Law. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -51 requesting the League of California Cities to Seek the Revocation of the AB-8 Deflator Law. ! AYES: Councilmen Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman May. 14. Request for Budget Adjustment to Purchase File Cabinets for the Laboratory at Wastewater Treatment Plant. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the request for a ' budget adjustment from Account No. 10- 405 -254 to Account No. 10 -405 -303, in the amount of $300.00 for the purchase of file cabinets for the laboratory at Wastewater Treatment Plant. ,~ AYES: Councilmen Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ARSTATN: None. 15. 16. Designation of Voting Delegate for League Annual Conference. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont designates Mayor Pro Tem Richard Hammel as the voting delegate representing the City of Beaumont at the League of California Cities annual conference, and designates City Manager Norman Davis as the alternate voting delegate. AYES: Councilmen Shaw, NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman May. Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. Request from Dionne Green for Use of Gymnasium. (Continued from August 9, 1982. Structural Report still Pending). On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the hiring of Len Knapp, of Knapp and Associates, to give the City a report on what needs to be done with the trusses to make them safe, or to make a determina- tion as to whether it is safe, and if there are needs, what those / needs may be, to a maximum of $1,500.00 expenditure. On Motion by Mayor Thompson, the motion by Councilman Lowry was amended to state that the previous action of the Council be rescinded, and that this portion of the building will be made available for public use by September 1, 1982. VOTE TAKEN ON AMENDMENT TO MOTION: AYES: Councilmen Shaw, NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman May. VOTE TAKEN ON MAIN MOTION: AYES: Councilmen Shaw, NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman May. Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 17. Request for a Finding that Premises Located at 549 and 561 Maple Avenue are a Nuisance. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont directs the City Attorney to prepare Llan Order to Show Cause to be served on the owner of the property at 549 and 561 Maple Avenue, to show cause why the dwellings should not be declared a nuisance. AYES: Councilmen Shaw, NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman May. Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 18. Authorization to File Claim for Article 8 Monies. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City 'r ?- Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the City Manager to file the claim for Article 8 monies related to local streets and roads.. AYES: Councilmen Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman May. 19. Recommendation for Adoption of Federal Revenue Statement of Assurance. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts a Statement of Assurance specifying that the City of Beaumont will comply with the requirements Page 3 of Revenue Sharing Act 31, U.S. Code Section 1221, et.seq., and authorizes the City Manager to sign said statement on behalf of the City of Beaumont. AYES: Councilmen Shaw, NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman May. Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 20. Request from CG Engineering for Additional Payment for Services on Pennsylvania Avenue. 21. I� V 22. 23. 24. 25. r i On Motion by Mayor Thompson, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont denies the request of CG Engineering for additional payment for services on Pennsylvania Avenue at this time. AYES: Councilmen Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman May. Request for Injunctive Action re: Albert Hershey. Mr. Hershey stated for the record that Mr. Irish Mitchell would be his agent in this matter. Mr. Mitchell addressed the Council regarding the historical background of this matter and, on the authority of Mr. Hershey, withdrew the notice filed by Mr. Albert Hershey, with Mr. Hershey concurring, with a meeting to be scheduled between Mr. Mitchell and the City Manager. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont files the request for injunctive action re: Albert Hershey, because of the withdrawal of the notice signed by Mr. Hershey dated August 3, 1982. AYES: Councilmen Shaw, NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman May. Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. State Controller's Audit Report on Special Gas Tax Street Improvement Funds as of June 30, 1981. There being no objections, the State Controller's Audit Report on Special Gas Tax Street Improvement Funds as of June 30, 1981 was accepted and filed. There being no objections, the report of Planning Commission actions of August 17, 1982 was accepted and filed. Decision Pending: Change of Zone No. 1005 (AB- KOV -DEV). Due September 13, 1982. No decision has been made at this date. ORAL COMMUNICATION: a. The City Manager requested approval for expenditure of $350.00 for the purchase of 25 ton of red clay material to be used to upgrade the 9th Street baseball diamond. Mr. Tom Daniel, representing the Softball Association, addressed the Council on behalf of this request. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the transfer of $350.00 from the Reserve for Contingency fund, No. 01- 900 -999, to Fund No. 01 -605- 301, Improvements other than Buildings, for the purchase of 25 tons of red clay material to upgrade the 9th Street baseball diamond. AYES: Councilmen Shaw, NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman May. Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. P i RP d b. Ms. Beverly Yuhas, 5346 Evelyn Drive, Banning, California, addressed the Council stating that she had been unfairly treated by Mr. Duersch, of the Personnel Department in the City of Beaumont, and giving her reasons for this statement. Mr. Mike Yuhas, of the same address, addressed the Council on his wife's behalf. C. Mr. Irish Mitchell, 402 East Sixth Street, addressed the Council concerning his inquiry regarding the proposed location for a new wastewater treatment plant, reading from a prepared statement dated August 23, 1982, which was handed to the City Clerk to be made a part of the record. d. Ms. Pat Renna, 987 E. 14th Street, addressed the Council concerning Agenda Item No. 11, which included an annual inspection fee regarding signs, and asked for a further explanation why there would be an annual inspection fee on signs. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:05 P.M. Respectfully submitted, I ,, � ' •_ � �i CLERK CITY Page 5 BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL AND BEAUMONT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AGENCY MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 13, 1982 1. The Beaumont City Council and Beaumont Community Improvement Agency met in a regular meeting at 7:35 P.M., on Monday, September 13, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor /Chairman Thompson presiding. 2. The invocation was given by Reverand Grindstaff, Trinity Pencostal. 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Councilman Shaw. 4. On Roll Call the following Council /Agency Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor /Chairman Thompson. 5. There being no additions, deletions or corrections, the Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of August 23, 1982 were approved as submitted. 6. There being no objections, the Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of August 17, 1982 were accepted as submitted. 7. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, warrants as audited per warrant list of September 13, 1982, in the amount of $86,536.20, and Payroll of August 26, 1982, in the amount of $28,575.21, were approved for payment as audited. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 8. Acceptance of Resignation of Ms. Hazel Shannon from Senior Citizens Advisory Commission. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the resignation of Ms. Hazel Shannon from the Senior Citizens Advisory Commission with regret. i AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 9. Presentation of City of Beaumont Plaques to Bob Bruce, Jack Dawson, Ray Coe and Hazel Shannon in recognition of their Service to the Senior Citizens Advisory Commission. Mayor Thompson presented a City of Beaumont plaque to Ray Coe in recognition of his service to the Senior Citizens Advisory Commission. The remaining recipients were unable to attend the Council meeting to receive their plaques. 10. Presentation of Traffic Safety Plaque to the Beaumont Police Depart- ment from the Automobile Club. Mr. Richard F. Gaches, District Manager of the Automobile Club of Southern California, presented a 1981 pedestrian safety citation to the Beaumont Police Department for achieving the best pedestrian safety record for the year 1981 for cities of similar size in the nation. 11. ORDINANCE NO. 555 - FIRST READING - Amending Resolution No. 1972 -17 which Amended Ordinance 369, Prohibiting the Use of Residential Streets and Areas by Heavy Commercial Vehicles. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont passes Ordinance No. 555 at its first reading by title only. Page 1 AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 12. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -52 - Declaring Cystic Fibrosis Week. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982- 52 declaring Cystic Fibrosis Week as September 19 -25, 1982. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. F, NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 13. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -53 - Permitting the County Health Officer of the County of Riverside to Enforce Public Health Rules, Regulations and Orders within the Corporate Limits of the City of Beaumont, California. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -53 permitting the County Health Officer of the County of Riverside r J' to Enforce Public Health Rules, Regulations and Orders within �~ / he Corporate Limits of the City of Beaumont, California. I� AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 14. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -54 - Designating Certain Roads to be in the Federal -Aid Urban System. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman May, the City .+f Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -54 4A designating certain roads to be in the Federal -Aid Urban System. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 1� NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 15. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -55 - Approving an Agreement for the Receipt of Older American Funds for the Period July 1, 1982 and Ending June 30, 1983. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -55 approving an Agreement for the receipt of Older American Funds for the Period of July 1, 1982 through June 30, 1983. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 16. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -56 - Requesting CalTrans to Provide Roadside Maintenance of the Freeway Ramps within the City of Beaumont. On Motion by Councilman May, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City �j Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -56 re- uesting CalTrans to provide roadside maintenance of the freeway ramps within the City of Beaumont. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Page 2 17. DECISION DUE - Change of Zone No. 1005. Applicant: AB- KOV /DEVCO. Location: East of Beaumont Avenue between Cougar Way and Brookside Avenue. Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, to accept VOTE TAKEN ON AMENDMENT TO MOTION: AYES: Councilman Shaw and Mayor Thompson. NOES: Councilmen Hammel and Lowry. ABSTAIN: Councilman May. ABSENT: None. AMENDMENT TO MOTION FAILED. VOTE TAKEN ON MAIN MOTION. AYES: Councilmen Hammel and Lowry. NOES: Councilman Shaw and Mayor Thompson. ABSTAIN: Councilman May. ABSENT: None. MOTION FAILED. Motion by Councilman Lowry to increase the C -1 on Exhibit "B" to 7 -1/2 acres died for lack of a second. Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, to in- crease the C -1 area on Exhibit "B" to 7 -1/2 acres. Motion by Mayor Thompson to amend Councilman Lowry's motion, on Ex- hibit "B ", to go from 7 -1/2 acres to 12.26, with the designation of C -2, was seconded by Councilman Shaw. VOTE TAKEN ON AMENDMENT TO MOTION: AYES: Councilman Shaw and Mayor Thompson. NOES: Councilmen Hammel and Lowry. ABSTAIN: Councilman May. ABSENT: None. AMENDMENT TO MOTION FAILED. VOTE TAKEN ON MAIN MOTION: AYES: Councilmen Hammel and Lowry. NOES: Councilman Shaw and Mayor Thompson. ABSTAIN: Councilman May. ABSENT: None. MOTION FAILED. Further discussion on Agenda Item No. 17 was deferred until the end of the agenda. 18. Request for Reimbursement for Expenses Incurred due to Sewer Back - Up in City Line. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City l Council of the City of Beaumont approves reimbursement to Mr. Hodges for expenses incurred due to a sewer back -up in the City line. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Page 3 Planning Staff recommendation Exhibit "B" as the designation for this zoning. Motion by Mayor Thompson to amend Councilman Lowry's motion, by designating the area on Exhibit "B" shown as Section 17, which is on the southeast corner of Brookside and Beaumont Avenue, 23.32 acres, the C -1 area be changed to C -2 with a maximum acreage of fifteen acres, and the balance of Section 17 be given an R -0 design- ation, was seconded by Councilman Shaw. VOTE TAKEN ON AMENDMENT TO MOTION: AYES: Councilman Shaw and Mayor Thompson. NOES: Councilmen Hammel and Lowry. ABSTAIN: Councilman May. ABSENT: None. AMENDMENT TO MOTION FAILED. VOTE TAKEN ON MAIN MOTION. AYES: Councilmen Hammel and Lowry. NOES: Councilman Shaw and Mayor Thompson. ABSTAIN: Councilman May. ABSENT: None. MOTION FAILED. Motion by Councilman Lowry to increase the C -1 on Exhibit "B" to 7 -1/2 acres died for lack of a second. Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, to in- crease the C -1 area on Exhibit "B" to 7 -1/2 acres. Motion by Mayor Thompson to amend Councilman Lowry's motion, on Ex- hibit "B ", to go from 7 -1/2 acres to 12.26, with the designation of C -2, was seconded by Councilman Shaw. VOTE TAKEN ON AMENDMENT TO MOTION: AYES: Councilman Shaw and Mayor Thompson. NOES: Councilmen Hammel and Lowry. ABSTAIN: Councilman May. ABSENT: None. AMENDMENT TO MOTION FAILED. VOTE TAKEN ON MAIN MOTION: AYES: Councilmen Hammel and Lowry. NOES: Councilman Shaw and Mayor Thompson. ABSTAIN: Councilman May. ABSENT: None. MOTION FAILED. Further discussion on Agenda Item No. 17 was deferred until the end of the agenda. 18. Request for Reimbursement for Expenses Incurred due to Sewer Back - Up in City Line. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City l Council of the City of Beaumont approves reimbursement to Mr. Hodges for expenses incurred due to a sewer back -up in the City line. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Page 3 19. Renewal of Contract with Self - Insurance Administrators. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City j Council of the City of Beaumont approves the renewal of the contract 1� with Self - Insurance Administrators. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 20. Decision re: Offer from Hershey Door Company regarding Sewer Lateral Relocation. The letter from Irish Mitchell, as agent for Albert Hershey, was accepted and filed and decision will be made pending a formal recommendation. 21. CEQA - Negative Declaration on Cherry Avenue Sewer Project. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts the Negative Declaration on the Cherry Avenue Sewer Project. 4 t AYES: Councilmen May, NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 22. Request to Employ Appraiser to Appraise the Court Building, Police Building and School Property. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont grants the request of the City l Manager to employ an appraiser for the purpose of obtaining a joint appraisal report on the City -owned property located at 500 Grace Street and school district property fronting on Orange and Maple treets, with the school district sharing one -half of the cost of $525.00, with the City's share of $262.50 to be charged to Budget Item 01- 145 -252. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 23. Request for Maintenance Agreement Assurance by City of Beaumont for Pennsylvania Avenue Water Line. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts a Minute Order stating that the City of Beaumont gives the Beaumont - Cherry Valley Water District the assurance of the City that they will stand behind the materials and workmanship of the line installed in Pennsylvania Avenue between 8th Street and 11th Street, for a period of one year from the date of acceptance of dedication. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 24. Suggested Revision of Employee's Information and Policy Handbook. This agenda item was continued until the regular meeting of Septem- ber 27 to allow time for further review. 25. Report of Planning Commission Actions at Meeting of September 10, 1982. w- This report was accepted for filing. Page 4 26. ORAL COMMUNICATION: a. Mr. Oscar Leeb addressed the Council voicing his objections to the increase of the sewer charge, and asking why a 50% increase was necessary. Mr. Leeb's questions were answered by the City Manager. b. Mr. Robert Shelley, 540 Euclid Avenue, owner of Beaumont Laundry, addressed the Council objecting to the sewer fee increase for his business, which totals an 800% increase, and was informed his fee had been adjusted to be more equitable considering the amount of usage as compared to the normal residential user. 17. Decision on Change of Zone No. 1005 (Continuation). On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts the recommendation of the Planning Commission as shown on Exhibit "A ", except that the C -2 area be reduced from 23.32 acres to 12 acres, with the balance of the area to be zoned R -3. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw and Mayor Thompson. NOES: Councilmen Hammel and Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. MOTION CARRIED. The City Council adjourned to an Executive Session with the City Attorney to discuss legal matters at 9:54 P.M. The City Council reconvened to regular session at 10:30 P.M. The Mayor announced that the Executive Session had contained dis- cussions regarding legal matters relative to the gymnasium and LAFCO decision. Let the record show no action was taken in Executive Session. ADD ITEM: On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the City Manager the expenditure of a maximum of $2,500.00 for an engineer to design a the seismic reinforcing for the stage wall in the gymnasium. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. `f NOES: None. ' ABSTAIN: None. v ABSENT: None. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, DEPUTY CITY CLERK Page 5 BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL AND BEAUMONT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AGENCY MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 27, 1982 1. The Beaumont City Council and Beaumont Community Improvement Agency met in a regular meeting at 7:35 P.M., on Monday, September 27, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor /Chairman Thompson presiding. 2. The invocation was given by Reverand Del Boatman, Foursquare Gospel Lighthouse. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by City Manager Norman Davis. 4. On Roll Call the following Council /Agency Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor /Chairman Thompson. 5. There being no additions, deletions or corrections, the Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of September 13, 1982 were approved as submitted. 6. Acceptance of Planning Commission Minutes. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City 4` Council of the City of Beaumont transfers jurisdiction of Plot Plan 1027, Save -On Mobile Homes, 715 -719 Massachusetts, to the City I L Council. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. , ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. There being no further objections, the Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 7, 1982 were accepted as submitted with the exception as previously noted. 7. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, warrants as audited per warrant list of September 27, 1982, with Warrant No. 023727, in the amount of $310.79 deleted, in the corrected amount of $115,314.20, and Payroll of September 9, 1982, in the amount of $29,053.82, were approved for payment as audited with the deletion as previously noted. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. BEAUMONT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AGENCY 8. PUBLIC MEETING of the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency of the City of Beaumont to Review and Consider Report on the Beaumont Community Improvement Plan, Project Area and Environmental Impact ? i Report. The Public Meeting was opened at 7:45 P.M. Marshall Krupp, of Willdan Associates, consultants in the Community Improvement Agency, addressed the Council stating that before the public meeting begins he should explain of a possible conflict of interest involving property owned by Councilman Hammel, and re- commended that he abstain from discussion of these matters, not participate in the vote and leave the discussion at this time. Councilman Hammel indicated Mr. Krupp's recommendation was in order, and removed himself from the proceedings. Page 1 Mr. Krupp then.briefly explained the documents submitted to the Council for review and consideration. There being no input from the public, this public meeting was closed. 9. PUBLIC HEARING of the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency to Consider the Adoption of Rules Governing Participation and Pre- ferences by Owners, Operators of Businesses, and Business Tenants in the Beaumont Community Improvement Project Area Pursuant to Section 33345 of the California Health and Safety Code. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:00 P.M. It was noted by Chairman Thompson that proper legal notice had been given and was a matter of record. Mr. Krupp again explained what the Council was reviewing and con- sidering. Chairman Thompson asked for anyone in the audience with questions to come forward. Lyle Millage, Alpen Equipment Rental, 1048 East Sixth Street: A property owner or business that agrees to participate in the rede- velopment - what exactly are they committing themselves to? Marshall Krupp: The specifics of what they would be committing themselves to would come out of the specific planning programs that would be initiated by the Agency and the Council and the staff during the implementation of the project over a period of time. For example, when the rehabilitation program for the commercial area was formulated, the formulation of that program would include criteria and standards that would then be imposed upon the person participating in that commercial rehabilitation program. They would also participate in formulating that program, and the Project Area Committee, who represents the community would also participate in formulating that program so that the community clearly under- stands what they would be committing themselves to if they entered into that kind of agreement. And the agreement would also call that out. Mr. Millage: Well, that was my question. Would the business owner know ahead of time -- that answered my question. Chairman Thompson: Are there any other questions - any other input that you would like as a matter of record. Mr. Krupp: Mr. Chairman, as a final comment, I do want to advise the Council, or the Agency, as well as the community, that these rules can be modified at any time the Agency desires to, so if they are deemed inflexible down the road, they can be modified to make them more flexible to respond to the community. Chairman Thompson: May I ask a question regarding that. For instance, say these rules were determined to be not in the best interests of the Agency, or the community, who initiates the changes. Mr. Krupp: The Agency would initiate the change based upon a recommendation to the staff to bring back changes . . . Chairman Thompson: Or from the Project Area Committee? Mr. Krupp: It could come from the Project Area Committee, it could come from the Planning Commission, it could come from a participant in the community. Chairman Thompson: What I am trying to get you to say is that if rules have to be changed down the road, they can be initiated by citizens of the community that are involved in the Agency work. Page 2 Mr. Krupp: Yes. You do have to have rules though. You could not Eliminate the rules. You do have to have certain rules, but any- one in the community could initiate a recommendation to modify these rules. Chairman Thompson: Are there any other questions or any other input? There being no other questions or input, the Public Hearing was closed at 8:10 P.M. 10. RESOLUTION NO. BCI 82 -12 - Approving the Draft Report on the Beaumont Community Improvement Plan, Project Area and Environmental Z:4 Impact Report; and Authorizing the Transmittal of its Report to the Beaumont City Council. On Motion by Agency Member Lowry, seconded by Agency Member Shaw, the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency approves the draft report on the Beaumont Community Improvement Plan, Project Area and En- vironmental Impact Report; and further authorizes the transmittal of its report to the Beaumont City Council. AYES: Agency Members May, Shaw, Lowry and Chairman Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: Agency Member Hammel. ABSENT: None. 11. RESOLUTION NO. BCI 82 -13 - Requesting and Consenting to Holding a Joint Special Public Hearing to Consider Final Approval and Adoption of the Beaumont Community Improvement Plan and Project Area; and Approval and Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. On Motion by Agency Member Shaw, seconded by Agency Member May, the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency requests and consents to V holding a Joint Special Public Hearing to consider final approval and adoption of the Beaumont Community Improvement Plan and Project Area; and further approves and certifies the Final Environ- mental Impact Report. AYES: Agency Members May, Shaw, Lowry and Chairman Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: Agency Member Hammel. ABSENT: None. 12. RESOLUTION NO. BCI 82 -14 - Approving and Adopting Rules Governing Participation and Preferences by Owners, Operators of Businesses, and Business Tenants in the Beaumont Community Improvement Project Area Pursuant to Section 33345 of the California Health and Safety Code. On Motion by Agency Member Lowry, seconded by Agency Member Shaw, the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency approves and adopts ules governing participation and preferences by Owners, Operators of Businesses, and Business Tenants in the Beaumont Community Improvement Project Area Pursuant to Section 33345 of the California Health and Safety Code. AYES: Agency Members May, Shaw, Lowry and Chairman Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: Agency Member Hammel. ABSENT: None. BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL 13. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -57 - Acknowledging Receipt of Resolutions and Reports of the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency Relating to the Proposed Beaumont Community Improvement Plan and Project Area; Consenting to Hold a Joint Special Public Hearing Thereon by the Agency and the City Council; Setting a Date for Such Hearing; and Providing for the Giving of Notice Thereof. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council. of the City of Beaumont acknowledges receipt of Resolutions and Reports of the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency Relating to Page 3 the proposed Beaumont Community Improvement Plan and Project Area; Consenting to hold a Joint Special Public Hearing thereon by the Agency and the City Council; setting the date of November 10, 1982 at 7:30 P.M., for such hearing; and providing for the giving of notice thereof. AYES: Council Members May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: Council Member Hammel. ABSENT: None. 14. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why certain Structures Should Not be Determined to be Substandard, Unsafe and Dilapidated and Declared a Nuisance. Location: 549 Maple Avenue and 561 Maple Avenue. The Hearing was Opened at 8:22 P.M. with City Attorney Harry M. Dougherty presiding. City Attorney Harry M. Dougherty read into the record the contents of the Order to Show Cause. The owner of the property, Mr. Jack Bowie and one of the tenants, Ms. Lena Crow were present at the hearing. The original Order to Show Cause was marked City's Exhibit No. 1 and entered into the record. The original Affidavit of Mailing was marked City's Exhibit No. 2 and entered into the record. The Building Inspector, Roland Russell, was sworn in as a witness by the City Clerk. Under oath, the Building Inspector described the conditions of the structures as being dilapidated, substandard and in a completely unsafe condition. The Building Inspector's report was marked City's Exhibit No. 3 and entered into the record. Photographs taken of the structures were marked City's Exhibit No. 4 and entered into the record. The Health Department's report was marked City's Exhibit No. 5 and entered into the record. The Fire Department's report was marked City's Exhibit No. 6 and entered into the record. The City Council was then asked by the City Attorney to make a deter- mination whether or not, based on the testimony offered here, that the condition of the premises constitute a nuisance, and that if the City has to tear them down, the cost thereof be charged against the property, and further determining the time to be allowed the tenants to vacate. The hearing was closed at 8:35 P.M. Jack Bowie, 40323 Avy.nida Miravilla, owner of the property, addressed the Council, stating - I am in complete agreement with what you are doing here in the City. I think you should be complimented on it. It is something that should have been done years ago. I own several pieces of property here in town and it is going to greatly increase the value of my property. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont determines that the condition of the f premises located at 549 and 561 Maple Avenue constitute a nuisance, in violation of the Ordinances 534 and 548, Health and Safety Codes and Fire Codes of the State of California, and that said buildings shall be demolished by April 1, 1983, and, if after that period of time, any demolition undertaken by the City will then become a lien upon the property. Page 4 AYES: Councilmen May, NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 15. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -60 - Requesting CalTrans to Control the Waters Channeled under the Freeway to 5th Street. /'On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -60. 2 AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 16. ORDINANCE NO. 547 - Regulating the Division of Land. FIRST READING. This agenda item was continued until the regular. Council Meeting of October 25, 1982 to allow sufficient time for review by the Council. 17. ORDINANCE NO. 555 - SECOND READING. Amending Resolution No. 1972 -17 which amended Ordinance No. 369, Prohibiting the Use of Residential Streets and Areas by Heavy Commercial Vehicles. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Ordinance No. 555 at its 1 second reading by title only. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 18. ORDINANCE NO. 556 - FIRST READING. Amending the Land Use Zoning Map of the City of Beaumont to provide for C -2, R -3 and R -T Zones. (Change of Zone No. 1005 - Beaumont Avenue between Cougar and Brookside). Motion by Councilman Lowry to continue this ordinance pending receipt of answer to Mr. Lowry's Letter to Sacramento regarding the legality of this zone change was withdrawn by Councilman Lowry. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Mayor Thompson, the City /9-1) Council of the City of Beaumont passes Ordinance No. 556 for its first reading by title only. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw and Mayor Thompson. NOES: Councilmen Hammel and Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. MOTION CARRIED 19. ORDINANCE NO. 557 - FIRST READING. Amending Ordinance 525 to Delete Laundries as an Industrial Waste Disposal Operation. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont passes Ordinance No. 557 for its first reading by title only. i AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 20. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -58 - In Opposition to Southern California Gas Company's Application for Rate Increase. - On O Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City �tr Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -58. 1 The resolution was read in its entirety. Page 5 AYES: Councilmen May, NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 21. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -59 - Proclaiming National Fire Prevention Week. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -59 pro- claiming National Fire Prevention Week the week of October 3 through �7� J October 9, 1982. )-",2 Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 22. cx� Request from Ms. Sharon L. Nelson for Connection to City Sewer System. Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, to reject the request of Ms. Nelson for connection to City Sewer System. AYES: Mayor Thompson. NOES: Councilmen May, ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Shaw, Hammel and Lowry. Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel for recon- sideration of the previous vote. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont rejects Ms. Nelson's request for connection to the City sewer system. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 23. Claim filed by C.G. Engineering Against City of Beaumont. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Mayor Thompson, the City Council of the City of Beaumont rejects the claim filed by C.G. Engineering against the City of Beaumont, and directs the City Clerk send a Notice of Rejection. � AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 24. Consideration of Renewal of Lease Agreement with Beaumont - Cherry Valley Recreation and Parks District. (Continued from July 26). This agenda item was continued until the regular Council meeting of October 11, 1982 for further report. 25. Request for Payoff Approval on Haskell Note. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City ouncil of the City of Beaumont directs that $50,000 be transferred �:�• from the Continuing Appropriation for Land Purchases to Budget Line Item 01 -145 -300, Buildings and Lands, and further authorize the expenditure of $50,000 from that budget line item for the consumation of the purchase. AYES: C Councilmen May, H n_ ._, r_ 26. Request for Acceptance of Notice of Completion on Third Street and California Avenue Sewer and Street Improvements; Authorization for Mayor to Sign; and Authorization for Recordation of Same. l On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman May, the City ✓ Council of the City of Beaumont approves the payment to Merlin ./ Johnson in the amount of $2,097.24 on Project No. B78UC 060506, Third Street and California Avenue; accepts the work as complete; , and authorizes the filing and recordation of the Notice of Completion. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 27. Request for Budget Adjustment for Purchase of Pneumatic Sewer Plugs. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the request for budget r!� l adjustment for purchase of pneumatic sewer plugs, the transfer to j be in the sum of $600.00 from Account No. 10- 405 -254 to Account No. i 10- 405 -302. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 28. Request for Reimbursement for Costs Incurred due to Back -Up in City Sewer Line. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City ! Council of the City of Beaumont approves the request for reimburse - r l ment to Mr. Clifford Hodges for sewer back -up at 1062 Wellwood. 1 J AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 29. Request for Authorization to Advertise for Bids on 6th Street Median Curb and Gutter. On Motion by Mayor Thompson, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes advertising for bids on ­,"the 6th Street median curb and gutter. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 30. Request for Minute Order Authorizing Release of Abatement Proceedings Brought by the City of Beaumont as Resolution No. 1972 -35. Location: 37860 Highway 60. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts a Minute Order authorizing ^ the Mayor to sign a release thereby releasing the abatement pro- ceedings brought by the City of Beaumont as Resolution No. 1972 -35. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 31. Request for Permission for Mayor James B. Thompson to Leave the State for a Period of Ninety Days. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont grants permission for Mayor James B. Thompson to leave the State for a period of 90 days. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. I 32. Report of Planning Commission Actions at Meeting of September 22, 1982. The report of the Planning Commission Actions at Meeting of September 22, 1982 were accepted for filing. 34. Suggested Revision of Employee's Information and Policy Handbook. On Motion by Mayor Thompson, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the revised Employee's Information and Policy Handbook, to take effect immediately. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 33. ORAL COMMUNICATION: Mr. Irish Mitchell addressed the Council stating he wanted this in for the record. He then read a letter addressed to the City Council regarding the Hershey By -Pass Concept, and handed the letter to the City Clerk for the record. The Council adjourned to Executive Session regarding a legal matter at 10:20 P.M. The Council reconvened to Regular Session at 10:35 P.M. Let the record show no decisions were made in Executive Session, other than to authorize the City Manager to employ Enos Reid for a report in regard to the Banning annexation application on the Duestch pro- perty. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the City Manager to employ Enos Reid for a report in regard to the Banning annexation application on the Duestch property. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, c+ Page 8 BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1982 1. The Beaumont City Council met in a Special Meeting at 6:07 P.M., on Thursday, September 30, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor Thompson presiding. 2. On Roll Call the following Council Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 3. Discussion Regarding Plot Plan No. 1027. Location: 715 -719 Massa- chusetts. Applicant: Save -On Mobile Homes. Mr. Robert Taylor, representing Save -On Mobile Homes, addressed the Council concerning this plot plan. Gary Croft, Chief Planner for the City of Beaumont, addressed the Council concerning his report and recommendation to the Planning Commission, and answered questions from the Council. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves Plot Plan No. 1027 with all conditions of approval to be required, specifically Condition F, the sidewalk, be installed on Massachusetts Avenue to conform to the City Engineer's requirements, with at least a three foot wide concrete walk adjoining that sidewalk back to the new mobile home, and connect to at least the porch of the second house back. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 4. Discussion Regarding Authorization to Seek Bids for Improvement of Gymnasium. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the City Manager to seek negotiated bids for the improvement of the gymnasium, and to receive any other bids from anyone else who cares to submit one. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 6:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, EDNA J. URKETT, CITY CLERK BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL AND BEAUMONT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AGENCY W MINUTES OF October 11, 1982 1. The Beaumont City Council and Beaumont Community Improvement Agency met in a regular meeting at 7:33 P.M., on Monday, October 11, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor Pro Tem Hammel presiding. 2. The invocation was given by Councilman Lowry. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Councilman Shaw. 4. On Roll Call the following Council /Agency Members were present: May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Pro Tem Hammel. Mayor Thompson was excused. 5. There being no additions, deletions or corrections, the Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of September 27, 1982 and Special Council Meeting of September 30, 1982, were approved as submitted. 6. There being no objections, the Minutes of Adjourned Planning Commission Meeting of September 14, 1982 and Regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 21, 1982, were accepted as presented. 7. On Motion by Councilman Shaw.., seconded by Councilman Lowry, warrants as audited per warrant list of October 11, 1982, in the amount of $130,496.92; and payroll of September 23, 1982, in the amount of $25,350.31 were approved for payment as audited. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Pro Tem Hammel. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Mayor Thompson. 8. ORDINANCE NO.1557 - SECOND READING - Amending Ordinance 525 to Delete Laundries as an Industrial Waste Disposal Operation. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, Ordin- ance No. 557 was adopted by the City Council of the City of Beaumont at its second reading by title only. �r�1 ? 1-1 The Ordinance was read by title only by the City Clerk. J�'� YES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Pro Tem Hammel. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Mayor Thompson. 9. ORDINANCE NO. 558 - FIRST READING - Amending Ordinance 361 to Prohi- bit Vehicles from Standing on the City Streets and Alleys for More than 72 Hours at a time. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont passes Ordinance No. 558 for its first reading. J The Ordinance was read in its entirety by the City Manager. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Pro Tem Hammel. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Mayor Thompson. 10. Consideration of Renewal of Lease Agreement with Beaumont - Cherry Valley Recreation and Parks District. (Continued from September 27 1982). On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, this agenda item was continued until the regular Council meeting of November 8, 1982. Page 1 AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Pro Tem Hammel. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Mayor Thompson. 11. Consideration of Recommendation to Declare Vehicles Surplus with Authorization to Offer for Sale and Solicit Sealed Bids. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont declares the 1973 Dodge Coronet, VIN No. WK41G3G215066 and 1973 Dodge Coronet, VIN No. WK41G3G180672 r )` surplus; authorize they be offered for sale; and direct the Purchasing Agent to solicit sealed bids, to be sold as is, what is and where is. Councilmen May, None. None. Mayor Thompson. Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Pro Tem Hammel. 12. Consideration of Recommendation to Upgrade Pay of Police Corporal. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the {�� r City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the request to ! Z upgrade the salary range of Police Corporal from Range 272 to Range 275. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Pro Tem Hammel. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Mayor Thompson. 13, Consideration of Request to Purchase Transportation Department Van from National Bus Company. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the purchase of the 10 -12 ' 1" ✓ ✓+ passenger van with one wheelchair station and fare box from National Bus Company at a cost of $25,227.00, in the cooperative bid venture with RTA. v AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Councilmen May, None. None. Mayor Thompson. Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Pro Tem Hammel. 14. Request for Budget Transfer to Purchase Heater for Maintenance Shop. l On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the budget transfer from Account No. 01- 505 -260 to Account No. 01- 505 -300, in the amount of $400.00 to purchase a heater for the maintenance shop. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Pro Tem Hammel. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Mayor Thompson. 15. Report of Planning Commission Actions at Meeting of October 5, 1982. �. This report was ordered filed. ADD ITEM Request from Dick's VW Repair for New Hearing Concerning Conditional Use Permit. N. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City J �� Council of the City of Beaumont adopts a Minute Order directing f that the Planning Staff accept an application from Dick's VW Repair for a re- hearing without fee. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Pro Tem Hammel. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Mayor Thompson. Page 2 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Councilmen May, None. None. Mayor Thompson. Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Pro Tem Hammel. 12. Consideration of Recommendation to Upgrade Pay of Police Corporal. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the {�� r City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the request to ! Z upgrade the salary range of Police Corporal from Range 272 to Range 275. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Pro Tem Hammel. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Mayor Thompson. 13, Consideration of Request to Purchase Transportation Department Van from National Bus Company. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the purchase of the 10 -12 ' 1" ✓ ✓+ passenger van with one wheelchair station and fare box from National Bus Company at a cost of $25,227.00, in the cooperative bid venture with RTA. v AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Councilmen May, None. None. Mayor Thompson. Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Pro Tem Hammel. 14. Request for Budget Transfer to Purchase Heater for Maintenance Shop. l On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the budget transfer from Account No. 01- 505 -260 to Account No. 01- 505 -300, in the amount of $400.00 to purchase a heater for the maintenance shop. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Pro Tem Hammel. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Mayor Thompson. 15. Report of Planning Commission Actions at Meeting of October 5, 1982. �. This report was ordered filed. ADD ITEM Request from Dick's VW Repair for New Hearing Concerning Conditional Use Permit. N. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City J �� Council of the City of Beaumont adopts a Minute Order directing f that the Planning Staff accept an application from Dick's VW Repair for a re- hearing without fee. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Pro Tem Hammel. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Mayor Thompson. Page 2 ADD ITEM Bids on Gymnasium Repair. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City ,,'-Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the engineering department to submit the matter of the shear wall in the gymnasium to public bid. / AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Pro Tem Hammel. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Mayor Thompson. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 8:05 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Page 3 BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL AND BEAUMONT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AGENCY MINUTES OF October 25, 1982 1. The Beaumont City Council. and Beaumont Community Improvement Agency met in a regular meeting at 7:33 P.M., on Monday, October 25, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor /Chairman Thompson presiding. 2. The invocation was given by Reverand George Kreiger, First Christian Church. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Councilman May. 4. On Roll Call the following Council /Agency Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor /Chairman Thompson. 5. There being no additions, deletions or corrections, the Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of October 11, 1982 were approved as sub- mitted. 6. Acceptance of Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of October 5, 1982. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, juris- diction over Conditional Use Permit No. CU 81 -1, Gladys Bell., was transferred to the City Council for fee reconsideration, with date set for hearing November 8, 1982, with the balance of the minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of October 5, 1982 accepted as presented. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 7. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, warrants ' as audited per warrant list of October 25, 1982, in the amount of ,." $138.145.13 and payroll of October 7, 1982, in the amount of $25,686.28, were approved for payment as audited. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 8. ORDINANCE NO. 547 - FIRST READING - Subdivision Ordinance. (Con- / tinued from September 27, 1982). I r On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, Ordinance 547 was continued until the regular meeting of November 8, 1982. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 9. ORDINANCE NO. 556 - SECOND READING - Amending Ordinance 490 by Amending the Land Use Zoning Map of the City of Beaumont to Provide for C -2, R -3 and R -T Zones. (Change of Zone No. 1.005 - Location: ii � On ,. -'East of Beaumont Avenue between Cougar Way and Brookside Avenue). Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, Ordinance 556 was continued until the regular meeting of November 8, 1982 pending receipt of an opinion from the Chief Planner, Gary Croft. AYES: Councilmen May, NOES: Mayor Thompson. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Shaw, Hammel and Lowry. PAtr(- l 10. ORDINANCE NO. 558 - SECOND READING - Amending Ordinance 361 to Prohibit Vehicles from Standing on the City Streets and Alleys for more than ,..-72 Hours at a Time. �^iOn Motion by Councilman Lowry, �= Council of the City of Beaumont _s s ,second reading by title only. The Ordinance was read by title seconded by Councilman May, the City adopts Ordinance No. 558 at its only by the Deputy City Clerk. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 11. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -61 - Requesting the Public Employees' Retirement None. System to Extend the Funding Period for Current Service, Death Bene- fits, and 1959 Survivor Benefit Actuarial Liabilities for the City of Beaumont. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -61 with the Resolution to be read in its entirety. The Resolution was read in its entirety by the Deputy City Clerk. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 12. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -62 - Giving Notice of proposed Annexation of Certain Inhabited Territory Designated as LAFCO No. 82 -11 -3, Annexa- tion No. 27 to the City of Beaumont, and Fixing the Time and Place .� for Hearing or Protest Thereto. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -62, and sets the date of November 24, 1982, at 7:30 P.M., as the date for public hearing. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 13. Recommendation regarding Abandonment of Sewer Line Easement across Hershey Door Company Property. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the } f City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts a Minute Order aban- doning the sewer line from Third Street diagonally across the Hershey property to a point where it connects into the manhole behind the Hershey Door building; such abandonment to be effective when the City Engineer accepts the work involving Mr. Bill Williams' lateral connection; and further authorizes the Mayor to sign a Quitclaim Deed as to any right to an easement when Mr. Hershey signs a statement of no rights to any claim in connection therewith as approved by the City Attorney. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 14. Recommendation on Sixth Street Median Bid. j' On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont rejects the bid of Redlands Paving, and further authorizes the City Manager to re- advertise for bids. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 15. Utilization of Wastewater Treatment Plant Lagoon. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the request to utilize the lagoon for septic tank and cess pool pumping disposal and authorizes the City Manager to enter into agreement with any septic tank pumping operator for disposal at the rate of $15.00 per 3000 gallon truck load, such agreement to be revocable at any time, with ? such disposal allowed seven days a week between the hours of 8:00 M. and 5:00 P.M. when the operator is available; and further directs that the revenue from the fees shall go to the sewer I' maintenance fund. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 16. Appointment to Fill Vacancy on Senior Citizens Advisory Commission. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont appoints James T. Bracken, 1211 Pennsylvania Avenue, to fill the one vacancy on the Senior Citizens Advisory Commission. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 17. The report of Planning Commission actions at meeting of October 19, 1982 was ordered filed. 18. ORAL COMMUNICATION: Brien Hammen, 1275 Pennsylvania Avenue addressed the Council stating they are members of Mr. Waller's government class and are required to attend a Council Meeting and School Board meeting once a quarter. James Hilvoskey, who resides on Cherry Avenue, addressed the Council advising he is also a member of the government class, and asked if this Council set the rules for the County area. The Mayor advised the County area was regulated by the Board of Supervisors. Brien Hammen addressed the Council asking what is going to become of the property east of Highland Springs Road, and was advised that LAFCO had ruled this land would be annexed to Banning even though it is in the Beaumont School District. 19. Request for Creation of Position of Block Mason, Cement Finisher and Laborer, and Authorization for Temporary Employment. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves adding the positions of Block Mason, Cement Finisher and Laborer, as recommended by the l City Manager in letter of October 25, 1982, to be employed on a temporary basis. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 8:44 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Deputy City Cle Page 3 BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL AND BEAUMONT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AGENCY MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8, 1982 1. The Beaumont City Council and Beaumont Community Improvement Agency met in a regular meeting at 7:31 P.M., on Monday, November 8, 1982 in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor /Chairman Thompson presiding. 2. The Invocation was given by Councilman Lowry. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Councilman Hammel. 4. On Roll Call the following Council /Agency Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor /Chairman Thompson. 5. There being no additions, deletions or corrections, the Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of October 25, 1982 were approved as sub - mitted. 6. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, warrants as audited per warrant list of November 8, 1982, in the amount of $105,759.1.6 and payroll of October 21, 1982, in the amount of $26,343.54, were approved for payment as audited. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 8. Hearing Regarding Conditional Use Permit No. CU 81 -1, Gladys Bell, (Beaumont Swap Meet). Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, directing that an additional condition of approval be added to Conditional ' Use Permit No. CU 81 -1 to collect an assessment of $1.00 per space was rescinded by Councilman Lowry and Councilman Hammel. l/ On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont directs that additional conditions of approval shall be added to Conditional Use Permit No. CU 81 -1, as follows: No. 37: The Swap Meet shall be allowed to operate seven days a week from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday, and from 6:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. on Wednesday, Saturday and Sunday. No. 38: A business fee of $1.00 per space per event shall be collected by the operator of the Swap Meet, except where a vendor has an annual business license that can be substituted therefor, records kept thereof and the weekly report to be submitted to the City on Wednesday the week following closing of business, with charitable organizations exempt from the fee. AYES: Councilmen May, NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 7. (Out of Sequence) Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. Let the record show the Community Improvement Agency is in receipt of letters from the Beaumont District Library and Beaumont Ceme- tary District requesting time to be heard prior to the Public Hearing on the Community Improvement Plan, and they were advised Page 1 a r. by the City Manager they would be given an opportunity to confer with the City Council in Executive Session for the purpose of discussing with them the Community Improvement Program, and that representatives of these two districts were not in attendance this evening although the opportunity was provided. The meeting was adjourned to Executive Session to discuss possible litigation regarding the Community Improvement Agency and for a personnel matter, at 8:20 P.M. The meeting was reconvened to regular session at 9:40 P.M. Let the record show no decisions were made in Executive Session on the litigation or personnel matters. ORDINANCE NO. 547 - FIRST READING - Regulating the Division of Land (Continued from October 25, 1982). /. This agenda November 22, item was continued until the regular meeting of 1982. 10. ORDINANCE NO. 556 - SECOND READING - Amending the Land Use Zoning Map of the City of Beaumont to Provide for C -2, R -3 and R -T Zones. (Continued from October 25, 1982). r On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Ordinance No. 556 at its second reading amending the Land Use - Zoning Map of the City of Beaumont to provide for C -2, R -3 and R -T Zones; Location: East of Beaumont Avenue between Cougar Way and Brookside; Change of Zone No. 1005, by title only. The ordinance was read by title only by the City Clerk. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw and Mayor Thompson. NOES: Councilmen Hammel and Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. MOTION CARRIED 11. Request from Committee of Local Officials to Urge Repeal of Davis- . r Bacon Act. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City •��,"* Council of the City of Beaumont endorses the concept of urging the LXi repeal of the Davis -Bacon Act. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel and Lowry. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: Mayor Thompson. ABSENT: None. 12. Consideration of Renewal of Lease with Beaumont - Cherry Valley Re- creation and Parks District. (Continued from October 11, 1982). This agenda item was continued until the regular meeting of November 22, 1982. 13. Recommendation for*Adoption of Sick Leave Policy. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts the Sick Leave Policy as recommended. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Page 2 14. Recommendation for Adoption of Nepotism and Non- Discrimination Based on Marital Status Policies. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts the Nepotism and Non-Discrim- ination based on Marital Status Personnel Policies as recommended, and make the personnel policies as stated herein part of the City operating practice. AYES: Councilmen May, NOES: None. ABSTAIN: Councilman Shaw. ABSENT: None. Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 15. Authorization for Mayor Pro Tem Hammel to Vote on Behalf of the City of Beaumont Regarding City.Member of Local Agency Formation Commission. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes Mayor Pro Tem Hammel �r to vote on behalf of the City of Beaumont; and further requests that Mayor Pro Tem Hammel be appointed as the City representative on the Local Agency Formation Commission. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 16. Report of Schedule and Confirmation by Council of Time Frame for Consideration of Sewer Master Plan. r On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the .,,--City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts the time frame for consideration of Sewer Master Plan as recommended. / AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 1 NOES: None. l/ ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 17. Recommendation Regarding Relocation of Street -Sewer Maintenace Yard. �. On Motion by Mayor Thompson, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the transfer of the maintenance yard operations from Third and California to the Waste - 1 / water Treatment Plant site, and directs the City Manager to return l/ a plan for development to the City Council, said plan to show development location and an improvement plan. 18. 19. 20. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. The Beaumont Community Improvement Agency Statement of Operations for Period Ending September 30, 1982 was ordered filed. The City Financial Report for Period Ending September 30, 1982 was ordered filed. . ORAL COMMUNICATION: a. Request from Irish Mitchell relative to Memo of Minute Order and Waiver of Legal Rights. Mr. Mitchell, 402 East Sixth Street, addressed the Council, stating he was representing Hershey Door Company, and further stating that Mr. Hershey is not available due to illness. ij Mr. Mitchell then read from a prepared statement indicating it was a formal request for reimbursement concerning expense incurred by Hershey Door in conjunction with relocation of a sewer line. The statement and attachments were given to the City Clerk as part of the record. Page 3 21. Consideration of Bid Received for Shear Wall Repair to Gymnasium. On Motion by Mayor Thompson, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the bid submitted by Peter Grimes Construction, in the amount of $15,554.00, for the shear wall construction in the gymnasium, so long as the r contractor meets all performance requirements. AYES: Councilmen May, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: Councilman Shaw. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned to 7:00 P.M., on Wednesday, November 10, 1982, in the City Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, Eg� R. '0'. I&E CITY CLEAX, CITY OF BEAUMONT Page 4 I BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL BEAUMONT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AGENCY BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AGENCY PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE MINUTES OF ). ADJOURNED MEETING OF NOVEMBER 10, 1982 } (Adjourned from November 8, 1982) Y 1. The Beaumont City Council, Beaumont Community Improvement Agency, Beaumont Planning Commission and Community Improvement Agency Project Area Committee met in an adjourned meeting at 7:30 P.M., on Wednesday, November 10, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor /Chairman Thompson presiding, for the purpose of holding a joint Public Hearing on adoption of the Community Improvement Plan for the Beaumont Community Improvement Project and Certifi- cation of the Final EIR relating thereto. 2. The invocation was given by Councilman Lowry. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Councilman May. 4. a. On Roll Call of the City Council the following Members were present: May, Shaw, Lowry, Mayor Thompson. Councilman Hammel was excused. b. On Roll Call of the Community Improvement Agency the following Members were present: May, Shaw, Lowry and Chairman Thompson. Agency Member Hammel was excused. C. On Roll Call of the Planning Commission the following Members were present: Seaburg, Remy, Medina, Livingston, Schuelke and Vice Chairperson Berg. Chairperson Thompson was excused. d. On Roll Call of the Community Improvement Agency Project Area Committee the following Members were present: Mitchell, Manning, Jett, Love, Kilday and Chairman Millage. Committee member Bebee was absent. At this point of the meeting, Marshall Krupp, Consultant for the Improvement Agency addressed the Council regarding the status of the City Council and Community Improvement Agency as it relates to the Conflict of Interest provisions of the City of Beaumont and the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency. He stated further that in conjunction with the City Manager and City Attorney, it was concluded that Mayor Thompson and Councilman May may have a poten- tial indirect conflict of interest and that Mayor Pro Tem Hammel has a direct conflict of interest. Inasmuch as Mayor Pro Tem Hammel has a direct conflict of interest it was recommended that he abstain from participation in the matters herein set forth for consideration by the City Council / Community Improvement Agency, and that he excuse himself from the podium this evening. Mayor Thompson's and Council- man May's potential indirect conflict of interest is not of such an extent that such action is required in their case and they can continue to participate this evening. The City Manager stated for the record that Mayor Pro Tem Hammel is attending a Mayor's /Councilman's meeting on behalf of the City of Beaumont tonight and is absent, and therefore will not take part in these proceedings. 5. Motion was made by Vice Chairperson Berg, seconded by Commissioner Livingston, to recess the Planning Commission at this time. AYES: Seaburg, Remy, Medina, Livingston, Schuelke and Berg. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Chairperson Thompson. 6. Motion was made by Committee Member Mitchell, seconded by Chairman Millage to recess the Project Area Committee at this time. Page 1 7. AYES: Mitchell, Manning, Jett, Love, Kilday, Millage. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Bebee. Introduction of Certifications. City Manager: Mr. Mayor, at this time we would like to enter into the record of this joint public hearing the following documents: Exhibit 1: Affidavit of publication of notice of the joint public hearing, published once a week for four successive weeks in the Record - Gazette as required by Sections 33349 and 33361 of the Health and Safety Code. Exhibit 2: Certificate of mailing notice to property owners of the joint public hearing, together with a statement concerning acquisi- tion of property by the Agency, to each assessee of land in the Project Area as shown on the last equalized assessment roll as required by Sections 33349 and 33350 of the Health and Safety Code. Exhibit 3: Certificate of mailing notice of the joint public hearing to the governing bodies of each taxing agency within the Project Area as required by Section 33349 of the Health and Safety Code. The Mayor designated these documents to be made apart of the record. 8. The Public Hearing was opened by the Mayor at 7:45 P.M. Mayor Thompson: The State law under which we are acting is the Community Redevelopment law of the State of California. That law requires that we follow certain procedures, some of them formal, in the conduct of tonight's joint public hearing. A trans- cript will be made of the hearing. Persons making statements and giving testimony will be sworn and will be subject to questions through the Chair. All persons desiring to speak will be given an opportunity to do so. This is a combined hearing on both the Community Improvement Plan and the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report on the Community Improvement Plan, so please make it clear when you are speaking whether your remarks are directed to the Community Improvement Plan, the adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Report, or both. I would like to note at this time that a normal format for a public hearing is that each person be allotted three minutes to present their testimony. People that represents agencies will be given sufficient time to present their testimony, usually around ten minutes, and longer if necessary. Mayor Thompson then explained the use of the form which had been provided for those persons wishing to speak either for or against, or have questions regarding the Improvement Plan or Final EIR. Due to the crowded conditions and the inability of a large number of the audience to participate in the meeting in the Council Chamber, the meeting was recessed for twenty minutes to allow the meeting to be reconvened in the Beaumont High School gymnasium. The meeting was reconvened at 9:00 P.M. Members of the staff, Norman J. Davis, Edna J. Burkett, Marshall B. Krupp, and Harry M. Dougherty, who would be making presentations, were sworn by the City Clerk /Agency Secretary Edna J. Burkett. Those in the audience who wished to make a statement were asked to stand for the purpose of being sworn by a single oath by the City Clerk /Agency Secretary. The City Clerk /Agency Secretary then administered the oath. The audience was then instructed that at the time they speak they should give their name, address and organization, if any, which they represent, and state whether they have been sworn. If any member of the audience indicates they have not been sworn, the City Clerk will individually administer the oath before they speak. ! 4 The Mayor then gave the order of procedure which will be followed in conducting the meeting. 9. Staff Presentations: a. Marshall Krupp, Willdan Associates, Consultant for the Improvement Agency, presented the Statement of Findings for adoption of the Community Improvement Plan, stating these findings and determina- tions are contained in Section 33367 of the Health and Safety Code, and further giving a general description of these findings and determinations, and included a summary of the Project Area and Community Improvement Program. Mr. Krupp entered into the record the following statement: Marshall Krupp: As the Mayor has indicated, the purpose of this hearing is to consider evidence and testimony for and against the adoption of the Community Improvement Plan and the certification of the Final EIR. Evidence will be introduced for consideration by the City Council and the Agency in connection with the following findings and determinations that will be made in the adoption of an ordinance adopting the Community Improvement Plan. These findings and determinations are contained in Section 33367 of the Health and Safety Code and are generally as follows: 1. The Project Area meets the legal qualifications set forth by the Legislature for a blighted area, the improvement of which is necessary to effectuate the public purposes described in the Community Redevelopment Law. 2. The Community Improvement Plan would redevelop the Project Area in conformity with the law and in the interests of the public peace, health, safety and welfare. 3. The adoption and carrying out of the Community Improvement Plan is economically sound and feasible. 4. The Community Improvement Plan conforms to the General Plan of the community. 5. The carrying out of the Community Improvement Plan would pro- mote the public peace, health, safety and welfare of the community and would effectuate the purposes and policies of the Community Redevelopment Law. 6. The condemnation of real property, if ever required and as provided for in the Community Improvement Plan, is necessary to the execution of the Community Improvement Plan, and ade- quate provisions have been made for payment for properties to be acquired as provided by law. 7. The Agency has a feasible method or plan for the relocation of families or persons displaced from the Project Area if the Community Improvement Plan may result in the temporary or permanent displacement of any occupants of housing facilities in the Project Area. 8. There are or are being provided within the Project Area or within other areas not generally less desirable with regard to public utilities and public and commercial facilities, at rents or prices within the financial means of the families and persons who may be displaced from the Project Area, decent, safe and sanitary dwellings equal in number to the number of and available to such displaced families and persons and res- sonably accessible to their place of employment. 9. All noncontiguous areas of the Project Area are blighted or necessary for effective improvement and are not included for the purpose of obtaining the allocation of taxes from such areas without other substantial justification for their inclusion. 10. Inclusion of any lands, buildings, or improvements which are not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare is necessary for the effective improvement of the whole area of which they are a part, and any such area included is necessary Page 3 A for effective improvement and is not included for the pur- pose of obtaining the allocation of tax increment revenues from such area without other substantial justification for its inclusion. 11. The elimination of blight and the improvement of the Project Area could not reasonably be expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone without the aid and assistance of the Agency. There are other statements and determinations set forth in the pro- posed ordinance adopting the Community Improvement Plan, but the foregoing are the major evidentiary findings. b. Mayor Thompson: We will now proceed with the receipt of evidence and testimony. City Manager: Mr. Mayor, I would like to enter into the record a certification of certain official actions that have been taken by the City Council, City Planning Commission and the Agency in connec- tion with the preparation of the Community Improvement Plan for the Beaumont Community Improvement. This certification was submitted and was marked as Exhibit 4. Mayor Thompson stated Exhibit 4 would be made a part of the record. The City Manager then asked to make some introductory background comments about the City's General Plan, some of the deficiencies that presently exist in the City, and the benefits the City would hope to see from the improvement process as a means to correct these deficiencies. Mr. Davis entered into the record the following statement: City Manager: After over one and a half years of community planning activities the City Council adopted a new comprehensive General Plan for the City of Beaumont. This was consummated by the adoption of a resolution by the City Council on May 25, 1982 and after being approved by the Planning Commission on March 3, 1982. The General Plan sets forth all of the State mandated General Plan Elements and contains a General Plan Land Use Map which applies to properties within the boundaries of the City of Beaumont and refers to potential land uses in the unincorporated areas of the County of Riverside within the sphere of influence of the City. The General Plan identified several concerns in the City which require improvement. These include: 1. A poor economic climate with limited employment opportunities. 2. Substantial deteriorated and /or dilapidated existing housing and inadequate provisions for future affordable housing. 3. A deteriorated and inadequate business district. 4. The existence of a sewer system which is close to capacity and which presently includes sewerage lines which are defective and deteriorating. 5. The City's present inability to meet storm drainage require- ments for the City. 6. The present circulation and street system lacks adequate improvements and may not be capable of accommodating future growth. The City Council, Planning Commission, and staff have evaluated the various tools available to the City to implement the General Plan and alleviate these conditions in the City, in general and the Pro- ject Area, in particular. It has been concluded that the program with the least adverse affect on property owners, businesspersons, and residents, is the use of the California Community Redevelopment Law and the Beaumont Community Improvement Program. Page 4 F i T The Beaumont Community Improvement Program is intended to accomplish the following objectives: 1. The elimination of existing blighted conditions, be they pro- perties or structures, and the prevention of recurring blight in and about the Project Area. 2. The development of property within a coordinated land use pattern of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, and public facilities in the.Project Area, consistent with the goals, policies, objectives, standards, guidelines, and requirements, as set forth in the City's adopted General Plan and Zoning Code. 3. The development of public services and facilities including, but not limited to, recreational, maintenance, and operational services and facilities as are necessary and required for the development of the Project Area. 4. The elimination of environmental deficiencies including inadequate street improvements, inadequate utility systems, and inadequate public services; and mitigation of freeway or highway impacts, including its circulation movement and its potential social, physical, and environmental characteristics of blight. 5. The development of a more efficient and effective circulation corridor system, free from hazardous vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle interfaces, designed to their ultimate circulation flow. 6. The implementation of techniques to mitigate blight charac- teristics resulting from exposure to freeway, highway, and /or public right -of -way corridor activity which affect adjacent properties within the Project Area. 7. Beautification activities to eliminate all forms of blight including, but not limited to, visual blight, in order to encourage community identity. 8. The encouragement, promotion and assistance in the development and expansion of local commerce and needed commercial and industrial facilities, increasing local employment prosperity, and improving the economic climate within the Project Area, particularly in the Central Business District, and within industrial and commercial areas and the various other isola- ted vacant and /or underdeveloped properties within the Pro- ject Area. 9. The acquisition, assemblage, and /or disposition of sites of usable and marketable sizes and shapes for commercial, industrial, recreational, and public facility development within the Project Area. 10. The creation of a more cohesive and unified Beaumont community by strengthening the physical, social and economic ties between residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public land uses within and about the Project Area. 11. The acquisition and disposition of property for the purpose of providing relocation housing, as may be required to implement the objectives of this Plan. 12.. To provide for very low -, low -, and moderate - income housing availability as required by State law and requirements, as necessary and desirable, consistent with the goals and ob- jextives of the community. 13. To encourage the coordination, cooperation and assistance of other local agencies, as may be deemed necessary, to ensure that projects undertaken by this Agency are implemented to their fullest and practical extent. Page 5 V E 14. The achievement of a physical environment reflecting the high level of concern of architectural and urban design principals deemed important by the Beaumont community. 15. To encourage community involvement and citizen participation in the adoption of policies, programs, and projects so as to ensure that the Community Improvement Plan is implemented in accordance with the goals and objectives of the Beaumont General Plan. 16. To provide a procedural and financial mechanism by which the Agency can assist, complement, and coordinate public and private development, redevelopment, revitalization, and enhancement of the Beaumont community. Through a cooperative relationship between the public and private sectors, it is hoped that the Beaumont Community Improvement Program will revitalize the community by: 1) increasing job and housing opportunities; 2) improving the economic character of the community; 3) improving the infrastructure of sewers, storm drains, streets, and other public utilities in the community; and 4) eliminating the physical, social, and economic blight within the City. Without the program, the City will remain stagnant and will continue to deteriorate. c. Marshall Krupp presented a summary of the Agency's report to the City Council, reciting contents of the report and summarizing blighting influences. Mr. Krupp entered into the record the following statement: Marshall Krupp: Pursuant to Section 33352 of the California Health and Safety Code, more commonly known as the California Community Rede- velopment Law, the report of the Agency to the City Council includes a variety of information and data relative to the proceedings and analysis which have occurred prior to this evening's meeting. The Report is contained in Fourteen (14) Chapters, which I will summarize for you at this time. 1. Chapter 1 provides an overview and general summary of the activities which have occurred to date. 2. Chapter 2 provides the reasons for selection of the Project Area including the definition of blight; the requirements for inclusion of non - blighted properties; the role of the City Council with regard to findings of blight and the justification for inclusion of non - blighted properties; the declarations of State policy with regard to blight and use of redevelopment; the general blight conditions which exist within the Project Area; and the intent of the Community Improvement Program. 3. Chapter 3 contains a description of the physical, social and economic conditions in the Project area. 4. Chapter 4 sets forth the proposed method of financing the improvement of the Project Area and identifies specific financing authorizations of the Community Improvement Plan, specific financing limitations or constraints, and financing projections for the Project Area. 5. Chapter 5 contains the proposed relocation plan and methodo- logy for the implementation of the Community Improvement Program. 6. Chapter 6 contains an analysis of the Preliminary Plan as approved by the Planning Commission and Community Improvement Agency. 7. Chapter 7 contains the Report and recommendations of the Planning Commission which found that the Community Improvement Plan is in conformity with the General Plan. 8. Chapter 8 contains a summary of the meetings of the Project Area Committee with regard to reviewing the Community Improve- ment Plan. W 9. Chapter 9 contains the Planning Commission's finding that the acquisition, disposition, and construction of projects in the Community Improvement Plan are in conformance with the adopted General Plan of the City. 10. Chapter 10 contains the final Environmental Impact Report for the Community Improvement Project Area and Plan. 11. Chapter 11 contains the Report of the County Fiscal Officer. 12. Chapter 12 contains the report of the Fiscal Review Committee. 13. Chapter 13 contains an analysis of the impact on residential neighborhoods in the Project Area and discusses the general project impact on residents and neighborhoods and specifically considers relocation, traffic circulation, environmental quality, availability of community facilities and services, effect on school population and quality of education, property assessments and taxes, other matters affecting the physical, social and quality of neighborhoods, and specific issues of housing, construction, and relocation. 14. Chapter 14 contains an analysis of the reports submitted by the County and a summary of the consultation with the County and affected taxing entities. As previously stated, Chapter 3 of the Agency's Report contains a des- cription of the physical, social and economic conditions of the Project Area. This Chapter generally identified the blighting influences of those properties which have been included within the revised Project Area. For purposes of summary, I would like to generally define the conditions of blight in each of the Sub - Project Areas: 1. Sub - Project "A" consists of approximately 335 acres and is characterized by primarily general commercial and highway commercial properties. Although the area contains some residential properties, the area is generally characterized by the older urban commercial area of the City. This area is characterized by many vacant commercial buildings, deteriorated and dilapidated structures, nonconforming land uses and structures, underutilized properties, and infrastructure deficiencies. Much of this area lacks adequate curbs and gutters for drainage, and has utility difficulties in terms of older and deteriorating sewer,water and storm drain systems. Much of the area is divided into a variety of poor parcel configurations which deter quality development. The area is unattractive in terms of adequate property maintenance, land- scaping and signage. 2. Sub - Project Area "B" consists of approximately 381 acres and is characterized by primarily industrial properties. The area does contain some residential properties which exhibit signs of deterioration, poor property maintenance, nonconforming structures, and compatibility concerns between residences and industrial developments. The area lacks quality industrial developers due to the small size and poor configuration of par- cels, inadequate and poor access, and inadequate and limited utility systems in terms of sewers and storm drains. Many of the existing streets are deteriorating and many of the required circulation corridors require improvement. The area suffers from graffiti and other social problems typical of a deteriorating area. 3. Sub - Project Area "C" consists of approximately 217 acres and is characterized by primarily vacant residential properties. Sub - Project Area "D" consists of approximately 151 acres and is characterized by primarily vacant residential properties. Sub - Project Area "E" consists of approximately 309 acres and is characterized by vacant properties. Although all of these areas contain some uses other than residential, the largest use of these areas is intended to be residential. These areas have remained stagnant due to economic and development con- straints which deter development. Some of these economic Page 7 I I constraints include the high development costs for sewer and storm drain systems, and particularly the need to expand the existing sewer systems which are close to capacity or non- existent. There are a variety of topographic conditions which limit the density of the area and minimize the affective utilization of the properties. Circulation and access is limited and some areas are hazardous precluding intensifica- tion of the use of the area. In addition, major streets are required to be developed and /or improved to accommodate the development and growth of these areas. Without these public improvements, the area will remain stagnant and a deterrent to the growth of the community. A more specific and detailed discussion of the physical, social and economic character of the Project Area is set forth on Pages 14 through 63 of the Agency's Report to the City Council and within the Agency's Supplemental Report to the City Council. There being no objections, the Report of the Community Improvement Agency was marked Exhibit 5 -A and the Supplemental Report of the Community Improvement Agency was marked Exhibit 5 -B and made a part of the record, along with the testimony and documents just received. d. Marshall Krupp presented the Final Environmental Impact Report, briefly summarized and reviewed the Final EIR, and summarized letters and comments received and responses to same. Mr. Krupp entered into the record the following statements: Marshall Krupp: A Final Environmental Impact Report on the Beaumont Community Improvement Project has been prepared and circulated according to the California Environmental Quality Act, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Agency's environmental guidelines adopted pursuant thereto. The Final EIR is comprised of a Draft EIR, the comments received on the Draft EIR, and the responses to those comments. Prior to preparation of the Draft EIR, an Environmental Assessment was prepared and a Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR was sent to all responsible agencies, and it was determined that the following impacts of the project may have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, should be discussed in the Draft EIR: Land Use, Demographics, Traffic and Circulation, Air Quality /Climate, Energy, Biological Resources, Visual, Soils /Geology /Seismicity, Hydrology /Water Quality, Archaeological /Historical Resources, Public Services /Utilities, and Economics and Fiscal. The Draft EIR described the project, the existing environmental setting, the environment impacts, and the mitigation measures. In addition, the Draft EIR discussed alternatives to the proposed project, the growth - inducing impacts, the irreversible environmental changes, short -term and long -term effects, and the unavoidable adverse impacts of the project. Approximately 39 persons, organizations, and public agencies were notified when the Draft EIR was completed and approximately 4 of those notified submitted comments. The major issues raised in the comments received were: 1. Noise evaluation lacks detail. 2. Air quality mitigation measures lack commitment. 3. Rehabilitation of housing provides an opportunity for energy conservation. 4. Drought resistant landscaping should be used in revegetation. 5. Paleontologist should be present during grading. 6. Sewer and water questions need to be resolved. 7. Various fiscal and "blight" concerns were raised. Page 8 The responses to these major comments were: 1. The project is at this time conceptual; specific impacts will be evaluated at the individual project stage. 2. The air quality mitigation measures are suggested guidelines to be kept in mind when implementing specific projects. 3. The City should adhere to state - mandated conservation measures. 4. Resistant landscaping was acknowledged. 5. Paleontologist attendance at grading was acknowledged. 6. City is presently developing a Master Plan for sewer concerns. 7. Discussion of fiscal and blight ramifications are set forth in the Agency's Section 33352 Report to the City Council. There were no significant effects concluded in the EIR therefore miti- gation measures were not proposed. Growth - inducing and secondary effects of the Plan have been discussed in the EIR as follows: Growth - Inducing and Secondary Effects 1. Growth of population and various land uses in the Project Area. 2. Growth in the local economy and tax base. 3. Increased needs for public services and utilities. 4. Increased traffic and noise. Also, alternatives to the Plan have been discussed in the EIR as follows: Alternatives 1. No project alternative. 2. Alternative Project Areas and size. 3. Phasing of the Plan's implementation. 4. Reduction in the term of the Community Improvement Plan. 5. Financing alternatives. There being no questions from the Council /Agency, and no objections, the Final Environmental Impact Report was marked Exhibit 6, and made a part of the record as part of the Report of the Agency. e. Marshall Krupp presented the Community Improvement Plan, briefly summarized and reviewed the Plan, and entered into the record the following statements: Marshall Krupp: The Beaumont Community Improvement Plan has been pre- pared in accordance with the California Community Redevelopment Law and contains the required provisions as set forth in the California Health and Safety Code beginning with Section 33000. The Plan is based upon a Preliminary Plan formulated and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City. The Plan provides the Agency with powers, duties, and obligations to implement and further the program generally formulated in the Plan for the improvement, rehabilitation, and revitalization of the area within the boundaries of the Project Area. The Plan does not present a specific plan or establish specific projects for the improvement, Page 9 r i rehabilitation, and revitalization of any area within the Project Area, nor does this Plan present specific proposals in an attempt to solve or alleviate the concerns and problems of the community relating to the Project Area. Instead, this Plan presents a process and a basic framework within which specific plans will be presented, specific projects will be established, and specific solutions will be proposed, and by which tools are provided to the Agency to fashion, develop, and proceed with such specific plans, projects and solutions. The Community Improvement Project Area will be undertaken in order to carry out the intent and purpose of the State Community Redevelopment Law, the revitalization objectives of the City, and the goals of the General Plan. The Agency proposes to eliminate or alleviate the conditions of blight existing in the Project Area, to strive for economic revitalization and Project Area beautification, and to miti- gate the negative social, physical, economic and environmental impacts resulting from existing and anticipated dilapidation or deterioration in the Project Area. The Agency has the authority to acquire property within the project area. Included is the use of eminent domain which must be exercised within 12 years from the time the project is adopted. It is ex- pected that the Agency will make very limited use of this authority, if at all, in the implementation of the community improvement project. The Community Improvement Plan also authorizes that the Agency enter into owner participation with people owning properties within the Community Improvement Project Area so that those persons may develop their properties consistent with the Community Improvement Plan in a manner approved by the Agency and by the City. In return for developing property.consistent with the Community Improvement Plan, the Community Improvement Agency gives up its authority of condemna- tion over that property. In accordance with State Law the Community Improvement Plan requires the relocation of any persons displaced by the Community Improvement Agency. In this particular project it is the present intent of the Agency that there will be very few displaced persons, if any, since there will be very little use of the power of eminent domain, if any. The Plan allows the Agency to dispose of or sell property to deve- lopers to allow development in accord with the Community Improvement Plan within the Project Area. The Agency has greater flexibility in the disposition of property to developers than does the City and most other public bodies. The Community Improvement Plan gives the Agency the authority to es- tablish land use controls in the Project Area to ensure that the development is consistent with the Community Improvement Plan and General Plan. The Community Improvement Plan authorizes the construction of public improvements and a list of the intended or hoped for public improve- ments is attached and made part of the Community Improvement Plan. The Community Improvement Plan also authorizes a variety of forms of financing the Community Improvement Project including the ability to receive loans from the City to sell bonds, to receive money from the sale or lease of property, and to engage in what is commonly known as tax increment financing. Tax increment financing can be briefly explained in this manner: if debt is incurred by the Community Improvement Agency after adoption of the Community Improve- ment Plan, the Agency will receive property taxes which are attribu- table to, or come from, increase in assessed value of property in the Project Area which has occurred after the adoption of the Community Improvement Plan. These are monies which otherwise would go to other taxing agencies. Therefore, tax rates will not be raised within the Project Area as a result of the adoption of this Plan. The laws of the State Constitution prohibit the Agency or the cities from raising tax rates and the Community Improvement Plan gives the Agency no new authority to levy taxes. Page 10 Tax increment financing will result in no increase in property taxes to a person or persons either inside or outside the Project Area. 20% of these tax increment monies must be used to improve and increase the supply and quality of low- and moderate - income housing within the City. The Community Improvement Plan finally contains certain limitations required by law, the length of the Plan, and the total amount of tax increment to be received by the Agency. This, then, in summary sets forth the primary elements of the Community Improvement Plan. There being no questions from the Council /Agency, and no objections, the Community Improvement Plan was marked Exhibit 7, and made a part of the record. f. Marshall Krupp presented the Rules Governing Participation by Property Owners, briefly summarizing these rules. There being no objections, the Rules Governing Participation by Property Owners and Business Occupants in the Beaumont Community Improvement Project, adopted as Resolution No. BCI 82 -14, were marked Exhibit 8, and made a part of the record. g. All written comments received were read into the record by the City Manager, marked Exhibit 9 and made a part of the record. h. Marshall Krupp requested permission for the title of the resolutions and ordinance to be entered into the record. The following agency resolutions will be considered: BCI 82 -15 - A Resolution of the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency Approving the Final Report on the Beaumont Community Improvement Plan, Project Area, and Environmental Impact Report; and Authorizing the Transmittal of its Final Report to the Beaumont City Council. BCI 82 -16 - A Resolution of the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency Adopting and Certifying the Environmental Impact Report and Authorizing the Filing of a Notice of Determination on the Beaumont Community Improvement Plan for the Beaumont Community Improvement Project Area. BCI 82 -17 - A Resolution of the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency Finding that the Use of Taxes.Allocated from the Beaumont Project Area for the Purpose of Improving and Increasing the Community's Supply of Low and Moderate Income Housing Outside the Project Area will be of Benefit to the Project Area. BCI 82 -18 - A Resolution of the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency Approving the Beaumont Community Improvement Plan and Project Area; Approving the Agency's Final Report to the City Council; and Directing the Secretary of the Agency to Transmit Required Community Improvement Documents to the Beaumont City Council. The following City Council resolutions and ordinance will be con- sidered: 1982 -63 - A Resolution of the Beaumont City Council Finding that the Use of Taxes Allocated from the Beaumont Community Improvement Pro- ject Area for the Purpose of Improving and Increasing the Community's Supply of Low and Moderate Income Housing Outside the Project Area will be of Benefit to the Project Area. 1982 -64 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Beaumont Concurring with the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency's Appro- val and Certification of.the Environmental Impact Report on the Beaumont Community Improvement Plan and Project Area. 1982 -65 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Beaumont Electing to Receive the Allocation of Taxes Pursuant to Section 33676 of the California Health and Safety Code. Ordinance No. 559 - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Beaumont Approving and Adopting the Beaumont Community Improvement Plan and Project Area as amended. Page 11 10. Mayor Thompson: Are there written questions? Marshall Krupp: Mr. Mayor, we received six questions from the audience. I will read the first one. Rosalynd Bliss, 655 Edgar Avenue: If 20% of the funds go to property owner's improving their property, does this mean that grants or low interest loans will be available from this money for property owners to develop their property to meet the plan specifications. Is that what the money is for? Answer by Mr. Krupp: The law requires that 20% of the revenue which the.Agency receives each year be set aside in a special fund for im- proving the supply and quality of housing in the community. During the annual budgetary process, the City Council /Redevelopment Agency can define projects that this money can be used for. In other cities, much of that money has been set aside into rehabilitation loan program funds whereby rather than going to a bank to borrow money to improve residential property at interest rates of 18 -20 %, the Agency can issue loans at low interest rates or no- interest rates. In some cities, the City has issued loans at no- interest to the property owner for rehabi- lation of a structure and /or his property. The second question is from Lloyd W. McIntire, Santa Barbara, California: I own property on S.E. Corner Illinois and 7th Street, also, 684 - 11th Street. No one has explained what is taking place. Answer by Mr. Krupp: Within the Plan there are approximately twenty projects which are anticipated initial projects contemplated by the Improvement Agency. They include such things as improvement to the sewer systems, improvement to the storm drain system, etc. I am sure when it rained this last week you visibly noticed the problems with flooding throughout the City. Other projects include improvement of streets, to provide some kind of revitalization of the commercial area on Sixth Street, and to undertake a variety of, basically, public improvement projects. There is no project contemplated in that pro- ject list, or which the Agency, we, and the staff, have discussed, that talks about the demolition of property and structures for the purposes of providing them to developers for redevelopment. Rather, the program is intended to be a public improvement program and assistance to existing property owners, business tenants and residen- tial property owners for the improvement and redevelopment of their own property. As far as the specific property is concerned, I will be more than happy to answer his questions about this property if this questioner would like to speak with me during our break. Third question from Mary H. Rawuka, 943 N. Beaumont Avenue: I have a residential house and a shop on the back of a C -2 zone. In order to conform, will the residence in the future be torn down for commercial reasons? Answer by Mr. Krupp: If the property is presently being used for a use which was previously in existence prior to the adoption of the present General Plan, the property owner will be allowed to remain on their property, and use that property for that purpose. If, for example, the tenants leave that property, or the property becomes vacated for some reason, the property would have to be used in accordance with the General Plan. That would have to happen irres- pective of the adoption of the Community Improvement Plan. That is a requirement of State Law and of the General Plan, not specifically required under the Redevelopment Plan. Fourth question from Theda McAlexander, 540 E. 5th Street: How will adoption of this Improvement Plan affect the property I am representing? Answer by Mr. Krupp: Again, as I indicated, the Council on an annual basis, during public hearings, will consider specific projects for that year. Those specific projects will be consistent with the con- ceptual projects contained within the Plan, and you, and other people in the community, will receive notices of those sessions, and will have an opportunity at that time to discuss specific projects that would be implemented during that year. Page 12 I Fifth question from Julia Milzynkowski, 885 Cherry Avenue: What plans do you have for Cherry Avenue? Answer by Mr. Krupp: Cherry Avenue is one of the streets that is pro- posed for improvement in the Plan. In addition, there will be a major sewer trunk line installed along Cherry Avenue from Brookside down past the freeway. That sewer line would then be opened to the property owners within the project area, as well as outside the project area and the City, to allow them to connect to that sewer line, which could not have been done without the sewer line being installed. Norman Davis: One additional comment on Cherry Avenue. One of the things that the County want us to agree to, is that part of the money would be utilized for flood control projects within the project area. And one of the projects that would be undertaken at some point in the future would be the development of a flood control channel along Cherry Avenue, to protect the east side of town, and the southern part of town where the channel crosses 8th Street. So this is the type of plan that the City would be able to do, and would anticipate doing at some point in the future. There was one other question here. Lloyd McIntire asked what is going on? Answer by Mr. Davis: I think that I touched upon that very briefly when I said this Agency is a tool. A tool provided the City by the State of California to do the things that it could not do otherwise. It is a tool made possible to improve and revitalize the City. It does have an affect on some of the other agencies. I have particu- larly said to the County of Riverside that I feel the County of Riverside has to be involved in improvement of cities and bearing, in effect, its fair share of that improvement by working with us in the creation of this Agency. Based upon the proposal that they are willing to proceed along with us, I would say that they are going to do that, and I am very hopeful, naturally, that we are going to have this tool that will serve you, serve the community, and depending upon where any specific project is completed, it will either directly affect you as an individual property owner, or it will indirectly benefit you because you live within the City of Beaumont. Marshall Krupp: This is the last question, but I might mention, additionally there will be an additional meeting on November 22 should the Council read the Ordinance for the first time this evening. In addition to that, there will be meetings annually through the citizens committee, the Project Area Committee, the Council and the Planning Commission on specific projects. (Tape is changed at this point. The discussion continues as follows) . I would like to indicate that there have been approximately twenty meetings held between either the Planning Commission, the Project Area Committee or the City Council on all of the items that have been presented so far this evening. In addition to that there was approximately 200 hours of meetings with the various taxing juris- dictions to meet and confer and assess the program. 11. Mayor Thompson: We will now hear any statements or testimony from those present in favor of the Improvement Plan on Final EIR. Chester Golik, 636 Beaumont Avenue: I own.the property at 636 Beaumont Avenue. Commercial property. I do not live in Beaumont. I am for this. I have been exposed to a similar situation in the town of E1 Monte. They had public hearings similar to this. There was tremen- dous misunderstanding and the redevelopment agency did not go through. It was a sad mistake. I think what has to be told people is in your report here - an explanation on Page 5 of how the community receives its revenue and through tax increment. Now the big question that is confusing is - say you have a piece of property and, for example, it is $100,000, it increases to $500,000 - how is that possible. To me it is an indication that - well - someone says - now your property is worth $500,000. I think that has to be explained. I am for this. However, before I conclude here, when the meeting was opened it was stated that three of these gentlemen have a conflict of interest. I Page 13 i think that those conflicts of interest should be made public in a very brief way, so that we here in the public know who - and I assume that they have something to benefit by - and if that is the case, I think that should be made public. Marshall Krupp: With regards to conflicts of interest, this was dis- cussed at a public meeting about a month ago. Let me indicate what the conflicts of interest are. Councilman Hammel owns a motel which is located specifically adjacent - or close to the freeway. There is, as an initial project, a frontage road that would make the property adjacent to the K -Mart Center along the freeway more acceptable for commercial development. It was believed that frontage road might also provide significant benefit to Councilman Hammel because of his motel being located so close to the freeway. Therefore, It was my recom- mendation and the City Attorney's recommendation that there truly was a potential direct benefit to Councilman Hammel. The other two con- flicts of interest are the Mayor - the Mayor owns a drug store within the project area. The projects that would be contemplated within the vicinity of this drug store would not only benefit him, but would benefit everyone in the community equally. The kinds of projects proposed would benefit everyone and Mayor Thompson's business would benefit, but would benefit indirectly in comparison to Councilman Hammel. The other conflict of interest was Councilman May. Councilman May also owns a piece of property in the project area, but similar to Mayor Thompson's property, his benefit would be equal to the benefit of everyone in the project area through the improvement of the project area. It was only Councilman Hammel that we felt that the specific project proposed would give him specific benefit, and therefore, it was recommended that he not participate in any of the discussions on the adoption of the Community Improvement Plan. Further, Mr. Hammel had no pre - knowledge or participation in either the projects, the contents of the Community Improvement Plan, the contents of the preliminary Community Improvement Plan or the Environmental Impact Report. The preliminary activities were all prepared by either the consultants, the City staff, or those Council members who did not have a conflict of interest. With regard to the other question you have - explain the increase of value in property - how your property increases in value. The Commjnity Improvement Plan will not work unless there is improvement of property in the community. This could either be by the existing property owners - the existing people - or by developers. There are only four ways under Proposition 13 that property is permitted to be increased in value. One is, the County Assessor has the authority to increase up to a 2% increase in the value of your property every year. The County Assessor has to do it. That is an automatic in- crease for everyone in the State of California - the County Assessor has that authority. The second way is if you improve your property you pay the taxes on that improvement - for example, if you decide to add a swimming pool to your property, you will be taxed for that swimming pool on your property, whether it is a redevelopment program or not, that is allowed under the Proposition 13 law. The third way is if you develop your property. You have a vacant piece of property and you develop it, then the new value of that property, throught the assessment process, would then be taxed. The fourth way to increase the taxes is by a vote of the people. If the people of the district vote in a new tax, then your taxes will go up because of that new tax rate. There is no other way that your taxes can go up through the implementation of this program. Let me make it very clear. If you do not improve your property or you do not sell your property, which is another way of increasing your taxes - I missed one in the increase of taxes. If you sell your property, the new owner of the property pays taxes based on the new value of the property. So there are really five ways. But if you don't sell your property - don't improve your property - if you don't develop your property, the only way that the taxes on your property can go up is by the County Tax Assessor increasing the value of your property by 2% every year - or up to 2% every year - or if the people vote in a new tax. This project will not increase your taxes. City Manager: I would stress, as Marshall has done, or I would lay more stress than he has, that - because, whether or not there is this Agency, if you do any one of the things that he has enumerated, you are going to get an increase in taxes. What is going to happen Page 14 I I here is, that after that increase in taxes takes place, if this Agency is in existence, is that that difference in tax rate - or taxes that you pay - which may be this amount now, and become this amount, this difference is what will be coming to the Agency, and that is the only money the Agency gets - that is the money that will be spent on the projects to better the City. I hope you understand that. If you do not, please ask. Because we want you to understand. The only source of revenue, is a source of revenue that is going to happen anyhow. If any of these events that Marshall has enumerated does occur. The thing that is going to happen - and I stress again - if the Agency is in existnece - the Agency gets this increase in taxation that is going to occur normally, rather than it going to the other jurisdictions - going elsewhere. Unidentified member of the audience: May I ask this - where is this going to go. Marshall Krupp: One last comment - and then I will answer your question. Prior to Proposition 13, the taxing of properties was extremely different, meaning that if the value of the property next to you improved, it could conceivably increase the value of your property, and you would pay the taxes on that improved value. As a result of Proposition 13, there are only those five ways, and so if you own a piece of property, if you are the resident and own a piece of property that is thirty years old, and next door someone develops a piece of property, that new house next to you will not increase the value of your property from a taxing point of view. It may increase it from a market point of view - that is, you may be able to sell it for a greater value - but from a taxing point of view, it does not increase the value of your property. The gentleman who asked the question. Can we go through those written requests from people who have indi- cated they wish to speak, and then there will be an opportunity for additional questions, and I will answer your question at that time. Mayor Thompson: Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of the proposed Agency. Okay, let us then expedite this, and go to those who would like to speak in opposition. b. Ann Conners, 813 Elm: I have had some experience with redevelopment agencies in Corona. They decided to redevelop the City of Corona. They promised us new shopping areas, more jobs, more recreation opportunities, new businesses and lower crime rate, less graffitti, more shoppers, and they would listen to the people, and everyone would always know what was going on. What we got was a recreation department that couldn't handle the recreation they were in charge of because of Proposition 13 - we got a shopping mall with empty stores in it because the people that were supposed to go in to it couldn't afford the higher rent of it - we got a J.C. Penny outlet that moved out of town because they didn't think Corona could produce all these shoppers - they tried for the last ten years to get a major department store to come in and replace it, but have not been able to. We got graffitti covering the walls of the new buildings of the re- development agency. The crime rate in Corona is soaring, and is not going down, and is no where near as low as Beaumont's is. The most important thing we got was the loss of a Carnegie Library. And that Carnegie library happened to be in a redevelopment area. The Redevelopment Agency decided we needed a new library, and the old library, which was an historical building, was torn to the ground. There were very few Carnegie libraries left in the country at the time - and yours is one of them. The citizens of Corona tried very hard to save that library. They brought in petitions. They tried very hard to get it made into a national monument. They almost succeeded in that, but they didn't succeed in time before it was torn down. When the people presented their petitions, and all of the people protested all of these things, no one listened to them, and all of those things happened anyway, because after you listen you will not necessarily do what the people have asked you to do. As far as the blight in the business areas, it seems to me that if you go into business, or if you are a landlord who rent to businesses, you ought to be prepared to keep up your property yourself. And since I am paying $24.48 a month for sewer and trash bills, I should expect to have a sewer capacity for my needs. For the taxes that we are already paying, we should have the right to have streets that are repaved and streetlights and sewers and all of those things. As far as the rest is concerned, for a very small town, we don't really need Page 15 a lot of these things that you are decision tonight as to whether or should not be made by you, but by to serve. asking us to have. And the not we should have the Agency the citizens that you are purporting Rex Lloyd, 695 East 12th Street: Gentlemen: I am opposed to all of this Agency - Redevelopment Agency. I came here two years ago to get away from all this nonsense. What do I find here, the same old thing. I have heard a lot of double talk tonight. He tell us what the Community Improvement Agency do. What are they going to rehabilitate and do to existing structures? Mayor Thompson: We will respond and answer all the questions at one time. Is that reasonable? George Conner, 813 Elm Avenue: My wife did very good there. She covered just about every thing. There were just a couple of things I wanted to bring up. There were just a couple of things I wanted to cover on this tax on improvements on your property. They won't be taxed if they don't improve them. But yet, if you are in a blighted area, if you don't improve them you will be in trouble with the Agency. If they don't improve their property, their taxes won't go up. But if you are in a blighted area they have to make some improvements to bring it up to whatever the Agency says it has to be brought up to. So, therefore, they would get a tax increase. Whether they want to or not. The other thing is, as the gentlemen just mentioned - that is in an area - who can't afford to upkeep his property. He has no choice. Either he upgrades it, or the Agency does something about it. The last thing I.wanted to bring up was the last four years the Beaumont City Goverment has been unstable, even to a point of not knowing how much money they have in the treasury. The question I have is this City Government ready to take on a project of this size. Roger Berg, 1164 Euclid Avenue: I am opposed to just one section, and that is Section 500.54 of the Community Improvement Plan which has to do with the review of the application for building permits and development. In reading that section I feel that it gives the Executive Director the sole responsibility for a decision on what type of improvements should be required on new development and on building permits. In looking it over, I feel this requirement would require property owners in the project area extensive costs - let's just say some of the residential property in the project area, and they need to do a new roof, or roof repair, or a garage - they would have to go through the Executive Director to get a building permit. And, also, this puts added cost on a contractor for the work that has to be done - it is going to put more requirements on those pro- perty owners than what would be necessary. And, also in the commercial areas, it may require more extensive improvements than they could afford. I think the Agency should look at that and maybe modify that section somewhat to make it a little more easier. Lyman Burhop, 1020 - 2nd Street, Calimesa: I own property at 1162 Pennsylvania Avenue. I am opposed to this Redevelopment Agency because there is far too much land included in the redevelopment area. I don't think the State Law intended to include that much land. Mayor Thompson: We will try to answer your questions now, from those who have been participating. Marshall Krupp: Mr. Mayor, I will attempt to answer some of the questions and clarify some of the misunderstandings that may be out there in the audience. First of all, with regards to historical sites, including the library, specifically the library, in the environmental impact report there is contained dicussion on his- torical and archaeological facilities. One of the facilities is the library. The plan, as contemplated, does not indicate the removal of that library facility. The EIR is a part of the record, and will be required by State Law to be implemented. And it says, first of all, an archaeological report shall be made on all historical sites, and that during any razing operation or excavation of any site in the City, that archaeological or historical representatives be on the Page 16 site, and that the County Historical Commission, before anything is done to the structure, shall review that structure for its historical significance. And if the structure is significant, it shall be pre - served in the community. Not what the Council thinks should be preserved, but what the County Historical Commission thinks. It is completely out of the City Council's hands. The other thing is that, at any time a project is proposed, there will be a public hearing. If the community does not want any historical site removed, the Council can incorporate in the plan this evening that no historical building will be removed in the implementation of this plan. If that is the desire of the Council based on the recommendation of the community. That will include historical commercial buildings, residential buildings, industrial buildings, or public facilities. The other point has to do with paying for services. Your taxes are divided among approximately two dozen agencies. The City gets, on every dollar you pay in taxes, 11 cents. If you pay $100.00 in taxes, the City gets $11.00. The County gets, as an example $19.00. Plus, the County gets programs for handicapped, mentally retarded programs, juvenile programs, flood control district, and various other capital facilities. The various other monies are divided up among the other taxing jurisdictions. We have evaluated the financial picture of the City of Beaumont, and we have looked at what the potential is for the improvement of this area through a variety of alternative financing methods. I will tell you what those methods are, so you are aware of them, because these are the only ways the Agency can pursue improvement of the community. The first method is private developers. Private developers can come in here and improve this community. They could put in a new sewer system. They could put in a new water system. They could put in new streets. They could put in new developments. It is unlikely that they will do so. Therefore, it is not a viable source without some kind of assistance on the part of the Agency. The Council can apply an assessment district to the community. That is, in effect, a new tax that you would pay for the improvement of the community. In addition to the taxes that you are paying now. They can use Federal and State funds. Federal and State funds are reducing substantially to the degree that at the State level and Federal level significant programs are being reduced so that communities cannot better themselves through these programs. To give you an example, what is known as the Community Block Grant program, which gives money to the cities to use, the Federal government has significantly - during the last few years - reduced the amount of allocation to the cities. If this continues, the City will not be able to do some of the improvements to the community. The other source of funding is through taxes. And that will require a vote of the people. The only alternative that is available to the community today, as we have evaluated it, is a redistribution of these tax dollars. Tax dollars that you would normally pay - to the Agency - resulting in a short term impact to the taxing jurisdictions and a long term benefit to everyone - the community - the taxing jurisdictions - the County - the State. This financing process allows for people to improve their property, for the City to alleviate public improvements, and for new development to occur in the City. If the Plan is not pursued the City will have no alternative than to start reducing the services that they presently have available to you, so that they can provide for health and safety benefits. Those include fire, police and general government administration. They will have to reduce such things as street sweeping, they will not be able to improve streets, they will not be able to build new facilities - they will simply have to cut back to police, fire and basic general public administration. This is not being said as a scare tatic, but to tell you the reality of the City of Beaumont. It is difficult to understand that, but as a result of Proposition 13, as a result of things that have taken place - this is what has happened. City Manager: Let me pick up on a phrase that you made. The services should be made based on the taxes paid. That tax is about 11 cents out of each dollar. And I want to point out to you - you said that our sewers, our streets, etc., should be o.k. based upon these fees. I pointed out to you earlier. The City sewer system is 54 years old. The normal age, as any engineer will tell you, is approximately 40 or 40 plus years. Which means that this City is at a very advanced age, and if, without a tool to do something about it , it means that somewhere in the near future - it may be five years, ten years - that this City is going to have to go to its people Page 17 and ask them to carry a burden - either taxes or assessments - in order to maintain a brand new sewer system. And what about streets. There is no City and no County - and Kay Ceniceros, the County Supervisor is sitting here - there is no City and no County who has money for all those streets in this day and age. And I say that with no fear of any type of contradiction. It just is not possible to maintain your streets in any of these jurisdictions based upon the current revenues. And those revenues are shrinking every year. We don't blame it all on Proposition 13 - no. The revenues are shrinking because the State is taking more every year. And I have to say God help us if the Federal government takes away the Federal Revenue Sharing program . . . This current year is the end of the Federal Re- venue Sharing program unless the Congress and President extends that program. So, I am telling you, ladies and gentlemen, the facts in this City along- this City does have problems in the future. This is a tool that will take care of some of those problems. Marshall Krupp: I would like to continue answering some of the questions that people gave me beforehand. A gentleman indicated the Agency's condemnation authority - does the Agency have the authority to do such things? Mr. Davis and myself indicated the Agency does not intend to use the power of condemnation. The plan does provide the Agency with the authority to do such things consistent with law. That is just like the City has the authority to do a whole lot of things consistent to law. The plan specifically indicates the kinds of projects which it is intending to undertake. Those are public improvement projects, such as streets, sewers, storm drains, public facilities. There are commercial revitalization and rehabilitation programs, and residential revitalization and rehabi- litation programs through low interest loans and other kinds of assistance, and its purpose is redevelopment. We plan no condemnation; specifically, it says the Agency does not intend to acquire property. It does not intend to use condemnation. A gentleman indicated that if the Agency acquired property, they would pay the value of the property in 1975. That is not true. The plan specifically says that the Agency in acquiring property has to pay fair market value based upon three independent appraisals that are not associated with the City. One of those appraisals can be obtained by the property owner himself. In addition, if it acquires property at a fair market value, if there is any dislocation or relocation, the Agency is required to pay all expenses to relocate that property owner to a new piece of property of similar or better character or condition. In a commercial area, the Agency is required to pay costs, such as the printing of stationary, phone systems, cars, whatever. Those are all contained in specific rules and regulations which the Agency has adopted. It is not what they want to do - it is what the State of California requires them to do, under State Law. They are required to pay fair market value - they are required to pay relocation expenses - they are required to pay severance costs and any other costs that is associated with the relocation of that speci- fic business or relocation. And it is not the Agency that makes the final decision, it is a Judge or a jury that makes that decision. Another question has to do with Community Improvement Agency. The reason the Agency is the City Council is because they are the elected officials of the community. They are the ones that represent the community, and if they make a decision that the community does not desire, then there is a process by which to deal with that decision that is inconsistent with the community's desire. The City Council could have appointed a separate body as the Agency, unelected, and having no direct responsibility to the community. But the Council appointed itself as the Agency, and is responsible directly to the community through the normal democratic electoral process. There was a gentleman.who stated that if you don't improve your property you would have problems with the Agency. The Agency is not requiring any improvement of property. If you don't want to improve your property, then you do not have to improve your property. The Agency is providing a tool so that you can improve if you want to. There is no requirement that you improve your property. If an elderly couple lives in a house that is several years old, and it Page 18 doesn't meet earthquake standards, they can go to the Agency and gain assistance through rehabilitation loan programs, to upgrade that house so that it is safe. If you have a business on 6th Street, and you don't have the ability to provide parking for your business, you may come to the Agency to gain assistance in paying for im- proving your parking facilities for your business. There is no requirement in the plan - let me emphasis that - there is no require- ment in the plan that anyone in the project area has to improve their property. In addition to that, anyone living outside the project area can get no benefits from the redevelopment program. They cannot come to the Agency and ask for loans - they cannot come to the Agency and ask for any kind of assistance - they cannot have a new sewer line put in front of their house. Only those in the project area can get the benefits. That is by law - that is the way it is outlined. If you can't afford to improve your property - then you don't improve your property - period. If they don't improve their property - if there is no improved value in the area, then there are no funds for the Agency to use, and therefore the Agency cannot undertake community improvements for the benefit of the community. In the future, if a dozen people come into the community - or if a hardware store - o o,, department store - comes into the community - that revenue does / o Phe Agency, and you will get the benefit of that because the Agency can then put in some of the improvements that are part of the plan. It will not happen overnight. It is a long term program. Your question regarding project size. The Council, for your information, can reduce the project size if they want to, prior to the adoption of the Ordinance. I wanted you to be advised of that if you want to do that. Section 500.54 - the review of application for building permits. That section specifically says that the Executive Director. . . . (Interruption by a member of the audience). Mayor Thompson: I want to caution you, we will not tolerate any further actions like that. City Manager: I just want to point out, that every comment that is being made here is in answer to a question that has been raised. We have promised that we will answer all questions. Marshall Krupp: With regards to Section 500.54, we reviewed this concern of the Planning Commission that the Executive Director may have authority beyond his present authority without the consideration of the City Council or the Planning Commission. The plan does not allow him to have that authority. For the purposes of the Council, the members of the Council may want to clarify this. To assure you of that - we will incorporate that into the plan. Two other questions have come up - Rosalynd Bliss of 655 Edgar: Would you please explain the two other charts behind you so we have a better idea of where and what changes will take place. For example, is my property planned for a parking lot? You explained the first chart but not the other two - I don't feel I understand what specific changes are planned for Project Areas, A, B, C, D, and E. Marshall Krupp: The two additional charts, or maps, up there, are a graphic explanation of the kinds of projects which are contained in the plan that the Agency could approve. For example, there are storm drains, sewers, street improvements, revitalization of the downtown area, revitalization of Beaumont Avenue, those are the kinds of projects that are recommended. No specific property - please understand this - no specific property is proposed for any improvement by the plan. When a project is proposed, the property owner who owns the property, as well as all the property owners within 300 feet of that specific piece of property will be advised by a public hearing notice to come for a meeting to present their testimony either in favor or in opposition of the project. You will also be given the opportunity during the public hearing process - the budgetary public hearing process - to review any of the budgetary recommendations that the Council may have. Right now there is no specific property Page 19 that is proposed for improvement, acquisition, development or anything else. These projects are the kinds of projects that are being pro- posed by the plan. (There is a question from the audience which is not intelligible on the tape) Mr. Krupp's answer: You will receive a similar notice to that which you received for this meeting - by certified mail and that has to be signed by you. Earl Woodley, 555 E. 8th Street: On your opening statement there you said that Councilman Hammel had a direct conflict. Now you say you have no definite plan. Marshall Krupp: I will explain. The projects that are contained in the plan is a recommendation of the kinds of projects that need to be undertaken if the community is to improve. Many of the property owners along the freeway have indicated that they cannot compete with Banning or cannot bring in new development because they do not have the visibility or access to the freeway. There is a project that is especially indicated in the plan. The Council does not approve these projects tonight. At the time those projects are to be approved, notices will be sent out to existing property owners and they will have an opportunity to speak on that specific project. The reason why Councilman Hammel was asked to abstain was because of a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Woodley: That is what we are here to find out. They want to find out what you intend to do to their property. You are not telling them. Now you have a definite plan and you won't reveal it. And that is why these people are here. We didn't come down here to listen to you talk all evening and say nothing. I asked you a question here and you won't answer it. Marshall Krupp: I will read your whole question. What specific changes are in the proposal at 10th and Beaumont Avenue. Mr. Woodley: Then these two people have a potential conflict of interest. Mayor Thompson: I am at 10th and Beaumont. Mr. Woodley: But you have some definite plans, but you won't tell us. Mr. Krupp: I will read all the projects that are in the plan. Mr. Woodley: Specifically. Mr. Krupp: These are projects that specifically are identified in the Plan and are contemplated by the Agency. A freeway access road between Pennsylvania Avenue and Highland Springs Road. A commercial rehabilitation program on both 6th Street between Pennsylvania Avenue and Veile Avenue, and Beaumont Avenue from Interstate 10 to 12th Street. Parcel consolidation from 6th Street to Highland Springs Road and Beaumont Avenue from Interstate to 12th Street. Industrial Deve- lopment - infrastructure improvements between 1st Street and Interstate 10, and between Pennsylvania Avenue and Minnesota Avenue. Residential development - infrastructure improvements north of Highway 60 and west of Interstate 10. Extension of Palm Avenue to Cougar Way. Flood control and drainage improvements from Brookside Avenue /east City boundary to Beaumont Avenue. Sewer /main and lateral on Cherry Avenue from 14th Street to lst Street. Residential rehabilitation program and /or new construction activity. General Community improvements consist of infrastructure improvements and beautification on 6th Street from Highland Springs Road to Veile Avenue, including medians, curbs and gutters, utility undergrounding and lighting, pavement improve- ments, street trees and landscaping; flood control drainage improvements at 6th Street and Xenia; Interstate 10 circulation im- provements at Pennsylvania Avenue, Beaumont Avenue and 6th Street; railroad crossing /grade separation improvements at Beaumont Avenue and 3rd Street; construction and /or improvement of street rights -of- way and infrastructure on Cherry Avenue north of 11th Street - Page 20 Beaumont Avenue north of 14th Street - Maple Avenue north of 11th Street and Minnesota Avenue north of 1st Street. In addition to that, there are three public facilities projects which have been indicated as extremely low priority projects, but which may be needed in the future, and these are a new Civic Center Complex in- cluding a new City Hall, Police facility and Community Center; a parking facility somewhere near Beaumont Avenue and 6th Street and corporate yard improvements. Those are the projects that have been proposed that are in the plan. This plan has been made available for public inspection at the library and the City Clerk's office. There is no project proposed at 10th and Beaumont Avenue. Mr. Woodley: But you do have a proposed project adjacent to the freeway for a frontage road. Councilman Lowry: These are all conceptual. City Manager: AS of tonight, the Agency has not been formed. You would be very foolish to draw specific plans for one or ten or fifty specific projects when this governing body does not even know at this point whether or not the Agency will be formed. I think that you and everybody at this meeting who are rational people can see that if you consider what we are saying there. That is all that we are saying - these are proposals that may or may not come to pass at some time in the future, if this Agency is formed. Mr. Woodley: It doesn't make sense still. You have a proposed project. And Councilman Hammel was advised to not participate in the voting because of a possible conflict of interest. Now, later, you said that Councilman May and Councilman Thompson have a possible, potential conflict of interest. Now if the proposed frontage road is a specific proposal -- I am merely asking what is the proposal being considered for 10th and Beaumont Avenue. -- and if you people have a potential conflict of interest, then you surely know what is proposed for the future at 10th and Beaumont Avenue. Mayor.Thompson: At this time I know of no proposal to redevelop, to improve - -- 10th and Beaumont Avenue. Were there a project in the works for that particular area I would not be here because of the direct conflict of interest. Mr. Woodley: You are still talking around in circles. Mayor Thompson: I just told you Earl, and you weren't paying attention. Mr. Woodley: I am paying attention. Mayor Thompson: I have already told you, Earl. There is no project intended for Beaumont Avenue at 10th Street at this time. Mr. Woodley: But there is out at the frontage road. Mayor Thompson: This is a conceptual project. Mr. Woodley: Okay, then, he said there was a conceptual project at Beaumont Avenue and 10th, which leaves you two with a potential con- flict of interest. Mayor Thompson: Let me answer Earl. Mr. Woodley: Not unless you tell me the truth - the whole truth. Mayor Thompson: Have you ever known me not to tell you the truth. Mr. Woodley: No I don't. Mayor Thompson: Well, I am not going to start now. The project that Councilman Hammel may have a potential direct conflict of interest from is if the frontage road goes through, as indicated, from Pennsylvania Avenue to Highland Springs, and he participated - yes Page 21 he would have a conflict of interest. Mr. Woodley: Then you two do also. At 10th and Beaumont Avenue. Mayor Thompson: If we ever have a conceptual project at 10th and Beaumont Avenue - yes, I would have a direct conflict of interest. But at this time, so far as I know there is no project - conceptual or otherwise - in the works. Mr. Woodley: So the only conceptual project that this agency is talking about is a frontage road along the freeway. (The tape is changed at this point and continues as follows) Mayor Thompson: It is time now for the agencies to have their opposi- tion. For the County we have Supervisor Ceniceros. Supervisor Ceniceros: Thank you Mayor Thompson, and members of the Council. I am going to try to make this brief. I appreciate the sticktoitness that I have seen here tonight. I am a little concerned however, with reference to the County's position here this evening. I think that a lot of people who have left here tonight think that the County has endorsed this project. That is not the case. I would like to identify the reasons for you. Among the papers submitted by the County was a Statement of Protest by the legal counsel. This expresses the County's concern about the large amount of unimproved property that is included in the redevelopment agency, and our concern how that could be blighted. There are several other points of law contained in the letter and I won't enumerate them. It is of concern to me, and this has been gone over and over again in the presentation tonight, that the money that would be kept for redevelopment improve- ments would otherwise go to other agencies, or other jurisdictions. Those jurisdictions are jurisdictions that are providing services to the citizens of Beaumont, and I think that we should remember that, so, in effect, what we are doing is reducing some kinds of service potentially, and putting it into the redevelopment program. That is a decision that is possible to be made by this Council, and it is one that should be recognized for what it is. You are taking 19 %. Of the total amount of money that will go to the redevelopment program 19% will come from the County of Riverside's share of the property tax. And that share of the property tax currently provide services for the citizens of Beaumont. (Tape on one machine runs out - picks up on another machine as follows) We have got to recognize that that money - this is not a free lunch - it means that the County of Riverside and various institutions like the school district, the hospital district and various others, will be giving up revenues that support their services to the City of Beaumont, in order to allow this project to move forward, and I just want to emphasize that. The Cooperative Agreement that we submitted in draft has been reviewed by the Board of Supervisors, informally, and we will negotiate with the City of Beaumont if it is the desire of the City of Beaumont and its citizens to go forward with this plan. What we are asking is that you leave us half of what we ought to have - basically. That is what it boils down to, and you will need to study it in detail. And that is just half of the amount of money necessary for the Flood Control District to supply the flood control project and operate the maintenance money that will be necessary to service this area. In addition to the Statement of.Protest, which has been formally sub- mitted, and the draft Cooperative Agreement, I would like to leave also with you two resolutions, which is more or less a technicality, to any changes in the law which might occur in the future, such as a total remission of Proposition 13 - which is something that Mr. Krupp and Mr. Davis understand, and I hope to be understood by other Council Members. I would also like to note that in August we submitted a reply to the Environmental Impact Report. To our knowledge we have never received a direct reply to those specific statements made, and I do have the Planning Department staff member who initiated that response here in the audience tonight, along with County Counsel, and Ms. Thomason of.the Auditor'Controller's Department to explain the Cooperative Agreement if you are interested Page 22 f I A I i 1 it in hearing that, and the analysis made by the County of Riverside of the impact to the various taxing jurisdictions, which I would like to describe as service jurisdictions to the City of Beaumont. Do you have any questions. Marshall Krupp: The letter we received from the Planning Department dated August 9 is in the EIR, and it dealt with air quality, biolo- gical resources and financial resources. Ms. Ceniceros: Did you respond. Marshall Krupp: A response was sent. The other thing is the draft that you submitted tonight - dated October 20 to me - I have never seen or received prior to this evening. Ms. Ceniceros: I will explain that. As I referred to earlier, there are many similar efforts being made by redevelopment agencies through- out the County. One thing they all have is, they have a tremendous impact on the ability of Riverside County to serve the people within the jurisdictions. The service given by Riverside County to the citizens of Beaumont on a per capita basis if you want to average it with other people in the County, is actually worth more than the tax we bring in from the land - in other words, the amount of money that would be diverted into this program is less than the services pro- vided. We did not present that October 20 draft earlier because we had hoped to reach some kind of negotiated settlement. The cities did not like the policy the County drew to try and deal with this - and we consti- tuted a body made up of citizens including Mr. Krupp, representing cities and agencies. We were advised that there would be no specific recommendations made by that body to the Board of Supervisors. Had there been, we would have modified our policy and substituted that for this draft letter. That is why we did not submit that. Councilman Lowry: May I ask a question. You surprised me when you said we would take 19% of the County's taxes. I thought it was only 2% increase each year that we would be getting. Ms. Ceniceros: What I am referring to is the share of the tax incre- ment that is diverted. In the analysis presented tonight as to the fiscal impact of the Agency, it was stated that the County's portion of the tax increment would be 19.37% of the total 50 Million Dollars, 38% for the school district, and on down the list - hospital district 1.82% - library district 3.58% - and so on. That is the share of the diverted tax increment that we would lose, and the total amount of dollars is also specified in this schedule. It would amount to 9.6 plus million dollars for the 50 million dollars to be accrued. That is the amount of money that would be taken out of the services for Beaumont from the County of Riverside, over the life of the project. And these are only estimates because you really don't know what the growth of the area will be. So we are deeply concerned about our continued ability to serve the people of Riverside County, and those who are in Beaumont, with the total reductions that we are experiencing in all the redevelopment projects. We wanted to bring that statement of concern to you - at the same time we have to make a tentative cooperative agreement that will lessen the impact on services, but will certainly not eliminate it. I think it is fair for the audience to know that as well as the Council. Councilman Lowry: Isn't it true that the County is getting tremen- dous tax increases from other cities. Ms. Ceniceros: Councilman Lowry, we are limited to property tax in- creases just as all taxing jurisdictions are by Proposition 13. When a property resells, we do see an increase in taxes of 2% a year. Approximately 60% of the Beaumont area, I believe, that is in the report. What it means really, is the County will lose even more than 2% - we will lose the normal market turnover generated tax increases. The concept of the community improvement program, or redevelopment program, is that at the end of the period, 45 years from now, we will all have property valued more - whether your an owner of it - sell it or whether you are going to be the taxing agency from that point Page 23 on. That is part of the reason we have submitted a cooperative agreement in draft. Our concern is, how are we going to provide services in that 45 years - or 30 years - or whatever. It is a very serious set of decisions that the Councils, in the plural, of the cities of Riverside County have before them, and on which they are imposing their judgment on what services should be provided - and what should be given up, in order to accomplish these long range goals. Marshall Krupp: Ms. Ceniceros. My comment this evening about not pursuing the agreement this evening, was not one of recommending that we not proceed with it. My comment was that I thought the Council should have time to review it. The other thing is, as you know, both myself and Mr. Davis have maintained a very cooperative position with the County trying to overcome this problem - trying to reach an acceptable solution. And I think that the agreement that has been presented this evening is very close to one that is mutually acceptable. I think, though, that the Council hs to have the oppor- tunity to look at it from their own standpoint and make their own decisions as to how that will impact the program. The other point is, as you indicated, I am on the policy committee - the cities policy committee on redevelopment, and I understand that this evening the policies that the committee has come up with are being considered. That is where Councilman Hammel is this evening. That policy will be brought to the Board after the Mayor's and Councilmen's Association has reviewed it and considered it. But I think you should be aware, though, and the audience should be aware of the fact, that we have had a lengthy process between yourself, the County staff and the City for the past three months trying to overcome the concerns you have raised, and I think we have both moved towards the center in reaching a mutual agreement, and I would like.to advise the Council I think we are pretty close, subject to your review of the agreement. Vern Tindell, County of Riverside: This is a follow -up on the County presentation. The letter of October 20. It has not been formally submitted to you, so I would like to formally submit that to you now. What it does - we went through the redevelopment plan, and assessed those portions that we felt were appropriate for redevelopment, and those portions that we felt might be a little extensive for rede- velopment. Marshall Krupp: Kay. Just a very quick question. Is this in lieu of the agreement, or is this in conjunction with the agreement - or is this something other than the agreement. Ms. Ceniceros: That is an analysis and comment on the community im- provement program itself. There may be some concerns that are complimentary to those that are made by the County Counsel in this letter. A cooperative agreement is intended to fix, as you know, and I don't know if your audience does know, is intended to fix a pass through some of the potentially diverted tax increments - to mitigate the impact on the affected services by the agency. If we are not able to come to an agreement, the full force of those impacts fall upon us, and obviously we are going to talk to each other in court. Consequently, it is necessary to identify the full array of our concerns - both by the County Counsel and by the Planning Department. Marshall Krupp: I hate to pursue the question, however, I have to - if we accept this, does this supercede the agreement - or if we accept the agreement does the agreement supercede this? Vern Tindell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the City Council, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Agency, Mr. Davis, I believe the two documents are two separate functions. I am sorry you didn't have a chance to review the.agreement or the Planning Department analysis. I realize it came in very late. In those instances where a continuance cannot be made, or because of a late date they cannot continue the public hearing - which may be the case in this case - I don't know - I know there is another City who has a public hearing next week who have circumstances similar to yours - we have to protect ourselves by indicating any objections we have to be brought into the public hearing. It is too late to get anything into the record after the public hearing is closed. We have to Page 24 take action - even though we don't have an agreement with you at that time - we must lay that objection. In the event you pursue a second reading of the Ordinance, we have a sixty day period to file a lawsuit. If it is not filed within that sixty day period, we do not have the legal right to challenge the plan. The plan is a general concept. You have got a conceptual plan here. You are going to bring in specifics later on. There are a lot of questions that will need to be answered in the future, and this is our only chance to state our concerns - economically or otherwise - that we have with the project, so we have to lay a protective founda- tion. Marshall Krupp: Excuse me. guess my question is - if we given us - by deleting those that supercede the agreement does that supercede the dele about. I understand what you are saying. I respond to the map that you have just areas that you have questioned, does - or if we maintain the agreement, tion of those areas that you are concerned Vern Tindell: We would request you to delete those in the event an agreement cannot be signed on - because, again, we are forever barred from putting anything in testimony in opposition. Marshall Krupp: I understand. Thank you. Vern Tindell: I will be glad to answer any questions. We have two resolutions from the County that we want to be sure is part of your record. The report, the planning report and the Fiscal Review Committee report - that is, the supplemental report - the Fiscal Review Committee report . . . Mr. Krupp: That was part of your document. Vern Tindell: You did get that supplemental report? You mentioned it. Mr. Krupp: No - but it is in the record. Mayor Thompson: Is there any other input from the County? Brien, you are representing the Beaumont - Cherry Valley Recreation and Parks District. Brien Ross, General Manager, Beaumont - Cherry Valley Recreation and Parks District: Honorable Mayor Thompson and Members of the City Council. I would like to respectfully request that you postpone your consideration on the referenced Community Improvement Plan until such time as amendments to the plan can be prepared by yourselves and approved by you - to alleviate or eliminate any detrimental fiscal effects on the Beaumont- Cherry Valley Recreation and Parks District. (Mr. Ross continued to read from his letter of November 9, 1982, which is a part of the record). Marshall Krupp: Brien, you just read the recommendations. You said A, B, C, or D. Are you saying any one of those or a combination? Brien Ross: A combination. Marshall Krupp: Mr. Mayor, I would like to advise you that we had many discussions with the Parks and Recreation District for about a monti now after previously inviting them by letter that we wanted to discuss with them the effects of the plan. My understanding was that a draft agreement similar to the draft agreement that the County gave us tonight would be available Monday, Tuesday or tonight. Brien indicated to me this evening that the attorney for the district is still working on that. I believe that the agreement - or the concept of the agreement - was basically acceptable to - at least - the staffs of the Agency and the District's representatives, without their Boards each reviewing that agreement, and I would think that an agreement would be coming back to the Agency within the next thirty days for that specific purpose. Brien Ross: I think the same thing holds true as the County has in- Page 25 w � dicated, that we are willing to look at the possibility of a cooperative agreement, however, we are here tonight to protect our interest. Note: There are no more tapes of the meeting from this point on. The balance of the minutes are taken from the Clerk's file and notes. Additional input was received from the following: Fred A. Hicks representing the Beaumont Cemetary District and Beaumont District Library District, speaking in opposition to the proposed Community Improvement Plan, reading his letter dated November 17, 1982, which is a part of the record. Donald B. Houston representing the San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency speaking in opposition to the proposed Community Improvement Agency. Irish D. Mitchell, representing various clients, speaking in favor of the proposed Community Improvement Plan. Florence Readman speaking on behalf of Lena Readman, who resides on Beaumont Avenue. Lyman Burhop, 1020 - 2nd Place, Calimesa, a Beaumont property owner. 12. The public hearing was declared closed at 11 :40 P.M. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adjourned to Executive Session regarding possible litigation at 11 :42 P.M. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman Hammel The City Council reconvened to regular session at 11:58 P.M. Let the record show no action was taken in Executive Session, however, as a result of discussion in Executive Session, the following action will now be taken by the City Council. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded. by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont directs that the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency Plan and Project Area will be changed as follows: 1. Reduce years. `< j 2. Delete / Plan's [/ to del the duration of the Sub - Project "E" froi Anticipated Initial ete Sub - Protect Area project from 45 years to 35 n the Project Area with the Projects List to be modified "E" projects. 3. Delete the Civic Center Complex, i.e., City Hall, Police Facility and Community Center) and Corporate Yard Improve- ments from the Plan's Anticipated Initial Projects List. 4. Provide language in the Plan to preserve historic buildings so designated by the City Council and /or the State Historical Resources Commission. 5. Provide language in the Plan to limit the authority of the Executive Director without prior approval by the City Council and /or Agency. 6. Acknowledge the use of alternative financial resources as stated in Section 700.10, 700.40 and 700.60 of the Plan. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman Hammel Page 26 I 0 14. Community Improvement Agency Approval and Adoption of Resolutions. RESOLUTION NO. BCI 82 -15 - Approving the Final Report on the Beaumont Community Improvement Plan, Project Area, and Environmental Impact Report; and Authorizing the Transmittal of Its Final Report to the Beaumont City Council. On Motion by Agency Member Lowry, seconded by Agency Member Shaw, the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency adopts Resolution No. BCI 82 -15 with the necessary amendments if indicated by the changes directed by the City Council. Vr AYES: Agency Members May, Shaw, Lowry and Chairman Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Agency Member Hammel. RESOLUTION NO. BCI 82 -16 - Adopting and Certifying the Environmental Impact Report and Authorizing the Filing of a Notice of Determination on the Beaumont Community Improvement Plan for the Beaumont Community Improvement Project Area. On Motion by Chairman Thompson, seconded by Agency Member Shaw, the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency adopts Resolution No. BCI 82 -16. AYES: Agency Members May, Shaw, Lowry and Chairman Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Agency Member Hammel. RESOLUTION NO. BCI 82 -17 - Finding that the Use of Taxes Allocated from the Beaumont Project Area for the Purpose of Improving and Increasing the Community's Supply of Low and Moderate - Income Housing Outside the Project Area will be of Benefit to the Project Area. On Motion by Agency Member Shaw, seconded by Agency Member May, the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency adopts Resolution No. BCI 82 -17. J RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -63 - Finding that the Use of Taxes Allocated from the Beaumont Community Improvement Project Area for the Purpose of Improving and Increasing the Community's Supply of Low- and Moderate - Income Housing Outside the Project Area will be of Benefit to the Project Area. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -63. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman Hammel. D, �o 1317 AYES: Agency Members May, Shaw, Lowry and Chairman Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Agency Member Hammel. RESOLUTION NO.•BCI 82 -18 - Approving the Beaumont Community Improvemen- Plan and Project Area; Approving the Agency's Final Report to the City Council; and Directing the Secretary of the Agency to Transmit Re- quired Community Improvement Documents to the Beaumont City Council. On Motion by Agency Member Lowry, seconded by Agency Member May, the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency adopts Resolution No. BCI 82 -18 as amended by the changes directed by the City Council. AYES: Agency Members May, Shaw, Lowry and Chairman Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Agency Member Hammel. 15. City Council Approval and Adoption of Resolutions and Ordinance. J RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -63 - Finding that the Use of Taxes Allocated from the Beaumont Community Improvement Project Area for the Purpose of Improving and Increasing the Community's Supply of Low- and Moderate - Income Housing Outside the Project Area will be of Benefit to the Project Area. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -63. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman Hammel. D, �o 1317 I of RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -64 - Concurring with the Beaumont Community Im- Provement Agency's Approval and Certification of the Environmental Impact Report on the Beaumont Community Improvement Plan and Project Area. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -64. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman Hammel. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -65 - Electing to Receive the Allocation of Taxes Pursuant to Section 33676 of the California Health and Safety Code. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -65. l AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman Hammel. ORDINANCE NO. 559 - FIRST READING - Approving and Adopting the Beaumont Community Improvement Plan and Project Area. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont passes Ordinance No. 559, (As.Amended) for its first reading. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman Hammel. 16. On Motion by Agency Member Lowry, seconded by Agency Member Shaw, the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency adjourns its meeting. 17. The Beaumont Planning Commission reconvenes and adjourns its meeting. 18. The Community Improvement Agency Project Area Committee reconvenes and adjourns its meeting. 19. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting is adjourned at 12:30 P.M., to November 22, 1982, at 7:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, �.�ME MW n_ no BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL AND BEAUMONT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AGENCY MINUTES OF November 22, 1982 l . The Beaumont. City Council and Beaumont Community Improvement: Agency met; in a regular meeting at 7:30 P.M., on Monday, November 22, 1952, in the City Council Chambers, with Mnyo.r /Chairman Thompson presiding. 2. The Invocation was given by Reverand Roland Thorwaldsen, St. Stephens Episcopal Church. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Councilman Show. 4. On Roll Call the following Council /Agency Members were present,: May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor/Chairman Thompson. 5. There being no additions, deletion; or corrections, the Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of November 8, 1982 wero approved as yub- mitted. 6. Acceptance of Planning Commission Minutes. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, juris- diction over Conditional Use Permit No. 1005 ,and Plot Plan No. 1031 X) were transferred to the City Council; further, Revised Public Use bite Plan for the San Gorgonio Catholic Church is accepted except d� that Exhibits "A" and "B" shall be corrected to conform to the r� application which requested a storage building. It was further r'/ ved that Minutes of Planning Commission Meetings of October 19, %f . 982, November 16, 1982 and Special Meeting of November 18, 1982, be accepted with the changes as noted. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel and Lowry. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: Mayor Thompson. ABSENT: None. 7. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, warrants as audited per warrant list of November 22, 1982, in the amount of $43,920.90 and Payroll of November 4, 1982, in the amount of $25,800.78, were approved for payment as audited. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 8. Request from T.O.P.S. Club No. 1743, Beaumont, for Clarification of Use of Community Room No. 6. Members of the T.O.P.S. organization, Lucille Jackson, Billie Hills, Mammie Hitchcock and Dorothy Bridgewater addressed the Council �• expressing their concerns about the use by their group of Community Room 6, and the manner in which it is now being regulated. It: was suggested that a representative of T.O.P.S., the City Manager and the Senior Citizens Director meet to discuss the situation and come to a mutually acceptable agreement regarding the use of Room 6. 9. ORDINANCE NO. 561 - FIRST READING - Adopting a Conflict of Interest Code for the City of Beaumont Pursuant to California Government Code 87300 et . sed . 1 �✓ On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont passes Ordinance No. 561 for its first reading by title only. Page I AYES: Councilmen Mav, Shaw, NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 10. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -66 - Repealing Resolution No. 1980 -29. This resolution was continued until- the regular meeting of December 13, 1982. 11. Consideration of Claim Filed by Hershey Door Co. Against the City of Beaumont. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont directs that the City Clerk send a Notice of Insufficient of Claim f r y pursuant to Section 910.8 of the l/ Government Code to the claimant. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 12. Submittal of Location and Improvement Plan for Street -Sewer Mainten- ance Yar , and Request for Authorization to Advertise for Bids. �- This agenda item was continued until the regular meeting of December 13, 1982. 13. ORDINANCE NO. 559 - SECOND READING - Approving and Adopting the / Beaumont Community Improvement Plan and Project Area as amended. The following citizens were recognized and addressed the Council re- garding this agenda item, speaking in opposition to the Beaumont Community Improvement Plan: Ann Connors - 813 Elm Avenue Harold Blackaby - Maple Avenue Pat Hoff - 985 E. 13th Street Ron Hoff - 985 E. 13th Street Larry Gordon - 1284 Pennsylvania. Otis Obarr - 736 Palm Avenue Let the record show Ms. Connors submitted petitions in opposition to the Beaumont Community Improvement Plan containing 805 signatures. This agend<_i item was continued until an adjourned meeting on Wednesday, November 24, 1982. 14. RESOLUTION NO. BCI 82 -19 - A Resolution of the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency Adopting a Relocation Assistance Plan for the �-' Beaumont Community Improvement Project Area. This Agenda item was continued until an adjourned meeting on November 24, 1982. 15. RESOLUTION NO. BCI 82 -20 - A Resolution of the Beaumont Community Improvement. Agency Adopting the Rules and Guidelines of the Prepara- tion of Replacement Housing Plans for the Beaumont Community Improvement. Project Area. This Agenda item was continued until an adjourned meeting on November 24, 1982. 16. Consideration of Claim Filed by Ruth J. Blanchette Against the City of Beaumont. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont rejects the claim filed by Ruth J. Blanchette, refers it to the City Attorney, and directs the City Clerk to send a Notice of Rejection to the claimant. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Page 2 17. Consideration of Renewal of Lease Agreement with Beaumont Recreation and Parks District. (Continued from November 8, 1982). This agenda item was continued until the regular meeting of January 10, 1983. 18. Request for Budget Transfer - Electric Conversion Funds to Street Project. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the transfer. of `1 $25,000 from electrical conversion, 01- 325 -268 to the 6th Street ,Median street project, 01- 310 -505. LZABSTAIN: AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. None. ABSENT: None. 19. Consideration of Bid Received on Sixth Street Median Improvements. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont rejects the bid received from Redlands Paving; and authorizes the City staff to go to bid again by legal advertising and by extending an Invitation to Bid by direct ` email to all local contractors. d AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel_, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. lZ ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 20. ORDINANCE NO. 547 - FIRST READING - Regulating the Division of Land. (Continued from November 8, 1982). This agenda item was continued until the regular meeting of December 13, 1982. 22. ORAL COMMUNICATION: a. Jackie Cirivello addressed the Council regarding the expansion of the DeAnza Cycle Park, which has been proposed by Riverside County, asking the City Council to have a representative at the meeting of the Board of Supervisors on November 30, 1982, at 1:30 P.M. Ms. Cirivello spoke in opposition to the expan- sion of the cycle park. b. Mr. Oscar Leeb addressed the Council, however, his remarks are not on the tape. 21. The Council adjourned to Executive Session regarding Personnel and Litigation Matters at 9:45 P.M. The Council reconvened to regular session at 1.0:35 P.M. Let the record show there was no positive decisions made in Executive Session. ADD ITEM Master Sewer Plan and EIR. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont acknowledges receipt of the EIR on n` the Master Sewer Plan, and sets the date for hearing for January I" 10, 1983, at 8:00 P.M. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Page 3 23. Embankment Control at Wastewater Ti:- eatment Plant by Guniting. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the embankment control at the Wastewater Treatment Plant by guniting as recommended in report of November 22, 1982, and directs that it be carried over the top so that water cannot possibly get under the gunite. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned to 7:00 P.M. on Wednesday, November 24, 1982, at 10:55 P.M. Respectfully submitted, CITY CLE Page 4 BEAUMONT CITY COUNCII, AND BEAUMONT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AGENCY MINUTES OF ADJOURNED MEETING OF NOVEMBER 24, 1982 (Adjourned from November 22, 1982) 1. The Beaumont City Council. and Beaumont Community Improvement. Agency met in an adjourned meeting at 7:00 P.M., on Wednesday, November 24, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor. /Chairman Thompson presiding. 2. On Roll. Call the following Council. /Agency Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor /Chairman Thompson. 3. ORDINANCE NO. 559 - SECOND READING - Approving and Adopting the Beaumont Community Improvement Plan and Project Area as amended. Matt Russo, Beaumont Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Council con- cerning this agenda item, reading a letter dated November 24, 1982 from the Chamber of Commerce, and asking that this letter be made a part of the record. The City Manager than read his letter to the City Council contain- ing his recommendation on the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency for the benefit of the audience, since there were points that should be brought to their attention. Councilman Hammel then read from a. statement to the citizens of Beaumont, and asked that it become a part of the record. Marshall Krupp, Willdan Associates, addressed the Council stating that he wanted to clarify a couple of points which are important . to be put on the record. First of all it should be understood that the comments that were made at both the last meeting, as well as at this meeting, have been taken out of the public hearing, therefore they are not a part of the public testimony of the adoption of the redevelopment plan. However, they are part of the minutes, and they are a part of the official record of the City Council. The second point that I think is important to make is that Mayor Pro Tem Hammel had abstained from action on the first reading of the Ordinance, and it would also be my recommendation this evening that he abstain from any additional vote on the ordinance because of recent, discussions that we have in the public meetings. The other points that I would like to clarify because we have had several meetings since the public hearing, and I wanted to make it very clear what action you did take at the public hearing. As a result of all the testimony there were several recommendations made by the community and by taxing juris- dictions with regards to minimizing the impact of the redevelopment program. One was to reduce the duration of the plan. The second was to reduce the size of the project area. The third was to reduce the scope of the project contemplated by the plan. The fourth was to reduce the total amount of cumulative tax increment to be received by the Agency. The fifth was to reduce the total amount of annual tax increment to be received by the Agency. The sixth was to use alter- native financial resources where available. The seventh was to provide cooperative agreements. And the last was any combination of the above. These were the kinds of recommendations that were being presented to you. As a result of your decision, the following actions were implemented. First of all the plan was - at least as I perceive it - the plan was reduced from 45 years to 35 years, or a reduction of 22 %. Subproject Area E was deleted from the project area. Third the Civic Center complex, the corporate yard facilities, were removed from the project list. Fourth, the plan provided for preservation of historical buildings designated by the City Council or the State Historical Resource Commission. Five - language was put into the plan to limit the authority of the Executive Director, who is Page 1. presently Mr. Davis, without prior a.ppr.oval of the City Council and/ or Agency. Six - the use of alternative financial resources were acknowledged as stated in Sections 700.10, 700.40 and 700.60 of the plan. By eliminating Subproject Area E - I have to assume that you also eliminated the projects that would occur in Subproject E. Let me explain how that affects the limitation on the plan. The City Hall complex was estimated at 2.5 million dollars. The corporate yard improvements were estimated at 200,000 dollars, and the various Highway 60 improvements were estimated at 2 million dollars. That is 4.7 million dollars which would reduce your project cost from 24 million dollars to 19.3 million dollars. That is a reduction of about 19.5 %. Consistent with that, the limitation on the plan, which was a low of 30 million and a high of 50 million, should also be reduced, consistent with your project cost. Therefore, the limitation - the low limitation of 30 million dollars should be reduced to 24 million dollars - and the high limitation would be reduced from 50 million dollars to 40.5 million dollars -- actually it is 40.208 million dollars. Now you could either round it up to 40.5 or round it down to 40 million dollars even. My recommendation would be to use the low of 24 and the high of 40 million dollars on your limitation. Now the result will be less of am impact on the various taxing jurisdictions because the limit is now reduced. And that would be consistent with - I think - the kinds of recommendations that were being made, and I believe that was your intent - and I am willing to be questioned or corrected if that was not your intent. City Manager: In order to achieve that, Marshall, if the Council does choose to proceed, what should be the directive action - ,just a minute order to this effect. Marshall Krupp: Yes, just a minute order to revise the plan to reflect the intent of the Council. We have got all of the other changes. The only change we haven't done is reducing the limitation because you really didn't directly come out and tell us to do that. But I thintc that is what your intent was. On Motion ley Councilman Lowry, seconded by Mayor Thompson, -the City Council of the City of Beaumont changes the Community Improvom(�nt. Agency Plan so the minimum figure for the plan shall be 24 million dollars, with the maximum 40 million dollars. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: Councilman Hammel. ABSENT: None. Motion by Councilman Shaw to adopt. Ordinance No. 559 and set a. date for a vote by the people was withdrawn by Councilman Shaw. l On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City '.r Council of the City of Beaumont, adopts Ordinance No. 559 at its f second reading by title only. �1 AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: Councilman Hammel. ABSENT: None. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont will submit the question "'Shall Ordinance 559, the Beaumont Community Improvement Plan, be rescinded" to the voters of the City at a special election to be held on April. 5, 1983. AYES: Councilmen NOES: None. ABSTAIN: Councilman ABSENT: None. May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. Hammel. Page 2 Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, to allow City Manager Davis to respond to Ms. Connors. AYES: Councilmen May, NOES: Mayor Thompson. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Shaw, Hammel and Lowry. 4. PUBLIC HEARING - 7:30 P.M. - Regarding Proposed Annexation No. 27 to the City of Beaumont (LAFCO No. 82- 11 -3). The Public Hearing was opened at 8:00 P.M. The City Manager described the proposed annexation, and called attention to the fact that petitions had been filed protesting the annexation which apparently .represented approximately 50% of the registered voters in the area proposed to be annexed. He then, for the benefit of those attending the meeting, outlined the benefits they could expect by being annexed to the City. There being no further input from the public, the public hearing was declared closed at 8:17 P.M. Mayor Thompson announced the decision of the Council would be predicated upon the verification of the signatures on the original petition submitted. If greater than 50% oppose the annexation, it automatically terminates. 5. Location and Improvement Plan for Street -Sewer Maintenance Yard. Submittal of Report. (Continued from November 22, 1982). This agenda item was continued for further report. 6. Recommendation regarding Interest Allocation. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont affirms the intent to allocate in- pr) terest to all continuing appropriation fund accounts, and that. V interest allocations be made annually at the time earned. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 7. ORAL COMMUNICATION: a. June Fleischer, 8620 Avenida Mira.villa, addressed the Council reading a letter of appreciation and commendation for the actions of Officer Raymond Lopez on behalf of her family and their secretary. She then read a letter written by Ms. Leah l i Riddell, her secretary, commending Officer Lopez. b. Mr. Ronald Floth, 1287 California, Beaumont, spoke to the Council commending Officer Ray Lopez. C. Eleanor Flores, 539 Ninth Street, addressed the Council regarding Officer Ray Lopez, stating he was a good man, a gift to the community and to the ,youth of the community, and should be kept on the Beaumont Police Force. C. Mr. Bill Bailey, 11151 Quincy, Sunnymead, addressed the Council concerning the DeAnza Cycle Park being proposed. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont directs that a resolution be pre- pared opposing the expansion of the DeAnza Motorcycle Raceway, to be presented. to the Board of Supervisors. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Page 3 There being no further business to come before the Council, tho meeting was adjourned at 9:07 P.M. Respectfully submitted, CITX CLIMK Page 4 F BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL AND BEAUMONT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AGENCY MINUTES OF December 13, 1982 1. The Beaumont City Council and Beaumont Community Improvement Agency met in a regular meeting at 7:33 P.M., on Monday, December 13, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor /Chairman Thompson presiding. 2. The Invocation was given by Reverand John Hall, San Gorgonio Pass Church of Religious Science. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Councilman May. 4. On Roll Call the following Council /Agency Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor /Chairman Thompson. 5. There being no additions, deletions or corrections, the Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of November 22, 1982 and Adjourned Council Meeting of November 24, 1982 were approved as submitted. The Minutes of Adjourned Meeting of November 10, 1982 were continued until the regular meeting -of December 27, 1982. 6. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, warrants as audited per warrant list of December 13, 1982, in the amount of $115,316.43, and Payrolls of November 18, 1982 and December 2, 1982, in the amounts of $28,092.05 and $27,410.64 respectively, were approved for payment as audited. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 7. RESOLUTION NO. BCI 82 -19 - Adopting a Relocation Assistance Plan for the Beaumont Community Improvement Project Area. ` Continued until after the Special Election in April, which will be the regular meeting of April 11, 1983. 8. RESOLUTION NO. BCI 82 -20 - Adopting the Rules and Guidelines of the Preparation of Replacement Housing Plans for the Beaumont Community Improvement Project Area. Continued until after the Special Election in April, which will be the regular meeting of April 11, 1983. 9. ORDINANCE NO. 547 - Regulating the Division of Land. (Continued from November 22, 1982). Motion by Councilman Lowry and second by Councilman Hammel, passing Ordinance No. 547 for its first reading as prepared by Chief Planner Gary Croft, incorporating the changes which were presented to the Council, with the changes to be included in the Ordinance by the second reading. AYES: Councilmen Hammel and Lowry. NOES: Councilman Shaw and Mayor Thompson. ABSTAIN: Councilman May. ABSENT: None. MOTION FAILED. Motion by Councilman Shaw, second by Councilman May, to hold Ordinance 547 in abeyance until January 10, 1983, was withdrawn. This agenda item was continued until the regular meeting of January 10, 1983. ' Page 1 a R 10. ORDINANCE NO. 561 - SECOND READING - Adopting a Conflict of Interest Code for the City of Beaumont Pursuant to California Government Code 87300 Et-Seq. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Ordinance No. 561 at its L�econd reading, by title only. The Ordinance was read by title only by the City Clerk. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 11. ORDINANCE NO. 562 - FIRST READING - Prohibiting the Parking of Vehicles on Certain Streets between 2:00 A.M. and 6:00 A.M. for the Purpose of Regulation for Street Sweeping Purposes in Accordance with Section 22507.6 of the Vehicle Code of the State of California. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City ,/ Council of the City of Beaumont passes Ordinance No. 562 at its first reading with the following change: l Section 4. Delete the words "and 14th Street between Beaumont Avenue and Cherry Avenue ", and LZ insert the following wording - "and the entire length of 14th Street within the City Limits " AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel and Lowry. NOES: Mayor Thompson. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 12. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -67 - Terminating Annexation Proceedings on Annexation No. 27. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -67. ` The resolution was read in its entirety by the City Manager. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 13. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -68 - Requesting the Local Agency Formation Commission to Waive the Provisions of Section 35238 in Order to / Permit an Annexation Proposal. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City / Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -68. The resolution was read in its entirety by the City Manager. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 14. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -69 - Requesting the Congress of the United States to Maintain Flexible Equity in Adopting a 5 Cents Increase in Federal Gas Tax for Transportation Improvements. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -69. . l f The resolution was read in its entirety by the City Manager. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None: Page 2 15. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -70 - Amending Sewer Charges Pursuant to Ordinance No. 416 and Repealing Resolutions Numbers 1971 -27, 1973 -7, 1975 -15, 1978 -18, 1978 -24, 1978 -27 and 1982 -42 and all Parts of Resolutions in Conflict Herewith. / Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, to adopt Resolution No. 1982 -70 with the single family residence rate j- changed to $6.00 per month, and charges to other users to be prorated based on that figure, with a rebate to be made one time only on January 1, 1983. Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, to amend Councilman Lowry's motion to set the rate at $5.75, as originally indicated in the resolution, retroactive to July 1, 1982. VOTE TAKEN ON AMENDMENT TO MOTION: AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Mayor Thompson. NOES: Councilmen Hammel and Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. AMENDMENT TO MOTION CARRIED. VOTE TAKEN ON ORIGINAL MOTION: AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Mayor Thompson. NOES: Councilman Hammel and Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. ORIGINAL MOTION CARRIED WITH AMENDMENT. 16. Presentation by Ray Velez Regarding Teen Outreach Program. This agenda item was continued until the regular meeting of January 10, 1983. 17. Decision on Election Procedure for Special Election. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the City Manager to employ the firm of Martin and Chapman to conduct the Special Election on April 5, 1983 for the City of Beaumont. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 18. Consideration of Claim Filed by Hershey Door Company Against the City of Beaumont. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont rejects the claim filed by Hershey Door Company and directs the City Clerk to send a Notice of Rejection. / AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 19. Decision Regarding Settlement of Case of Sanchez vs Lunar, et al. v On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the City Attorney's recom- mendation and directs that he notify the law firm accordingly. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Page 3 I 20. Decision on Employee Insurance Program. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the City Manager to im- plement a partial City self- insurance program with a Blue Cross $500 deductible, 2 user deductible plan, and $5,000 "Stop Loss" with the City self insuring everything over the provisions of the current plan, namely the difference in the $100 deductible and $2,000 "Stop Loss ", which obligates the City to 80% of the deductible difference ($400 x 80% _ $320) and the "Stop Loss" difference ($5,000 - $2,000 _ $3,000 x 20% _ $600 maximum) for a total user benefit responsibi- lity by the City of $920. , N The City Manager is further authorized to offer as an option to the employees the ability to select the Kaiser Medical and Hospital Benefits Plan with the employee responsible for a portion of the V monthly contribution. The City Manager is further authorized to transfer $18,500 from 01- 900 -999, Reserve for Contingencies to Fund No. 42, Insurance Self - funded Medical Fund and $5,000 from 01- 900 -999 to Departmental Accounts No. 162. The City Manager is further authorized to reopen negotiations in the event the employees' groups do not concur with these recommendations. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 21. Location and Improvement Plan for Street -Sewer Maintenance Yard. (Continued from November 24, 1982). Motion by Councilman Shaw and second by Councilman May to accept the City Manager's recommendation was withdrawn. Motion by Councilman Lowry directing the City Manager to proceed with obtaining plans for the building and improvement plan for the Street -Sewer Maintenance yard, and bring back a cost estimate on January 10, 1983, died for lack of a second. This agenda item was continued until the regular meeting of January 10, 1983. 22. Decision Regarding Purchase of Copier for Police Department. ( i On Motion by Councilman May, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City ,. Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the low bid of Ikon Copiers l for the Sharp 825 w /ADF at a price of $6,090.06, and further uthorizes the City Manager to enter a service agreement with Ikon for $.016 per copy for all service and supplies including parts after warranty has expired. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 23. Request for Approval of Planning Commissioners to Attend University of California Course on "How to be a More Effective Commissioner ". Motion by Councilman Shaw, second by Councilman May, to approve the four Planning Commissioners attendance at the University of California course being offered on January 22, 1983, with the funds / to be taken from the City Council budget for meetings. v Motion by Councilman Lowry, second by Councilman Hammel, to amend Councilman Shaw's motion to the effect that the funds shall be transferred from the Reserve for Contingencies, 01- 900 -999. VOTE TAKEN ON AMENDMENT TO MOTION: AYES: Councilmen May, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: Councilman Shaw. ABSTAIN: None. Page 4 ABSENT: None. a VOTE TAKEN ON ORIGINAL MOTION: 0 AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. MOTION CARRIED WITH AMENDMENT. 24. Request for Authorization to Hire Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator and Authorization for Transfer of Funds. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the hiring of either a Wastewater Operator I on Range No. 238, starting at $1,135, or a i � Wastewater Operator II on Range No. 265, starting at $1,298; and further authorizes the transfer of funds from 10- 405 -999 to salaries and benefits. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 25. Request for Authorization to Transfer 6th Year Entitlement Fund Surplus to Cherry Avenue Sewer Project. / On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the transfer of 6th Year Entitlement Fund surplus to the Cherry Avenue Sewer Project. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 26. Authorization for Mayor to Sign Agreement for Prosecution Services with District Attorney's Office. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the Mayor to Sign Agreement for Prosecution Services with District Attorney's Office. V AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 27. Consideration of Agreements with CalTrans. This agenda item was referred to the City Attorney for review. 28. Authorization for Mayor to Sign Notice of Completion for Matich Corporation re Pennsylvania Avenue. r .i On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the Mayor to sign otice of Completion for Matich Corporation re Pennsylvania Avenue. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 29. Request for Budget Transfer to Cover Revenue Sharing Audit. On Motion by Mayor Thompson, seconded.by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the request for budget transfer from Account No. 01- 900 -999 to Account No. 01- 145 -252, in the amount of $5,000, to cover the Revenue Sharing audit. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None: ABSENT: None. Page 5 i N 30. Submittal of Financial Report; for Period Ending October 31, 1982 for Filing Pursuant to Government Code. Ordered Filed. 31. Submittal of Beaumont Community Improvement Agency Statement of Operations for Month Ending October 31, 1982. Ordered Filed. 32. ORAL COMMUNICATION: There were no requests for oral communication. ADD ITEM 33. Conditional Use Permit No. 1005. Applicant: Albert and Betty Seeburger. Location: 985 N. Beaumont Avenue. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont grants Conditional Use Permit No. 1005 subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. The owner shall provide gravel in the holes in the alley. ' 2. To insure future paving of the alley, either a bond shall be posted in the amount of $1,110, or a development agree- ment shall be executed as a lien on the property. 3. All conditions of the Planning Commission must be complied with prior to occupancy, deleting therefrom the two year extension as granted by the Planning Commission. 4. The Planning Commission condition for either removal or the use of slurry of gas tanks shall be upheld. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: Councilman Hammel. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, /` wwmm Page 6 t 1 I BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL AND BEAUMONT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AGENCY MINUTES OF DECEMBER 27, 1982 1. The Beaumont City Council and Beaumont Community Improvement Agency met in a regular meeting at 7:31 P.M., on Monday, December 27, 1982 in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor /Chairman Thompson presiding. 2. The Invocation was given by Reverend Cliff Howrey, First Southern Baptist Church. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Mayor Thompson. 4. On Roll Call the following Council /Agency Members were present: May, Hammel and Mayor /Chairman Thompson. Councilmen Shaw and Lowry were excused. 5. There being no additions, deletions or corrections, the Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of December 13, 1982 were approved as submitted. Approval of the Minutes of Adjourned Council Meeting of November 10, 1982 was continued pending further proof reading and corrections to January 10, 1983. 6. The Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of December 7, 1982 were accepted as submitted. 7. On motion of Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman May, warrants as audited per warrant list of December 27, 1982, in the amount of $139,631.93 and payroll of December 16, 1982, in the amount of $27,318.94, were ap- proved for payment as audited. AYES: Councilmen Hammel, May and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilmen Shaw and Lowry. 8. ORDINANCE NO. 562 - SECOND READING - Prohibiting Parking of Vehicles on Certain treets between 2:00 A.M. and 6:00 A.M. for the Purpose of Regu- lation for Street Sweeping Purposes in Accordance with Section 22507.6 of the Vehicle Code of the State of California. r /On Motion of Councilman May, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City )0 _Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Ordinance No. 562 at its second ,',)',reading prohibiting parking of vehicles on certain streets between 2:00 A.M. and 6:00 A.M. for the purpose of regulation for street sweeping purposes in accordance with Section 22507.6 of the Vehicle Code of the State of California, by title only. The ordinance was read by title only by the City Clerk. AYES: Councilmen May and Hammel. NOES: Mayor Thompson. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilmen Shaw and Lowry. 9. .1 RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -66 - Calling and Giving Notice of the Holding of a Special Municipal Election to be Held in Said City on Tuesday, April 5, , .983, for the Submission to the Qualified Electors of Said City and Wrdinance Relating to the Use of the Beaumont Community Improvement ;e"AAgency. Page 1 I I 10. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -71'- Requesting the Board of Supervisors of the ounty of i.verside to Render Specified Services to Said City Relating to.the Conduct of a Special Municipal Election to be Held in Said City on Tuesday, April 5, 1983. 11. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -72 - Authorizing Certain Council Members to File /a Written Argument Regarding a City Measure. n motion of Mayor Thompson, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -66, Resolution No. 1982 -71 and Resolution No. 1982 -72, by title only. AYES: Mayor Thompson and Councilman May. NOES: Councilman Hammel. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilmen Shaw and Lowry. 12. Consideration of Bid Received for Sixth Street Median Improvements. �On motion of Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman May, to accept / Baldi Bros. bid in the amount of $15,247.95 for Sixth Street Median a3 Improvements: AYES: Councilmen Hammel, May and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilmen Shaw and Lowry. 13. PUBLIC HEARING - 8:00 P.M. - Application for Conditional Use Permit No. 1005. Applicant: Albert and Betty Seeburger. Location 985 N. Beaumont Avenue. Mayor Thompson opened the Public Hearing at 8:10 P.M. On motion of Councilman May, seconded by Councilman Hammel, to continue his Public Hearing to the regular Council meeting of January 10, 1983 1 to afford Councilman Lowry the opportunity to be present: AYES: Councilmen May and Hammel. NOES: Mayor Thompson. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilmen Shaw and Lowry. 14. Employment of Special Counsel. On motion of Mayor Thompson, seconded by Councilman Hammel, authorizing r / the City Manager to retain Martin J. Mayer for a maximum of four hours for legal consultation: AYES: Councilmen Hammel, May and Mayor Thompson. V NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilmen Shaw and Lowry. 15. Acceptance of Resignation of Cleo J. West from Senior Citizen Advisory Commission. On motion of Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman May, to accept the resignation of Cleo J. West from the Senior Citizen Advisory Com- mission: AYES: Councilmen Hammel, May and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilmen Shaw and Lowry. Page 2 w 1 16. Request for Authc:l.'.,-�ation to Utilize City Funds for a Computer Search of Possible Grant Fund Sources as submitted by the Senior Citizen Advisory Commission. On motion of Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman May, granting the request for Authorization to Utilize City Funds for a Computer Search as requested at a cost of $57.00 for 30 minutes of equipment time, plus $.30 for each item produced, with the funds to be taken l/ from Line Item No. 254 - Special Department Supplies: AYES: Councilmen Hammel, May and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilmen Shaw and Lowry. 17. Special Recognition of Mrs. Jessie Paulsen on her 100th Birthday. Councilman Hammel announced that Mrs. Paulsen had passed away two days ago. l On motion of Mayor Thompson, seconded by Councilman Hammel, to send to LI-11 the family an expression of sympathy signed by all. AYES: Councilmen Hammel, May and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilmen Shaw and Lowry. 18. Request for Budget Transfer for Gym Shear Wall. On motion of Mayor Thompson, seconded by Councilman May, to approve the request for Budget Transfer for Gym Shear Wall in the amount of ` $17,454.00 from account #01- 900 -999 to account #01- 145 -302: 1 AYES: Councilmen Hammel, May and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilmen Shaw and Lowry. 19. Report to Council - Transfers from Reserve for Contingencies Account. The City Manager reported on transfers from Reserve for Contingencies ii Account and commented that a further report should be available at the next regular meeting. 20. The Financial Report for period ending November 30, 1982 was ordered I-- filed. 21. The Beaumont Community Improvement Agency Statement of Operations for month ending November 30, 1982 was ordered filed. 22. ORAL COMMUNICATION: The City Manager reported that the Finance Director has requested permission to attend the California Municipal Finance Officers Annual Seminar in Sacramento at a cost of $257.00. On motion of Councilman May, seconded by Councilman Hammel, to deny f this request as it is out of the jurisdiction and is contrary to City /policy: 1 L��' AYES: Councilmen May, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilmen Shaw and Lowry. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 P.M., on Monday, December 27, 1982, in the City Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, CITY CLERX, CITY OF BEA MONT Page 3 BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL AND BEAUMONT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AGENCY MINUTES OF DECEMBER 27, 1982 1. The Beaumont City Council and Beaumont Community Improvement Agency met in a regular meeting at 7:31 P.M., on Monday, December 27, 1982 in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor /Chairman Thompson presiding. 2. The Invocation was given by Reverend Cliff Howrey, First Southern Baptist Church. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Mayor Thompson. 4. On Roll Call the following Council /Agency Members were present: May, Hammel and Mayor /Chairman Thompson. Councilmen Shaw and Lowry were excused. 5. There being no additions, deletions or corrections, the Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of December 13, 1982 were approved as submitted. Approval of the Minutes of Adjourned Council Meeting of November 10, 1982 was continued pending further proof reading and corrections to January 10, 1983. 6. The Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of December 7, 1982 were accepted as submitted. 7. On motion of Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman May, warrants as audited per warrant list of December 27, 1982, in the amount of $139,631.93 and payroll of December 16, 1982, in the amount of $27,318.94, were ap- proved for payment as audited. AYES: Councilmen Hammel, May and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilmen Shaw and Lowry. 8. ORDINANCE NO. 562 - SECOND READING - Prohibiting Parking of Vehicles on Certain Streets between 2:00 A.M. and 6:00 A.M. for the Purpose of Regu- lation for Street Sweeping Purposes in Accordance with Section 22507.6 of the Vehicle Code of the State of California. On Motion of Councilman May, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Ordinance No. 562 at its second reading prohibiting parking of vehicles on certain streets between 2:00 A.M. and 6:00 A.M. for the purpose of regulation for street sweeping purposes in accordance with Section 22507.6 of the Vehicle Code of the State of California, by title only. The ordinance was read by title only by the City Clerk. AYES: Councilmen May and Hammel. NOES: Mayor Thompson. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilmen Shaw and Lowry. 9. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -66 - Calling and Giving Notice of the Holding of a Special Municipal Election to be Held in Said City on Tuesday, April 5, 1983, for the Submission to the Qualified Electors of Said City and Ordinance Relating to the Use of the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency. Page 1 10. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -71 Requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside to Render Specified Services to Said City Relating to the Conduct of a Special Municipal Election to be Held in Said City on Tuesday, April 5, 1983. 11. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -72 - Authorizing Certain Council Members to File a Written Argument Regarding a City Measure. On motion of Mayor Thompson, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -66, Resolution No. 1982 -71 and Resolution No. 1982 -72, by title only. AYES: Mayor Thompson and Councilman May. NOES: Councilman Hammel. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilmen Shaw and Lowry. 12. Consideration of Bid Received for Sixth Street Median Improvements. On motion of Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman May, to accept Baldi Bros. bid in the amount of $15,247.95 for Sixth Street Median Improvements: AYES: Councilmen Hammel, May and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilmen Shaw and Lowry. 13. PUBLIC HEARING - 8:00 P.M. - Application for Conditional Use Permit No. 1005. Applicant: Albert and Betty Seeburger. Location 985 N. Beaumont Avenue. Mayor Thompson opened the Public Hearing at 8:10 P.M. On motion of Councilman May, seconded by Councilman Hammel, to continue this Public Hearing to the regular Council meeting of January 10, 1983 to afford Councilman Lowry the opportunity to be present: AYES: Councilmen May and Hammel. NOES: Mayor Thompson. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilmen Shaw and Lowry. 14. Employment of Special Counsel. On motion of Mayor Thompson, seconded by Councilman Hammel, authorizing the City Manager to retain Martin J. Mayer for a maximum of four hours for legal consultation: AYES: Councilmen Hammel, May and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilmen Shaw and Lowry. 15. Acceptance of Resignation of Cleo J. West from Senior Citizen Advisory Commission. On motion of Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman May, to accept the resignation of Cleo J. West from the Senior Citizen Advisory Com- mission: AYES: Councilmen Hammel, May and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilmen Shaw and Lowry. Page 2 16. Request for Authorization to Utilize City Funds for a Computer Search of Possible Grant Fund Sources as submitted by the Senior Citizen Advisory Commission. On motion of Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman May, granting the request for Authorization to Utilize City Funds for a Computer Search as requested at a cost of $57.00 for 30 minutes of equipment time, plus $.30 for each item produced, with the funds to be taken from Line Item No. 254 - Special Department Supplies: AYES: Councilmen Hammel, May and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilmen Shaw and Lowry. 17. Special Recognition of Mrs. Jessie Paulsen on her 100th Birthday. Councilman Hammel announced that Mrs. Paulsen had passed away two days ago. On motion of Mayor Thompson, seconded by Councilman Hammel, to send to the family an expression of sympathy signed by all. AYES: Councilmen Hammel, May and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilmen Shaw and Lowry. 18. Request for Budget Transfer for Gym Shear Wall. On motion of Mayor Thompson, seconded by Councilman May, to approve the request for Budget Transfer for Gym Shear Wall in the amount of $17,454.00 from account #01- 900 -999 to account #01 -145 -302: AYES: Councilmen Hammel, May and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilmen Shaw and Lowry. 19. Report to Council - Transfers from Reserve for Contingencies Account. The City Manager reported on transfers from Reserve for Contingencies Account and commented that a further report should be available at the next regular meeting. 20. The Financial Report for period ending November 30, 1982 was ordered filed. 21. The Beaumont Community Improvement Agency Statement of Operations for month ending November 30., 1982 was ordered filed. 22. ORAL COMMI-�NICATION: The City Manager reported that the Finance Director has requested permission to attend the California Municipal Finance Officers Annual Seminar in Sacramento at a cost of $257.00. On motion of Councilman May, seconded by Councilman Hammel, to deny this request as it is out of the jurisdiction and is contrary to City policy: AYES: Councilmen May, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilmen Shaw and Lowry. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 P.M., on Monday, December 27, 1982, in the City Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, CITY CLERK, CITY OF BEA MONT Page 3 BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL AND BEAUMONT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AGENCY MINUTES OF December 13, 1982 1. The Beaumont City Council and Beaumont Community Improvement Agency met in a regular meeting at 7:33 P.M., on Monday, December 13, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor /Chairman Thompson presiding. 2. The Invocation was given by Reverand John Hall, San Gorgonio Pass Church of Religious Science. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Councilman May. 4. On Roll Call the following Council /Agency Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor /Chairman Thompson. 5. There being no additions, deletions or corrections, the Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of November 22, 1982 and Adjourned Council Meeting of November 24, 1982 were approved as submitted. The Minutes of Adjourned Meeting of November 10, 1982 were continued until the regular meeting of December 27, 1982. 6. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, warrants as audited per warrant list of December 13, 1982, in the amount of $115,316.43, and Payrolls of November 18, 1982 and December 2, 1982, in the amounts of $28,092.05 and $27,410.64 respectively, were approved for payment as audited. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 7. RESOLUTION NO. BCI 82 -19 - Adopting a Relocation Assistance Plan for the Beaumont Community Improvement Project Area. Continued until after the Special Election in April, which will be the regular meeting of April 11, 1983. 8. RESOLUTION NO. BCI 82 -20 - Adopting the Rules and Guidelines of the Preparation of Replacement Housing Plans for the Beaumont Community Improvement Project Area. Continued until after the Special Election in April, which will be the regular meeting of April 11, 1983. 9. ORDINANCE NO. 547 - Regulating the Division of Land. (Continued from November 22, 1982). Motion by Councilman Lowry and second by Councilman Hammel, passing Ordinance No. 547 for its first reading as prepared by Chief Planner Gary Croft, incorporating the changes which were presented to the Council, with the changes to be included in the Ordinance by the second reading. AYES: Councilmen Hammel and Lowry. NOES: Councilman Shaw and Mayor Thompson. ABSTAIN: Councilman May. ABSENT: None. MOTION FAILED. Motion by Councilman Shaw, second by Councilman May, to hold Ordinance 547 in abeyance until January 10, 1983, was withdrawn. This agenda item was continued until the regular meeting of January 10, 1983. Page 1 10. ORDINANCE NO. 561 - SECOND READING - Adopting a Conflict of Interest Code for the City of Beaumont Pursuant to California Government Code 87300 Et.Seq. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Ordinance No. 561 at its second reading, by title only. The Ordinance was read by title only by the City Clerk. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 11. ORDINANCE NO. 562 - FIRST READING - Prohibiting the Parking of Vehicles on Certain Streets between 2:00 A.M. and 6:00 A.M. for the Purpose of Regulation for Street Sweeping Purposes in Accordance with Section 22507.6 of the Vehicle Code of the State of California. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont passes Ordinance No. 562 at its first reading with the following change: Section 4. Delete the words "and 14th Street between Beaumont Avenue and Cherry Avenue ", and insert the following wording - "and the entire length of 14th Street within the City Limits . AYES: Councilmen May, NOES: Mayor Thompson. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Shaw, Hammel and Lowry. 12. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -67 - Terminating Annexation Proceedings on Annexation No. 27. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -67. The resolution was read in its entirety by the City Manager. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 13. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -68 - Requesting the Local Agency Formation Commission to Waive the Provisions of Section 35238 in Order to Permit an Annexation Proposal. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -68. The resolution was read in its entirety by the City Manager. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 14. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -69 - Requesting the Congress of the United States to Maintain Flexible Equity in Adopting a 5 Cents Increase in Federal Gas Tax for Transportation Improvements. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -69. The resolution was read in its entirety by the City Manager. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Page 2 15. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -70 - Amending Sewer Charges Pursuant to Ordinance No. 416 and Repealing Resolutions Numbers 1971 -27, 1973 -7, 1975 -15, 1978 -18, 1978 -24, 1978 -27 and 1982 -42 and all Parts of Resolutions in Conflict Herewith. Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, to adopt Resolution No. 1982 -70 with the single family residence rate changed to $6.00 per month, and charges to other users to be prorated based on that figure, with a rebate to be made one time only on January 1, 1983. Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, to amend Councilman Lowry's motion to set the rate at $5.75, as originally indicated in the resolution, retroactive to July 1, 1982. VOTE TAKEN ON AMENDMENT TO MOTION: AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Mayor Thompson. NOES: Councilmen Hammel and Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. AMENDMENT TO MOTION CARRIED. VOTE TAKEN ON ORIGINAL MOTION: AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Mayor Thompson. NOES: Councilman Hammel and Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. ORIGINAL MOTION CARRIED WITH AMENDMENT. 16. Presentation by Ray Velez Regarding Teen Outreach Program. This agenda item was continued until the regular meeting of January 10, 1983. 17. Decision on Election Procedure for Special Election. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the City Manager to employ the firm of Martin and Chapman to conduct the Special Election on April 5, 1983 for the City of Beaumont. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 18. Consideration of Claim Filed by Hershey Door Company Against the City of Beaumont. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont rejects the claim filed by Hershey Door Company and directs the City Clerk to send a Notice of Rejection. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 19. Decision Regarding Settlement of Case of Sanchez vs Lunar, et al. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the City Attorney's recom- mendation and directs that he notify the law firm accordingly. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Page 3 20. 21. 22. 23. Decision on Employee Insurance Program. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the City Manager to im- plement a partial City self - insurance program with a Blue Cross $500 deductible, 2 user deductible plan, and $5,000 "Stop Loss" with the City self insuring everything over the provisions of the current plan, namely the difference in the $100 deductible and $2,000 "Stop Loss ", which obligates the City to 80% of the deductible difference ($400 x 80% _ $320) and the "Stop Loss" difference ($5,000 - $2,000 _ $3,000 x 20% _ $600 maximum) for a total user benefit responsibi- lity by the City of $920. The City Manager is further authorized to offer as an option to the employees the ability to select the Kaiser Medical and Hospital Benefits Plan with the employee responsible for a portion of the monthly contribution. The City Manager is further authorized to transfer $18,500 from 01- 900 -999, Reserve for Contingencies to Fund No. 42, Insurance Self - funded Medical Fund and $5,000 from 01- 900 -999 to Departmental Accounts No. 162. The City Manager is further authorized to reopen negotiations in the event the employees' groups do not concur with these recommendations. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Location and Improvement Plan for Street -Sewer Maintenance Yard. (Continued from November 24, 1982). Motion by Councilman Shaw and second by Councilman May to accept the City Manager's recommendation was withdrawn. Motion by Councilman Lowry directing the City Manager to proceed with obtaining plans for the building and improvement plan for the Street -Sewer Maintenance yard, and bring back a cost estimate on January 10, 1983, died for lack of a second. This agenda item was continued until the regular meeting of January 10, 1983. Decision Regarding Purchase of Copier for Police Department. On Motion by Councilman May, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the low bid of Ikon Copiers for the Sharp 825 w /ADF at a price of $6,090.06, and further authorizes the City Manager to enter a service agreement with Ikon for $.016 per copy for all service and supplies including parts after warranty has expired. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Request for Approval of Planning Commissioners to Attend University of California Course on "How to be a More Effective Commissioner ". Motion by Councilman Shaw, second by Councilman May, to approve the four Planning Commissioners attendance at the University of California course being offered on January 22, 1983, with the funds to be taken from the City Council budget for meetings. Motion by Councilman Lowry, second by Councilman Hammel, to amend Councilman Shaw's motion to the effect that the funds shall be transferred from the Reserve for Contingencies, 01- 900 -999. VOTE TAKEN ON AMENDMENT TO MOTION: AYES: Councilmen May, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: Councilman Shaw. ABSTAIN: None. Page 4 ABSENT: None. MAE 25. 26. 27. 4: VOTE TAKEN ON ORIGINAL MOTION: AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. MOTION CARRIED WITH AMENDMENT. Request for Authorization to Hire Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator and Authorization for Transfer of Funds. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the hiring of either a Wastewater Operator I on Range No. 238, starting at $1,135, or a Wastewater Operator II on Range No. 265, starting at $1,298; and further authorizes the transfer of funds from 10- 405 -999 to salaries and benefits. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Request for Authorization to Transfer 6th Year Entitlement Fund Surplus to Cherry Avenue Sewer Project. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the transfer of 6th Year Entitlement Fund surplus to the Cherry Avenue Sewer Project. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Authorization for Mayor to Sign Agreement for Prosecution Services with District Attorney's Office. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the Mayor to Sign Agreement for Prosecution Services with District Attorney's Office. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Consideration of Agreements with CalTrans. This agenda item was referred to the City Attorney for review. Authorization for Mayor to Sign Notice of Completion for Matich Corporation re Pennsylvania Avenue. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the Mayor to sign Notice of Completion for Matich Corporation re Pennsylvania Avenue. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 29. Request for Budget Transfer to Cover Revenue Sharing Audit. On Motion by Mayor Thompson, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the request for budget transfer from Account No. 01- 900 -999 to Account No. 01 -145 -252, in the amount of $5,000, to cover the Revenue Sharing audit. AYES: Councilmen May, NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. Page 5 30. Submittal of Financial Report; for Period Ending October 31, 1982 for Filing Pursuant to Government Code. Ordered Filed. 31. Submittal of Beaumont Community Improvement Agency Statement of Operations for Month Ending October 31, 1982. Ordered Filed. 32. ORAL COMMUNICATION: There were no requests for oral communication. ADD ITEM 33. Conditional Use Permit No. 1005. Applicant: Albert and Betty Seeburger. Location: 985 N. Beaumont Avenue. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont grants Conditional Use Permit No. 1005 subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. The owner shall provide gravel in the holes in the alley. 2. To insure future paving of the alley, either a bond shall be posted in the amount of $1,110, or a development agree- ment shall be executed as a lien on the property. 3. All conditions of the Planning Commission must be complied with prior to occupancy, deleting therefrom the two year extension as granted by the Planning Commission. 4. The Planning Commission condition for either removal or the use of slurry of gas tanks shall be upheld. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: Councilman Hammel. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, �"J R.;_ C TY CLE Page 6 BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL AND BEAUMONT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AGENCY MINUTES OF ADJOURNED MEETING OF NOVEMBER 24, 1982 (Adjourned from November 22, 1982) 1. The Beaumont City Council and Beaumont Community Improvement Agency met in an adjourned meeting at 7:00 P.M., on Wednesday, November 24, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor /Chairman Thompson presiding. 2. On Roll Call the following Council /Agency Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor /Chairman Thompson. 3. ORDINANCE NO. 559 - SECOND READING - Approving and Adopting the Beaumont Community Improvement Plan and Project Area as amended. Matt Russo, Beaumont Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Council con- cerning this agenda item, reading a letter dated November 24, 1982 from the Chamber of Commerce, and asking that this letter be made a part of the record. The City Manager than read his letter to the City Council contain- ing his recommendation on the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency for the benefit of the audience, since there were points that should be brought to their attention. Councilman Hammel then read from a statement to the citizens of Beaumont, and asked that it become a part of the record. Marshall Krupp, Willdan Associates, addressed the Council stating that he wanted to clarify a couple of points which are important to be put on the record. First of all it should be understood that the comments that were made at both the last meeting, as well as at this meeting, have been taken out of the public hearing, therefore they are not a part of the public testimony of the adoption of the redevelopment plan. However, they are part of the minutes, and they are a part of the official record of the City Council. The second point that I think is important to make is that Mayor Pro Tem Hammel had abstained from action on the first reading of the Ordinance, and it would also be my recommendation this evening that he abstain from any additional vote on the ordinance because of recent discussions that we have in the public meetings. The other points that I would like to clarify because we have had several meetings since the public hearing, and I wanted to make it very clear what action you did take at the public hearing. As a result of all the testimony there were several recommendations made by the community and by taxing juris- dictions with regards to minimizing the impact of the redevelopment program. One was to reduce the duration of the plan. The second was to reduce the size of the project area. The third was to reduce the scope of the project contemplated by the plan. The fourth was to reduce the total amount of cumulative tax increment to be received by the Agency. The fifth was to reduce the total amount of annual tax increment to be received by the Agency. The sixth was to use alter- native financial resources where available. The seventh was to provide cooperative agreements. And the last was any combination of the above. These were the kinds of recommendations that were being presented to you. As a result of your decision, the following actions were implemented. First of all the plan was - at least as I perceive it - the plan was reduced from 45 years to 35 years, or a reduction of 22 %. Subproject Area E was deleted from the project area. Third the Civic Center complex, the corporate yard facilities, were removed from the project list. Fourth, the plan provided for preservation of historical buildings designated by the City Council or the State Historical Resource Commission. Five - language was put into the plan to limit the authority of the Executive Director, who is Page 1 presently Mr. Davis, without prior approval of the City Council and/ or Agency. Six - the use of alternative financial resources were acknowledged as stated in Sections 700.10, 700.40 and 700.60 of the plan. By eliminating Subproject Area E - I have to assume that you also eliminated the projects that would occur in Subproject E. Let me explain how that affects the limitation on the plan. The City Hall complex was estimated at 2.5 million dollars. The corporate yard improvements were estimated at 200,000 dollars, and the various Highway 60 improvements were estimated at 2 million dollars. That is 4.7 million dollars which would reduce your project cost from 24 million dollars to 19.3 million dollars. That is a reduction of about 19.5 %. Consistent with that, the limitation on the plan, which was a low of 30 million and a high of 50 million, should also be reduced, consistent with your project cost. Therefore, the limitation - the low limitation of 30 million dollars should be reduced to 24 million dollars - and the high limitation would be reduced from 50 million dollars to 40.5 million dollars -- actually it is 40.208 million dollars. Now you could either round it up to 40.5 or round it down to 40 million dollars even. My recommendation would be to use the low of 24 and the high of 40 million dollars on your limitation. Now the result will be less of an impact on the various taxing jurisdictions because the limit is now reduced. And that would be consistent with - I think - the kinds of recommendations that were being made, and I believe that was your intent - and I am willing to be questioned or corrected if that was not your intent. City Manager: In order to achieve that, Marshall, if the Council does choose to proceed, what should be the directive action - just a minute order to this effect. Marshall Krupp: Yes, just a minute order to revise the plan to reflect the intent of the Council. We have got all of the other changes. The only change we haven't done is reducing the limitation because you really didn't directly come out and tell us to do that. But I think that is what your intent was. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Mayor Thompson, the City Council of the City of Beaumont changes the Community Improvement Agency Plan so the minimum figure for the plan shall be 24 million dollars, with the maximum 40 million dollars. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: Councilman Hammel. ABSENT: None. Motion by Councilman Shaw to adopt Ordinance No. 559 and set a date for a vote by the people was withdrawn by Councilman Shaw. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Ordinance No. 559 at its second reading by title only. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: Councilman Hammel. ABSENT: None. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont will submit the question "Shall Ordinance 559, the Beaumont Community Improvement Plan, be rescinded" to the voters of the City at a special election to be held on April 5, 1983. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: Councilman Hammel. ABSENT: None. Page 2 is 5. 0 Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, to allow City Manager Davis to respond to Ms. Connors. AYES: Councilmen May, NOES: Mayor Thompson. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Shaw, Hammel and Lowry. PUBLIC HEARING - 7:30 P.M. - Regarding Proposed Annexation No. 27 to the City of Beaumont (LAFCO No. 82- 11 -3). The Public Hearing was opened at 8:00 P.M. The City Manager described the proposed annexation, and called attention to the fact that petitions had been filed protesting the annexation which apparently represented approximately 50% of the registered voters in the area proposed to be annexed. He then, for the benefit of those attending the meeting, outlined the benefits they could expect by being annexed to the City. There being no further input from the public, the public hearing was declared closed at 8:17 P.M. Mayor Thompson announced the decision of the Council would be predicated upon the verification of the signatures on the original petition submitted. If greater than 50% oppose the annexation, it automatically terminates. Location and Improvement Plan for Street -Sewer Maintenance Yard. Submittal of Report. (Continued from November 22, 1982). This agenda item was continued for further report. Recommendation regarding Interest Allocation. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont affirms the intent to allocate in- terest to all continuing appropriation fund accounts, and that interest allocations be made annually at the time earned. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 7. ORAL COMMUNICATION: a. June Fleischer, 8620 Avenida Miravilla, addressed the Council reading a letter of appreciation and commendation for the actions of Officer Raymond Lopez on behalf of her family and their secretary. She then read a letter written by Ms. Leah Riddell, her secretary, commending Officer Lopez. b. Mr. Ronald Floth, 1287 California, Beaumont, spoke to the Council commending Officer Ray Lopez. C. Eleanor Flores, 539 Ninth Street, addressed the Council regarding Officer Ray Lopez, stating he was a good man, a gift to the community and to the youth of the community, and should be kept on the Beaumont Police Force. C. Mr. Bill Bailey, 11151 Quincy, Sunnymead, addressed the Council concerning the DeAnza Cycle Park being proposed. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont directs that a resolution be pre- pared opposing the expansion of the DeAnza Motorcycle Raceway, to be presented to the Board of Supervisors. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Page 3 There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9:07 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Page 4 BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL AND BEAUMONT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AGENCY MINUTES OF November 22, 1982 1. The Beaumont City Council and Beaumont Community Improvement Agency met in a regular meeting at 7:30 P.M., on Monday, November 22, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor /Chairman Thompson presiding. 2. The Invocation was given by Reverand Roland Thorwaldsen, St. Stephens Episcopal Church. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Councilman Shaw. 4. On Roll Call the following Council /Agency Members were present: May, Shaw,, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor /Chairman Thompson. 5. There being no additions, deletions or corrections, the Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of November 8, 1982 were approved as sub- mitted. 6. Acceptance of Planning Commission Minutes. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, juris- diction over Conditional Use Permit No. 1005 and Plot Plan No. 1031 were transferred to the City Council; further, Revised Public Use Site Plan for the San Gorgonio Catholic Church is accepted except that Exhibits "A" and "B" shall be corrected to conform to the application which requested a storage building. It was further moved that Minutes of Planning Commission Meetings of October 19, 1982, November 16, 1982 and Special Meeting of November 18, 1982, be accepted with the changes as noted. AYES: Councilmen May, NOES: None. ABSTAIN: Mayor Thompson. ABSENT: None. Shaw, Hammel and Lowry. 7. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, warrants as audited per warrant list of November 22, 1982, in the amount of $43,920.90 and Payroll of November 4, 1982, in the amount of $25,800.78, were approved for payment as audited. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 8. Request from T.O.P.S. Club No. 1743, Beaumont, for Clarification of Use of Community Room No. 6. Members of the T.O.P.S. organization, Lucille Jackson, Billie Hills, Mammie Hitchcock and Dorothy Bridgewater addressed the Council expressing their concerns about the use by their group of Community Room 6, and the manner in which it is now being regulated. It was suggested that a representative of T.O.P.S., the City Manager and the Senior Citizens Director meet to discuss the situation and come to a mutually acceptable agreement regarding the use of Room 6. 9. ORDINANCE NO. 561 - FIRST READING - Adopting a Conflict of Interest Code for the City of Beaumont Pursuant to California Government Code 87300 et-seq. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont passes Ordinance No. 561 for its first reading by title only. Page 1 AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 10. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -66 - Repealing Resolution No. 1980 -29. This resolution was continued until the regular meeting of December 13, 1982. 11. Consideration of Claim Filed by Hershey Door Co. Against the City of Beaumont. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont directs that the City Clerk send a Notice of Insufficiency of Claim pursuant to Section 910.8 of the Government Code to the claimant. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 12. Submittal of Location and Improvement Plan for Street -Sewer Mainten- ance Yar , and Request for Authorization to Advertise for Bids. This agenda item was continued until the regular meeting of December 13, 1982. 13. ORDINANCE NO. 559 - SECOND READING - Approving and Adopting the Beaumont Community Improvement Plan and Project Area as amended. The following citizens were recognized and addressed the Council re- garding this agenda item, speaking in opposition to the Beaumont Community Improvement Plan: Ann Connors - 813 Elm Avenue Harold Blackaby - Maple Avenue Pat Hoff - 985 E. 13th Street Ron Hoff - 985 E. 13th Street Larry Gordon - 1284 Pennsylvania Otis Obarr - 736 Palm Avenue Let the record show Ms. Connors submitted petitions in opposition to the Beaumont Community Improvement Plan containing 805 signatures. This agenda item was continued until an adjourned meeting on Wednesday, November 24, 1982. 14. RESOLUTION NO. BCI 82 -19 - A Resolution of the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency Adopting a Relocation Assistance Plan for the Beaumont Community Improvement Project Area. This Agenda item was continued until an adjourned meeting on November 24, 1982. 15. RESOLUTION NO. BCI 82 -20 - A Resolution of the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency Adopting the Rules and Guidelines of the Prepara- tion of Replacement Housing Plans for the Beaumont Community Improvement Project Area. This Agenda item was continued until an adjourned meeting on November 24, 1982. 16. Consideration of Claim Filed by Ruth J. Blanchette Against the City of Beaumont. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont rejects the claim filed by Ruth J. Blanchette, refers it to the City Attorney, and directs the City Clerk to send a Notice of Rejection to the claimant. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Page 2 17. Consideration of Renewal of Lease Agreement with Beaumont Recreation and Parks District. (Continued from November 8, 1982). This agenda item was continued until the regular meeting of January 10, 1983. 18. Request for Budget Transfer - Electric Conversion Funds to Street Project. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the transfer of $25,000 from electrical conversion, 01- 325 -268 to the 6th Street Median street project, 01 -310 -505. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 19. Consideration of Bid Received on Sixth Street Median Improvements. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont rejects the bid received from Redlands Paving; and authorizes the City staff to go to bid again by legal advertising and by extending an Invitation to Bid by direct mail to all local contractors. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 20. ORDINANCE NO. 547 - FIRST READING - Regulating the Division of Land. (Continued from November 8, 1982). This agenda item was continued until the regular meeting of December 13, 1982. 22. ORAL COMMUNICATION: a. Jackie Cirivello addressed the Council regarding the expansion of the DeAnza Cycle Park, which has been proposed by Riverside County, asking the City Council to have a representative at the meeting of the Board of Supervisors on November 30, 1982, at 1:30 P.M. Ms. Cirivello spoke in opposition to the expan- sion of the cycle park. b. Mr. Oscar Leeb addressed the Council, however, his remarks are not on the tape. 21. The Council adjourned to Executive Session regarding Personnel and Litigation Matters at 9:45 P.M. The Council reconvened to regular session at 10:35 P.M. Let the record show there was no positive decisions made in Executive Session. ADD ITEM Master Sewer Plan and EIR. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont acknowledges receipt of the EIR on the Master Sewer Plan, and sets the date for hearing for January 10, 1983, at 8:00 P.M. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Page 3 23. Embankment Control at Wastewater Treatment Plant by Guniting. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the embankment control at the Wastewater Treatment Plant by guniting as recommended in report of November 22, 1982, and directs that it be carried over the top so that water cannot possibly get under the gunite. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned to 7:00 P.M. on Wednesday, November 24, 1982, at 10:55 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Page 4 BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL BEAUMONT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AGENCY BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AGENCY PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE MINUTES OF ADJOURNED MEETING OF NOVEMBER 10, 1982 (Adjourned from November 8, 1982) 1. The Beaumont City Council, Beaumont Community Improvement Agency, Beaumont Planning Commission and Community Improvement Agency Project Area Committee met in an adjourned meeting at 7:30 P.M., on Wednesday, November 10, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor /Chairman Thompson presiding, for the purpose of holding a joint Public Hearing on adoption of the Community Improvement Plan for the Beaumont Community Improvement Project and Certifi- cation of the Final EIR relating thereto. 2. The invocation was given by Councilman Lowry. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Councilman May. 4. a. On Roll Call of the City Council the following Members were present: May, Shaw, Lowry, Mayor Thompson. Councilman Hammel was excused. b. On Roll Call of the Community Improvement Agency the following Members were present: May, Shaw, Lowry and Chairman Thompson. Agency Member Hammel was excused. C. On Roll Call of the Planning Commission the following Members were present: Seaburg, Remy, Medina, Livingston, Schuelke and Vice Chairperson Berg. Chairperson Thompson was excused. d. On Roll Call of the Community Improvement Agency Project Area Committee the following Members were present: Mitchell, Manning, Jett, Love, Kilday and Chairman Millage. Committee member Bebee was absent. At this point of the meeting, Marshall Krupp, Consultant for the Improvement Agency addressed the Council regarding the status of the City Council and Community Improvement Agency as it relates to the Conflict of Interest provisions of the City of Beaumont and the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency. He stated further that in conjunction with the City Manager and City Attorney, it was concluded that Mayor Thompson and Councilman May may have a poten- tial indirect conflict of interest and that Mayor Pro Tem Hammel has a direct conflict of interest. Inasmuch as Mayor Pro Tem Hammel has a direct conflict of interest it was recommended that he abstain from participation in the matters herein set forth for consideration by the City Council /Community Improvement Agency, and that he excuse himself from the podium this evening. Mayor Thompson's and Council- man May's potential indirect conflict of interest is not of such an extent that such action is required in their case and they can continue to participate this evening. The City Manager stated for the record that Mayor Pro Tem Hammel is attending a Mayor's /Councilman's meeting on behalf of the City of Beaumont tonight and is absent, and therefore will not take part in these proceedings. 5. Motion was made by Vice Chairperson Berg, seconded by Commissioner Livingston, to recess the Planning Commission at this time. AYES: Seaburg, Remy, Medina, Livingston, Schuelke and Berg. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Chairperson Thompson. 6. Motion was made by Committee Member Mitchell, seconded by Chairman Millage to recess the Project Area Committee at this time. Page 1 for effective improvement and is not included for the pur- pose of obtaining the allocation of tax increment revenues from such area without other substantial justification for its inclusion. 11. The elimination of blight and the improvement of the Project Area could not reasonably be expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone without the aid and assistance of the Agency. There are other statements and determinations set forth in the pro- posed ordinance adopting the Community Improvement Plan, but the foregoing are the major evidentiary findings. b. Mayor Thompson: We will now proceed with the receipt of evidence and testimony. City Manager: Mr. Mayor, I would like to enter into the record a certification of certain official actions that have been taken by the City Council, City Planning Commission and the Agency in connec- tion with the preparation of the Community Improvement Plan for the Beaumont Community Improvement. This certification was submitted and was marked as Exhibit 4. Mayor Thompson stated Exhibit 4 would be made a part of the record. The City Manager then asked to make some introductory background comments about the City's General Plan, some of the deficiencies that presently exist in the City, and the benefits the City would hope to see from the improvement process as a means to correct these deficiencies. Mr. Davis entered into the record the following statement: City Manager: After over one and a half years of community planning activities the City Council adopted a new comprehensive General Plan for the City of Beaumont. This was consummated by the adoption of a resolution by the City Council on May 25, 1982 and after being approved by the Planning Commission on March 3, 1982. The General Plan sets forth all of the State mandated General Plan Elements and contains a General Plan Land Use Map which applies to properties within the boundaries of the City of Beaumont and refers to potential land uses in the unincorporated areas of the County of Riverside within the sphere of influence of the City. The General Plan identified several concerns in the City which require improvement. These include: 1. A poor economic climate with limited employment opportunities. 2. Substantial deteriorated and /or dilapidated existing housing and inadequate provisions for future affordable housing. 3. A deteriorated and inadequate business district. 4. The existence of a sewer system which is close to capacity and which presently includes sewerage lines which are defective and deteriorating. 5. The City's present inability to meet storm drainage require- ments for the City. 6. The present circulation and street system lacks adequate improvements and may not be capable of accommodating future growth. The City Council, Planning Commission, and staff have evaluated the various tools available to the City to implement the General Plan and alleviate these conditions in the City, in general and the Pro- ject Area, in particular. It has been concluded that the program with the least adverse affect on property owners, businesspersons, and residents, is the use of the California Community Redevelopment Law and the Beaumont Community Improvement Program. Page 4 The Beaumont Community Improvement Program is intended to accomplish the following objectives; 1. The elimination of existing blighted conditions, be they pro- perties or structures, and the prevention of recurring blight in and about the Project Area. 2. The development of property within a coordinated land use pattern of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, and public facilities in the Project Area, consistent with the goals, policies, objectives, standards, guidelines, and requirements, as set forth in the City's adopted General Plan and Zoning Code. 3. The development of public services and facilities including, but not limited to, recreational, maintenance, and operational services and facilities as are necessary and required for the development of the Project Area. 4. The elimination of environmental deficiencies including inadequate street improvements, inadequate utility systems, and inadequate public services; and mitigation of freeway or highway impacts, including its circulation movement and its potential social, physical, and environmental characteristics of blight. 5. The development of a more efficient and effective circulation corridor system, free from hazardous vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle interfaces, designed to their ultimate circulation flow. 6. The implementation of techniques to mitigate blight charac- teristics resulting from exposure to freeway, highway, and /or public right -of -way corridor activity which affect adjacent properties within the Project Area. 7. Beautification activities to eliminate all forms of blight including, but not limited to, visual blight, in order to encourage community identity. 8. The encouragement, promotion and assistance in the development and expansion of local commerce and needed commercial and industrial facilities, increasing local employment prosperity, and improving the economic climate within the Project Area, particularly in the Central Business District, and within industrial and commercial areas and the various other isola- ted vacant and /or underdeveloped properties within the Pro- ject Area. 9. The acquisition, assemblage, and /or disposition of sites of usable and marketable sizes and shapes for commercial, industrial, recreational, and public facility development within the Project Area. 10. The creation of a more cohesive and unified Beaumont community by strengthening the physical, social and economic ties between residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public land uses within and about the Project Area. 11. The acquisition and disposition of property for the purpose of providing relocation housing, as may be required to implement the objectives of this Plan. 12. To provide for very low -, low -, and moderate - income housing availability as required by State law and requirements, as necessary and desirable, consistent with the goals and ob- jextives of the community. 13. To encourage the coordination, cooperation and assistance of other local agencies, as may be deemed necessary, to ensure that projects undertaken by this Agency are implemented to their fullest and practical extent. Page 5 14. The achievement of a physical environment reflecting the high level of concern of architectural and urban design principals deemed important by the Beaumont community. 15. To encourage community involvement and citizen participation in the adoption of policies, programs, and projects so as to ensure that the Community Improvement Plan is implemented in accordance with the goals and objectives of the Beaumont General Plan. 16. To provide a procedural and financial mechanism by which the Agency can assist, complement, and coordinate public and private development, redevelopment, revitalization, and enhancement of the Beaumont community. Through a cooperative relationship between the public and private sectors, it is hoped that the Beaumont Community Improvement Program will revitalize the community by: 1) increasing job and housing opportunities; 2) improving the economic character of the community; 3) improving the infrastructure of sewers, storm drains, streets, and other public utilities in the community; and 4) eliminating the physical, social, and economic blight within the City. Without the program, the City will remain stagnant and will continue to deteriorate. c. Marshall Krupp presented a summary of the Agency's report to the City Council, reciting contents of the report and summarizing blighting influences. Mr. Krupp entered into the record the following statement: Marshall Krupp: Pursuant to Section 33352 of the California Health and Safety Code, more commonly known as the California Community Rede- velopment Law, the report of the Agency to the City Council includes a variety of information and data relative to the proceedings and analysis which have occurred prior to this evening's meeting. The Report is contained in Fourteen (14) Chapters, which I will summarize for you at this time. 1. Chapter 1 provides an overview and general summary of the activities which have occurred to date. 2. Chapter 2 provides the reasons for selection of the Project Area including the definition of blight; the requirements for inclusion of non - blighted properties; the role of the City Council with regard to findings of blight and the justification for inclusion of non - blighted properties; the declarations of State policy with regard to blight and use of redevelopment; the general blight conditions which exist within the Project Area; and the intent of the Community Improvement Program. 3. Chapter 3 contains a description of the physical, social and economic conditions in the Project area. 4. Chapter 4 sets forth the proposed method of financing the improvement of the Project Area and identifies specific financing authorizations of the Community Improvement Plan, specific financing limitations or constraints, and financing projections for the Project Area. 5. Chapter 5 contains the proposed relocation plan and methodo- logy for the implementation of the Community Improvement Program. 6. Chapter 6 contains an analysis of the Preliminary Plan as approved by the Planning Commission and Community Improvement Agency. 7. Chapter 7 contains the Report and recommendations of the Planning Commission which found that the Community Improvement Plan is in conformity with the General Plan. 8. Chapter 8 contains a summary of the meetings of the Project Area Committee with regard to reviewing the Community Improve- ment Plan. Douro R 9. Chapter 9 contains the Planning Commission's finding that the acquisition, disposition, and construction of projects in the Community Improvement Plan are in conformance with the adopted General Plan of the City. 10. Chapter 10 contains the final Environmental Impact Report for the Community Improvement Project Area and Plan. 11. Chapter 11 contains the Report of the County Fiscal Officer. 12. Chapter 12 contains the report of the Fiscal Review Committee. 13. Chapter 13 contains an analysis of the impact on residential neighborhoods in the Project Area and discusses the general project impact on residents and neighborhoods and specifically considers relocation, traffic circulation, environmental quality, availability of community facilities and services, effect on school population and quality of education, property assessments and taxes, other matters affecting the physical, social and quality of neighborhoods, and specific issues of housing, construction, and relocation. 14. Chapter 14 contains an analysis of the reports submitted by the County and a summary of the consultation with the County and affected taxing entities. As previously stated, Chapter 3 of the Agency's Report contains a des- cription of the physical, social and economic conditions of the Project Area. This Chapter generally identified the blighting influences of those properties which have been included within the revised Project Area. For purposes of summary, I would like to generally define the conditions of blight in each of the Sub - Project Areas: 1. Sub - Project "A" consists of approximately 335 acres and is characterized by primarily general commercial and highway commercial properties. Although the area contains some residential properties, the area is generally characterized by the older urban commercial area of the City. This area is characterized by many vacant commercial buildings, deteriorated and dilapidated structures, nonconforming land uses and structures, underutilized properties, and infrastructure deficiencies. Much of this area lacks adequate curbs and gutters for drainage, and has utility difficulties in terms of older and deteriorating sewer,water and storm drain systems. Much of the area is divided into a variety of poor parcel configurations which deter quality development. The area is unattractive in terms of adequate property maintenance, land- scaping and signage. 2. Sub - Project Area "B" consists of approximately 381 acres and is characterized by primarily industrial properties. The area does contain some residential properties which exhibit signs of deterioration, poor property maintenance, nonconforming structures, and compatibility concerns between residences and industrial developments. The area lacks quality industrial developers due to the small size and poor configuration of par - cels, inadequate and poor access, and inadequate and limited utility systems in terms of sewers and storm drains. Many of the existing streets are deteriorating and many of the required circulation corridors require improvement. The area suffers from graffiti and other social problems typical of a deteriorating area. 3. Sub - Project Area "C" consists of approximately 217 acres and is characterized by primarily vacant residential properties. Sub - Project Area "D" consists of approximately 151 acres and is characterized by primarily vacant residential properties. Sub - Project Area "E" consists of approximately 309 acres and is characterized by vacant properties. Although all of these areas contain some uses other than residential, the largest use of these areas is intended to be residential. These areas have remained stagnant due to economic and development con- straints which deter development. Some of these economic Page 7 constraints include the high development costs for sewer and storm drain systems, and particularly the need to expand the existing sewer systems which are close to capacity or non- existent. There are a variety of topographic conditions which limit the density of the area and minimize the affective utilization of the properties. Circulation and access is limited and some areas are hazardous precluding intensifica- tion of the use of the area. In addition, major streets are required to be developed and /or improved to accommodate the development and growth of these areas. Without these public improvements, the area will remain stagnant and a deterrent to the growth of the community. A more specific and detailed discussion of the physical, social and economic character of the Project Area is set forth on Pages 14 through 63 of the Agency's Report to the City Council and within the Agency's Supplemental Report to the City Council. There being no objections, the Report of the Community Improvement Agency was marked Exhibit 5 -A and the Supplemental Report of the Community Improvement Agency was marked Exhibit 5 -B and made a part of the record, along with the testimony and documents just received. d. Marshall Krupp presented the Final Environmental Impact Report, briefly summarized and reviewed the Final EIR, and summarized letters and comments received and responses to same. Mr. Krupp entered into the record the following statements: Marshall Krupp: A Final Environmental Impact Report on the Beaumont Community Improvement Project has been prepared and circulated according to the California Environmental Quality Act, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Agency's environmental guidelines adopted pursuant thereto. The Final EIR is comprised of a Draft EIR, the comments received on the Draft EIR, and the responses to those comments. Prior to preparation of the Draft EIR, an Environmental Assessment was prepared and a Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR was sent to all responsible agencies, and it was determined that the following impacts of the project may have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, should be discussed in the Draft EIR: Land Use, Demographics, Traffic and Circulation, Air Quality /Climate, Energy, Biological Resources, Visual, Soils /Geology /Seismicity, Hydrology /Water Quality, Archaeological /Historical Resources, Public Services /Utilities, and Economics and Fiscal. The Draft EIR described the project, the existing environmental setting, the environment impacts, and the mitigation measures. In addition, the Draft EIR discussed alternatives to the proposed project, the growth - inducing impacts, the irreversible environmental changes, short -term and long -term effects, and the unavoidable adverse impacts of the project. Approximately 39 persons, organizations, and public agencies were notified when the Draft EIR was completed and approximately 4 of those notified submitted comments. The major issues raised in the comments received were: 1. Noise evaluation lacks detail. 2. Air quality mitigation measures lack commitment. 3. Rehabilitation of housing provides an opportunity for energy conservation. 4. Drought resistant landscaping should be used in revegetation. 5. Paleontologist should be present during grading. 6. Sewer and water questions need to be resolved. 7. Various fiscal and "blight" concerns were raised. Page 8 The responses to these major comments were: 1. The project is at this time conceptual; specific impacts will be evaluated at the individual project stage. 2. The air quality mitigation measures are suggested guidelines to be kept in mind when implementing specific projects. 3. The City should adhere to state - mandated conservation measures. 4. Resistant landscaping was acknowledged. 5. Paleontologist attendance at grading was acknowledged. 6. City is presently developing a Master Plan for sewer concerns. 7. Discussion of fiscal and blight ramifications are set forth in the Agency's Section 33352 Report to the City Council. There were no significant effects concluded in the EIR therefore miti- gation measures were not proposed. Growth - inducing and secondary effects of the Plan have been discussed in the EIR as follows: Growth - Inducing and Secondary Effects 1. Growth of population and various land uses in the Project Area. 2. Growth in the local economy and tax base. 3. Increased needs for public services and utilities. 4. Increased traffic and noise. Also, alternatives to the Plan have been discussed in the EIR as follows: Alternatives 1. No project alternative. 2. Alternative Project Areas and size. 3. Phasing of the Plan's implementation. 4. Reduction in the term of the Community Improvement Plan. 5. Financing alternatives. There being no questions from the Council /Agency, and no objections, the Final Environmental Impact Report was marked Exhibit 6, and made a part of the record as part of the Report of the Agency. e. Marshall Krupp presented the Community Improvement Plan, briefly summarized and reviewed the Plan, and entered into the record the following statements: Marshall Krupp: The Beaumont Community Improvement Plan has been pre- pared in accordance with the California Community Redevelopment Law and contains the required provisions as set forth in the California Health and Safety Code beginning with Section 33000. The Plan is based upon a Preliminary Plan formulated and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City. The Plan provides the Agency with powers, duties, and obligations to implement and further the program generally formulated in the Plan for the improvement, rehabilitation, and revitalization of the area within the boundaries of the Project Area. The Plan does not present a specific plan or establish specific projects for the improvement Page 9 rehabilitation, and revitalization of any area within the Project Area, nor does this Plan present specific proposals in an attempt to solve or alleviate the concerns and problems of the community relating to the Project Area. Instead, this Plan presents a process and a basic framework within which specific plans will be presented, specific projects will be established, and specific solutions will be proposed, and by which tools are provided to the Agency to fashion, develop, and proceed with such specific plans, projects and solutions. The Community Improvement Project Area will be undertaken in order to carry out the intent and purpose of the State Community Redevelopment Law, the revitalization objectives of the City, and the goals of the General Plan. The Agency proposes to eliminate or alleviate the conditions of blight existing in the Project Area, to strive for economic revitalization and Project Area beautification, and to miti- gate the negative social, physical, economic and environmental impacts resulting from existing and anticipated dilapidation or deterioration in the Project Area. The Agency has the authority to acquire property within the project area. Included is the use of eminent domain which must be exercised within 12 years from the time the project is adopted. It is ex- pected that the Agency will make very limited use of this authority, if at all, in the implementation of the community improvement project. The Community Improvement Plan also authorizes that the Agency enter into owner participation with people owning properties within the Community Improvement Project Area so that those persons may develop their properties consistent with the Community Improvement Plan in a manner approved by the Agency and by the City. In return for developing property consistent with the Community Improvement Plan, the Community Improvement Agency gives up its authority of condemna- tion over that property. In accordance with State Law the Community Improvement Plan requires the relocation of any persons displaced by the Community Improvement Agency. In this particular project it is the present intent of the Agency that there will be very few displaced persons, if any, since there will be very little use of the power of eminent domain, if any. The Plan allows the Agency to dispose of or sell property to deve- lopers to allow development in accord with the Community Improvement Plan within the Project Area. The Agency has greater flexibility in the disposition of property to developers than does the City and most other public bodies. The Community Improvement Plan gives the Agency the authority to es- tablish land use controls in the Project Area to ensure that the development is consistent with the Community Improvement Plan and General Plan. The Community Improvement Plan authorizes the construction of public improvements and a list of the intended or hoped for public improve- ments is attached and made part of the Community Improvement Plan. The Community Improvement Plan also authorizes a variety of forms of financing the Community Improvement Project including the ability to receive loans from the City to sell bonds, to receive money from the sale or lease of property, and to engage in what is commonly known as tax increment financing. Tax increment financing can be briefly explained in this manner: if debt is incurred by the Community Improvement Agency after adoption of the Community Improve- ment Plan, the Agency will receive property taxes which are attribu- table to, or come from, increase in assessed value of property in the Project Area which has occurred after the adoption of the Community Improvement Plan. These are monies which otherwise would go to other taxing agencies. Therefore, tax rates will not be raised within the Project Area as a result of the adoption of this Plan. The laws of the State Constitution prohibit the Agency or the cities from raising tax rates and the Community Improvement Plan gives the Agency no new authority to levy taxes. Page 10 Tax increment financing will result in no increase in property taxes to a person or persons either inside or outside the Project Area. 20% of these tax increment monies must be used to improve and increase the supply and quality of low- and moderate - income housing within the City. The Community Improvement Plan finally contains certain limitations required by law, the length of the Plan, and the total amount of tax increment to be received by the Agency. This, then, in summary sets forth the primary elements of the Community Improvement Plan. There being no questions from the Council /Agency, and no objections, the Community Improvement Plan was marked Exhibit 7, and made a part of the record. f. Marshall Krupp presented the Rules Governing Participation by Property Owners, briefly summarizing these rules. There being no objections, the Rules Governing Participation by Property Owners and Business Occupants in the Beaumont Community Improvement Project, adopted as Resolution No. BCI 82 -14, were marked Exhibit 8, and made a part of the record. g. All written comments received were read into the record by the City Manager, marked Exhibit 9 and made a part of the record. h. Marshall Krupp requested permission for the title of the resolutions and ordinance to be entered into the record. The following agency resolutions will be considered: BCI 82 -15 - A Resolution of the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency Approving the Final Report on the Beaumont Community Improvement Plan, Project Area, and Environmental Impact Report; and Authorizing the Transmittal of its Final Report to the Beaumont City Council. BCI 82 -16 - A Resolution of the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency Adopting and Certifying the Environmental Impact Report and Authorizing the Filing of a Notice of Determination on the Beaumont Community Improvement Plan for the Beaumont Community Improvement Project Area. BCI 82 -17 - A Resolution of the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency Finding that the Use of Taxes.Allocated from the Beaumont Project Area for the Purpose of Improving and Increasing the Community's Supply of Low and Moderate Income Housing Outside the Project Area will be of Benefit to the Project Area. BCI 82 -18 - A Resolution of the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency Approving the Beaumont Community Improvement Plan and Project Area; Approving the Agency's Final Report to the City Council; and Directing the Secretary of the Agency to Transmit Required Community Improvement Documents to the Beaumont City Council. The following City Council resolutions and ordinance will be con- sidered: 1982 -63 - A Resolution of the Beaumont City Council Finding that the Use of Taxes Allocated from the Beaumont Community Improvement Pro- ject Area for the Purpose of Improving and Increasing the Community's Supply of Low and Moderate Income Housing Outside the Project Area will be of Benefit to the Project Area. 1982 -64 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Beaumont Concurring with the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency's Appro- val and Certification of the Environmental Impact Report on the Beaumont Community Improvement Plan and Project Area. 1982 -65 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Beaumont Electing to Receive the Allocation of Taxes Pursuant to Section 33676 of the California Health and Safety Code. Ordinance No. 559 - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Beaumont Approving and Adopting the Beaumont Community Improvement Plan and Project Area as amended. Page 11 10. Mayor Thompson: Are there written questions? Marshall Krupp: Mr. Mayor, we received six questions from the audience. I will read the first one. Rosalynd Bliss, 655 Edgar Avenue: If 20% of the funds go to property owner's improving their property, does this mean that grants or low interest loans will be available from this money for property owners to develop their property to meet the plan specifications. Is that what the money is for? Answer by Mr. Krupp: The law requires that 20% of the revenue which the Agency receives each year be set aside in a special fund for im- proving the supply and quality of housing in the community. During the annual budgetary process, the City Council /Redevelopment Agency can define projects that this money can be used for. In other cities, much of that money has been set aside into rehabilitation loan program funds whereby rather than going to a bank to borrow money to improve residential property at interest rates of 18 -20 %, the Agency can issue loans at low interest rates or no- interest rates. In some cities, the City has issued loans at no- interest to the property owner for rehabi- lation of a structure and /or his property. The second question is from Lloyd W. McIntire, Santa Barbara, California: I own property on S.E. Corner Illinois and 7th Street, also, 684 - 11th Street. No one has explained what is taking place. Answer by Mr. Krupp: Within the Plan there are approximately twenty projects which are anticipated initial projects contemplated by the Improvement Agency. They include such things as improvement to the sewer systems, improvement to the storm drain system, etc. I am sure when it rained this last week you visibly noticed the problems with flooding throughout the City. Other projects include improvement of streets, to provide some kind of revitalization of the commercial area on Sixth Street, and to undertake a variety of, basically, public improvement projects. There is no project contemplated in that pro- ject list, or which the Agency, we, and the staff, have discussed, that talks about the demolition of property and structures for the purposes of providing them to developers for redevelopment. Rather, the program is intended to be a public improvement program and assistance to existing property owners, business tenants and residen- tial property owners for the improvement and redevelopment of their own property. As far as the specific property is concerned, I will be more than happy to answer his questions about this property if this questioner would like to speak with me during our break. Third question from Mary H. Rawuka, 943 N. Beaumont Avenue: I have a residential house and a shop on the back of a C -2 zone. In order to conform, will the residence in the future be torn down for commercial reasons? Answer by Mr. Krupp: If the property is presently being used for a use which was previously in existence prior to the adoption of the present General Plan, the property owner will be allowed to remain on their property, and use that property for that purpose. If, for example, the tenants leave that property, or the property becomes vacated for some reason, the property would have.to be used in accordance with the General Plan. That would have to happen irres- pective of the adoption of the Community Improvement Plan. That is a requirement of State Law and of the General Plan, not specifically required under the Redevelopment Plan. Fourth question from Theda McAlexander, 540 E. 5th Street: How will adoption of this Improvement Plan affect the property I am representing? Answer by Mr. Krupp: Again, as I indicated, the Council on an annual basis, during public hearings, will consider specific projects for that year. Those specific projects will be consistent with the con- ceptual projects contained within the Plan, and you, and other people in the community, will receive notices of those sessions, and will have an opportunity at that time to discuss specific projects that would be implemented during that year. Page 12 Fifth question from Julia Milzynkowski, 885 Cherry Avenue: What plans do you have for Cherry Avenue? Answer by Mr. Krupp: Cherry Avenue is one of the streets that is pro- posed for improvement in the Plan. In addition, there will be a major sewer trunk line installed along Cherry Avenue from Brookside down past the freeway. That sewer line would then be opened to the property owners within the project area, as well as outside the project area and the City, to allow them to connect to that sewer line, which could not have been done without the sewer line being installed. Norman Davis: One additional comment on Cherry Avenue. One of the things that the County want us to agree to, is that part of the money would be utilized for flood control projects within the project area. And one of the projects that would be undertaken at some point in the future would be the development of a flood control channel along Cherry Avenue, to protect the east side of town, and the southern part of town where the channel crosses 8th Street. So this is the type of plan that the City would be able to do, and would anticipate doing at some point in the future. There was one other question here. Lloyd McIntire asked what is going on? Answer by Mr. Davis: I think that I touched upon that very briefly when I said this Agency is a tool. A tool provided the City by the State of California to do the things that it could not do otherwise. It is a tool made possible to improve and revitalize the City. It does have an affect on some of the other agencies. I have particu- larly said to the County of Riverside that I feel the County of Riverside has to be involved in improvement of cities and bearing, in effect, its fair share of that improvement by working with us in the creation of this Agency. Based upon the proposal that they are willing to proceed along with us, I would say that they are going to do that, and I am very hopeful, naturally, that we are going to have this tool that will serve you, serve the community, and depending upon where any specific project is completed, it will either directly affect you as an individual property owner, or it will indirectly benefit you because you live within the City of Beaumont. Marshall Krupp: This is the last question, but I might mention, additionally there will be an additional meeting on November 22 should the Council read the Ordinance for the first time this evening. In addition to that, there will be meetings annually through the citizens committee, the Project Area Committee, the Council and the Planning Commission on specific projects. (Tape is changed at this point. The discussion continues as follows) . I would like to indicate that there have been approximately twenty meetings held between either the Planning Commission, the Project Area Committee or the City Council on all of the items that have been presented so far this evening. In addition to that there was approximately 200 hours of meetings with the various taxing juris- dictions to meet and confer and assess the program. 11. Mayor Thompson: We will now hear any statements or testimony from those present in favor of the Improvement Plan on Final EIR. Chester Golik, 636 Beaumont Avenue: I own the property at 636 Beaumont Avenue. Commercial property. I do not live in Beaumont. I am for this. I have been exposed to a similar situation in the town of El Monte. They had public hearings similar to this. There was tremen- dous misunderstanding and the redevelopment agency did not go through. It was a sad mistake. I think what has to be told people is in your report here - an explanation on Page 5 of how the community receives its revenue and through tax increment. Now the big question that is confusing is - say you have a piece of property and, for example, it is $100,000, it increases to $500,000 - how is that possible. To me it is an indication that - well - someone says - now your property is worth $500,000. I think that has to be explained. I am for this. However, before I conclude here, when the meeting was opened it was stated that three of these gentlemen have a conflict of interest. I Page 13 think that those conflicts of interest should be made public in a very brief way, so that we here in the public know who - and I assume that they have something to benefit by - and if that is the case, I think that should be made public. Marshall Krupp: With regards to conflicts of interest, this was dis- cussed at a public meeting about a month ago. Let me indicate what the conflicts of interest are. Councilman Hammel owns a motel which is located specifically adjacent - or close to the freeway. There is, as an initial project, a frontage road that would make the property adjacent to the K -Mart Center along the freeway more acceptable for commercial development. It was believed that frontage road might also provide significant benefit to Councilman Hammel because of his motel being located so close to the freeway. Therefore, It was my recom- mendation and the City Attorney's recommendation that there truly was a potential direct benefit to Councilman Hammel. The other two con- flicts of interest are the Mayor - the Mayor owns a drug store within the project area. The projects that would be contemplated within the vicinity of this drug store would not only benefit him, but would benefit everyone in the community equally. The kinds of projects proposed would benefit everyone and Mayor Thompson's business would benefit, but would benefit indirectly in comparison to Councilman Hammel. The other conflict of interest was Councilman May. Councilman May also owns a piece of property in the project area, but similar to Mayor Thompson's property, his benefit would be equal to the benefit of everyone in the project area through the improvement of the project area. It was only Councilman Hammel that we felt that the specific project proposed would give him specific benefit, and therefore, it was recommended that he not participate in any of the discussions on the adoption of the Community Improvement Plan. Further, Mr. Hammel had no pre - knowledge or participation in either the projects, the contents of the Community Improvement Plan, the contents of the preliminary Community Improvement Plan or the Environmental Impact Report. The preliminary activities were all prepared by either the.consultants, the City staff, or those Council members who did not have a conflict of interest. With regard to the other question you have - explain the increase of value in property - how your property increases in value. The Commjnity Improvement Plan will not work unless there is improvement of property in the community. This could either be by the existing property owners - the existing people - or by developers. There are only four ways under Proposition 13 that property is permitted to be increased in value. One is, the County Assessor has the authority to increase up to a 2% increase in the value of your property every year. The County Assessor has to do it. That is an automatic in- crease for everyone in the State of California - the County Assessor has that authority. The second way is if you improve your property you pay the taxes on that improvement - for example, if you decide to add a swimming pool to your property, you will be taxed for that swimming pool on your property, whether it is a redevelopment program or not, that is allowed under the Proposition 13 law. The third way is if you develop your property. You have a vacant piece of property and you develop it, then the new value of that property, throught the assessment process, would then be taxed. The fourth way to increase the taxes is by a vote of the people. If the people of the district vote in a new tax, then your taxes will go up because of that new tax rate. There is no other way that your taxes can go up through the implementation of this program. Let me make it very clear. If you do not improve your property or you do not sell your property, which is another way of increasing your taxes - I missed one in the increase of taxes. If you sell your property, the new owner of the property pays taxes based on the new value of the property. So there are really five ways. But if you don't sell your property - don't improve your property - if you don't develop your property, the only way that the taxes on your property can go up is by the County Tax Assessor increasing the value of your property by 2% every year - or up to 2% every year - or if the people vote in a new tax. This project will not increase your taxes. City Manager: I would stress, as Marshall has done, or I would lay more stress than he has, that - because, whether or not there is this Agency, if you do any one of the things that he has enumerated, you are going to get an increase in taxes. What is going to happen Page 14 here is, that after that increase in taxes takes place, if this Agency is in existence, is that that difference in tax rate - or taxes that you pay - which may be this amount now, and become this amount, this difference is what will be coming to the Agency, and that is the only money the Agency gets - that is the money that will be spent on the projects to better the City. I hope you understand that. If you do not, please ask. Because we want you to understand. The only source of revenue, is a source of revenue that is going to happen anyhow. If any of these events that Marshall has enumerated does occur. The thing that is going to happen - and I stress again - if the Agency is in existnece - the Agency gets this increase in taxation that is going to occur normally, rather than it going to the other jurisdictions - going elsewhere. Unidentified member of the audience: May I ask this - where is this going to go. Marshall Krupp: One last comment - and then I will answer your question. Prior to Proposition 13, the taxing of properties was extremely different, meaning that if the value of the property next to you improved, it could conceivably increase the value of your property, and you would pay the taxes on that improved value. As a result of Proposition 13, there are only those five ways, and so if you own a piece of property, if you are the resident and own a piece of property that is thirty years old, and next door someone develops a piece of property, that new house next to you will not increase the value of your property from a taxing point of view. It may increase it from a market point of view - that is, you may be able to sell it for a greater value - but from a taxing point of view, it does not increase the value of your property. The gentleman who asked the question. Can we go through those written requests from people who have indi- cated they wish to speak, and then there will be an opportunity for additional questions, and I will answer your question at that time. Mayor Thompson: Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of the proposed Agency. Okay, let us then expedite this, and go to those who would like to speak in opposition. b. Ann Conners, 813 Elm: I have had some experience with redevelopment agencies in Corona. They decided to redevelop the City of Corona. They promised us new shopping areas, more jobs, more recreation opportunities, new businesses and lower crime rate, less graffitti, more shoppers, and they would listen to the people, and everyone would always know what was going on. What we got was a recreation department that couldn't handle the recreation they were in charge of because of Proposition 13 - we got a shopping mall with empty stores in it because the people that were supposed to go in to it couldn't afford the higher rent of it - we got a J.C. Penny outlet that moved out of town because they didn't think Corona could produce all these shoppers - they tried for the last ten years to get a major department store to come in and replace it, but have not been able to. We got graffitti covering the walls of the new buildings of the re- development agency. The crime rate in Corona is soaring, and is not going down, and is no where near as low as Beaumont's is. The most important thing we got was the loss of a Carnegie Library. And that Carnegie library happened to be in a redevelopment area. The Redevelopment Agency decided we needed a new library, and the old library, which was an historical building, was torn to the ground. There were very few Carnegie libraries left in the country at the time - and yours is one of them. The citizens of Corona tried very hard to save that library. They brought in petitions. They tried very hard to get it made into a national monument. They almost succeeded in that, but they didn't succeed in time before it was torn down. When the people presented their petitions, and all of the people protested all of these things, no one listened to them, and all of those things happened anyway, because after you listen you will not necessarily do what the people have asked you to do. As far as the blight in the business areas, it seems to me that if you go into business, or if you are a landlord who rent to businesses, you ought to be prepared to keep up your property yourself. And since I am paying $24.48 a month for sewer and trash bills, I should expect to have a sewer capacity for my needs. For the taxes that we are already paying, we should have the right to have streets that are repaved and streetlights and sewers and all of those things. As far as the rest is concerned, for a very small town, we don't really need Page 15 a lot of these things that you are asking us to have. And the decision tonight as to whether or not we should have the Agency should not be made by you, but by the citizens that you are purporting to serve. Rex Lloyd, 695 East 12th Street: Gentlemen: I am opposed to all of this Agency - Redevelopment Agency. I came here two years ago to get away from all this nonsense. What do I find here, the same old thing. I have heard a lot of double talk tonight. He tell us what the Community Improvement Agency do. What are they going to rehabilitate and do to existing structures? Mayor Thompson: We will respond and answer all the questions at one time. Is that reasonable? George Conner, 813 Elm Avenue: My wife did very good there. She covered just about every thing. There were just a couple of things I wanted to bring up. There were just a couple of things I wanted to cover on this tax on improvements on your property. They won't be taxed if they don't improve them. But yet, if you are in a blighted area, if you don't improve them you will be in trouble with the Agency. If they don't improve their property, their taxes won't go up. But if you are in a blighted area they have to make some improvements to bring it up to whatever the Agency says it has to be brought up to. So, therefore, they would get a tax increase. Whether they want to or not. The other thing is, as the gentlemen just mentioned - that is in an area - who can't afford to upkeep his property. He has no choice. Either he upgrades it, or the Agency does something about it. The last thing I wanted to bring up was the last four years the Beaumont City Goverment has been unstable, even to a point of not knowing how much money they have in the treasury. The question I have is this City Government ready to take on a project of this size. Roger Berg, 1164 Euclid Avenue: I am opposed to just one section, and that is Section 500.54 of the Community Improvement Plan which has to do with the review of the application for building permits and development. In reading that section I feel that it gives the Executive Director the sole responsibility for a decision on what type of improvements should be required on new development and on building permits. In looking it over, I feel this requirement would require property owners in the project area extensive costs - let's just say some of the residential property in the project area, and they need to do a new roof, or.roof repair, or a garage - they would have to go through the Executive Director to get a building permit. And, also, this puts added cost on a contractor for the work that has to be done - it is going to put more requirements on those pro- perty owners than what would be necessary. And, also in the commercial areas, it may require more extensive improvements than they could afford. I think the Agency should look at that and maybe modify that section somewhat to make it a little more easier. Lyman Burhop, 1020 - 2nd Street, Calimesa: I own property at 1162 Pennsylvania Avenue. I am opposed to this Redevelopment Agency because there is far too much land included in the redevelopment area. I don't think the State Law intended to include that much land. Mayor Thompson: We will try to answer your questions now, from those who have been participating. Marshall Krupp: Mr. Mayor, I will attempt to answer some of the questions and clarify some of the misunderstandings that may be out there in the audience. First of all, with regards to historical sites, including the library, specifically the library, in the environmental impact report there is contained dicussion on his- torical and archaeological facilities. One of the facilities is the library. The plan, as contemplated, does not indicate the removal of that library facility. The EIR is a part of the record, and will be required by State Law to be implemented. And it says, first of all, an archaeological report shall be made on all historical sites, and that during any razing operation or excavation of any site in the City, that archaeological or historical representatives be on the Page 16 site, and that the County Historical Commission, before anything is done to the structure, shall review that structure for its historical significance. And if the structure is significant, it shall be pre - served in the community. Not what the Council thinks should be preserved, but what the County Historical Commission thinks. It is completely out of the City Council's hands. The other thing is that, at any time a project is proposed, there will be a public hearing. If the community does not want any historical site removed, the Council can incorporate in the plan this evening that no historical building will be removed in the implementation of this plan. If that is the desire of the Council based on the recommendation of the community. That will include historical commercial buildings, residential buildings, industrial buildings, or public facilities. The other point has to do with paying for services. Your taxes are divided among approximately two dozen agencies. The City gets, on every dollar you pay in taxes, 11 cents. If you pay $100.00 in taxes, the City gets $11.00. The County gets, as an example $19.00. Plus, the County gets programs for handicapped, mentally retarded programs, juvenile programs, flood control district, and various other capital facilities. The various other monies are divided up among the other taxing jurisdictions. We have evaluated the financial picture of the City of Beaumont, and we have looked at what the potential is for the improvement of this area through a variety of alternative financing methods. I will tell you what those methods are, so you are aware of them, because these are the only ways the Agency can pursue improvement of the community. The first method is private developers. Private developers can come in here and improve this community. They could put in a new sewer system. They could put in a new water system. They could put in new streets. They could put in new developments. It is unlikely that they will do so. Therefore, it is not a viable source without some kind of assistance on the part of the Agency. The Council can apply an assessment district to the community. That is, in effect, a new tax that you would pay for the improvement of the community. In addition to the taxes that you are paying now. They can use Federal and State funds. Federal and State funds are reducing substantially to the degree that at the State level and Federal level significant programs are being reduced so that communities cannot better themselves through these programs. To give you an example, what is known as the Community Block Grant program, which gives money to the cities to use, the Federal government has significantly - during the last few years - reduced the amount of allocation to the cities. If this continues, the City will not be able to do some of the improvements to the community. The other source of funding is through taxes. And that will require a vote of the people. The only alternative that is available to the community today, as we have evaluated it, is a redistribution of these tax dollars. Tax dollars that you would normally pay to the Agency - resulting in a short term impact to the taxing jurisdictions and a long term benefit to everyone - the community - the taxing jurisdictions - the County - the State. This financing process allows for people to improve their property, for the City to alleviate public improvements, and for new development to occur in the City. If the Plan is not pursued the City will have no alternative than to start reducing the services that they presently have available to you, so that they can provide for health and safety benefits. Those include fire, police and general government administration. They will have to reduce such things as street sweeping, they will not be able to improve streets, they will not be able to build new facilities - they will simply have to cut back to police, fire and basic general public administration. This is not being said as a scare tatic, but to tell you the reality of the City of Beaumont. It is difficult to understand that, but as a result of Proposition 13, as a result of things that have taken place - this is what has happened. City Manager: Let me pick up on a phrase that you made. The services should be made based on the taxes paid. That tax is about 11 cents out of each dollar. And I want to point out to you - you said that our sewers, our streets, etc., should be o.k. based upon these fees. I pointed out to you earlier. The City sewer system is 54 years old. The normal age, as any engineer will tell you, is approximately 40 or 40 plus years. Which means that this City is at a very advanced age, and if, without a tool to do something about it , it means that somewhere in the near future - it may be five years, ten years - that this City is going to have to go to its people Page 17 and ask them to carry a burden - either taxes or assessments - in order to maintain a brand new sewer system. And what about streets. There is no City and no County - and Kay Ceniceros, the County Supervisor is sitting here - there is no City and no County who has money for all those streets in this day and age. And I say that with no fear of any type of contradiction. It just is not possible to maintain your streets in any of these jurisdictions based upon the current revenues. And those revenues are shrinking every year. We don't blame it all on Proposition 13 - no. The revenues are shrinking because the State is taking more every year. And I have to say God help us if the Federal government takes away the Federal Revenue Sharing program . . . This current year is the end of the Federal Re- venue Sharing program unless the Congress and President extends that program. So, I am telling you, ladies and gentlemen, the facts in this City along - this City does have problems in the future. This is a tool that will take care of some of those problems. Marshall Krupp: I would like to continue answering some of the questions that people gave me beforehand. A gentleman indicated the Agency's condemnation authority - does the Agency have the authority to do such things? Mr. Davis and myself indicated the Agency does not intend to use the power of condemnation. The plan does provide the Agency with the authority to do such things consistent with law. That is just like the City has the authority to do a whole lot of things consistent to law. The plan specifically indicates the kinds of projects which it is intending to undertake. Those are public improvement projects, such as streets, sewers, storm drains, public facilities. There are commercial revitalization and rehabilitation programs, and residential revitalization and rehabi- litation programs through low interest loans and other kinds of assistance, and its purpose is redevelopment. We plan no condemnation, specifically, it says the Agency does not intend to acquire property. It does not intend to use condemnation. A gentleman indicated that if the Agency acquired property, they would pay the value of the property in 1975. That is not true. The plan specifically says that the Agency in acquiring property has to pay fair market value based upon three independent appraisals that are not associated with the City. One of those appraisals can be obtained by the property owner himself. In addition, if it acquires property at a fair market value, if there is any dislocation or relocation, the Agency is required to pay all expenses to relocate that property owner to a new piece of property of similar or better character or condition. In a commercial area, the Agency is required to pay costs, such as the printing of stationary, phone systems, cars, whatever. Those are all contained in specific rules and regulations which the Agency has adopted. It is not what they want to do - it is what the State of California requires them to do, under State Law. They are required to pay fair market value - they are required to pay relocation expenses - they are required to pay severance costs and any other costs that is associated with the relocation of that speci- fic business or relocation. And it is not the Agency that makes the final decision, it is a Judge or a jury that makes that decision. Another question has to do with Community Improvement Agency. The reason the Agency is the City Council is because they are the elected officials of the community. They are the ones that represent the community, and if they make a decision that the community does not desire, then there is a process by which to deal with that decision that is inconsistent with the community's desire. The City Council could have appointed a separate body as the Agency, unelected, and having no direct responsibility to the community. But the Council appointed itself as the Agency, and is responsible directly to the community through the normal democratic electoral process. There was a gentleman who stated that if you don't improve your property you would have problems with the Agency. The Agency is not requiring any improvement of property. If you don't want to improve your property, then you do not have to improve your property. The Agency is providing a tool so that you can improve if you want to. There is no requirement that you improve your property. If an elderly couple lives in a house that is several years old, and it Page 18 doesn't meet earthquake standards, they can go to the Agency and gain assistance through rehabilitation loan programs, to upgrade that house so that it is safe. If you have a business on 6th Street, and you don't have the ability to provide parking for your business, you may come to the Agency to gain assistance in paying for im- proving your parking facilities for your business. There is no requirement in the plan - let me emphasis that - there is no require- ment in the plan that anyone in the project area has to improve their property. In addition to that, anyone living outside the project area can get no benefits from the redevelopment program. They cannot come to the Agency and ask for loans - they cannot come to the Agency and ask for any kind of assistance - they cannot have a new sewer line put in front of their house. Only those in the project area can get the benefits. That is by law - that is the way it is outlined. If you can't afford to improve your property - then you don't improve your property - period. If they don't improve their property - if there is no improved value in the area, then there are no funds for the Agency to use, and therefore the Agency cannot undertake community improvements for the benefit of the community. In the future, if a dozen people come into the community - or if a hardware store - department store - comes into the community - that revenue does /to he Agency, and you will get the benefit of that because the Agency can then put in some of the improvements that are part of the plan. It will not happen overnight. It is a long term program. Your question regarding project size. The Council, for your information, can reduce the project size if they want to, prior to the adoption of the Ordinance. I wanted you to be advised of that if you want to do that. Section 500.54 - the review of application for building permits. That section specifically says that the Executive Director. . . . (Interruption by a member of the audience). Mayor Thompson: I want to caution you, we will not tolerate any further actions like that. City Manager: I just want to point out, that every comment that is being made here is in answer to a question that has been raised. We have promised that we will answer all questions. Marshall Krupp: With regards to Section 500.54, we reviewed this concern of the Planning Commission that the Executive Director may have authority beyond his present authority without the consideration of the City Council or the Planning Commission. The plan does not allow him to have that authority. For the purposes of the Council, the members of the Council may want to clarify this. To assure you of that - we will incorporate that into the plan. Two other questions have come up - Rosalynd Bliss of 655 Edgar: Would you please explain the two other charts behind you so we have a better idea of where and what changes will take place. For example, is my property planned for a parking lot? You explained the first chart but not the other two - I don't feel I understand what specific changes are planned for Project Areas, A, B, C, D, and E. Marshall Krupp: The two additional charts, or maps, up there, are a graphic explanation of the kinds of projects which are contained in the plan that the Agency could approve. For example, there are storm drains, sewers, street improvements, revitalization of the downtown area, revitalization of Beaumont Avenue, those are the kinds of projects that are recommended. No specific property - please understand this - no specific property is proposed for any improvement by the plan. When a project is proposed, the property owner who owns the property, as well as all the property owners within 300 feet of that specific piece of property will be advised by a public hearing notice to come for a meeting to present their testimony either in favor or in opposition of the project. You will also be given the opportunity during the public hearing process - the budgetary public hearing process - to review any of the budgetary recommendations that the Council may have. Right now there is no specific property Page 19 that is proposed for improvement, acquisition, development or anything else. These projects are the kinds of projects that are being pro- posed by the plan. (There is a question from the audience which is not intelligible on the tape) Mr. Krupp's answer: You will receive a similar notice to that which you received for this meeting - by certified mail and that has to be signed by you. Earl Woodley, 555 E. 8th Street: On your opening statement there you said that Councilman Hammel had a direct conflict. Now you say you have no definite plan. Marshall Krupp: I will explain. The projects that are contained in the plan is a recommendation of the kinds of projects that need to be undertaken if the community is to improve. Many of the property owners along the freeway have indicated that they cannot compete with Banning or cannot bring in new development because they do not have the visibility or access to the freeway. There is a project that is especially indicated in the plan. The Council does not approve these projects tonight. At the time those projects are to be approved, notices will be sent out to existing property owners and they will have an opportunity to speak on that specific project. The reason why Councilman Hammel was asked to abstain was because of a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Woodley: That is what we are here to find out. They want to find out what you intend to do to their property. You are not telling them. Now you have a definite plan and you won't reveal it. And that is why these people are here. We didn't come down here to listen to you talk all evening and say nothing. I asked you a question here and you won't answer it. Marshall Krupp: I will read your whole question. What specific changes are in the proposal at 10th and Beaumont Avenue. Mr. Woodley: Then these two people have a potential conflict of interest. Mayor Thompson: I am at 10th and Beaumont. Mr. Woodley: But you have some definite plans, but you won't tell us. Mr. Krupp: I will read all the projects that are in the plan. Mr. Woodley: Specifically. Mr. Krupp: These are projects that specifically are identified in the Plan and are contemplated by the Agency. A freeway access road between Pennsylvania Avenue and Highland Springs Road. A commercial rehabilitation program on both 6th Street between Pennsylvania Avenue and Veile Avenue, and Beaumont Avenue from Interstate 10 to 12th Street. Parcel consolidation from 6th Street to Highland Springs Road and Beaumont Avenue from Interstate to 12th Street. Industrial Deve- lopment - infrastructure improvements between 1st Street and Interstate 10, and between Pennsylvania Avenue and Minnesota Avenue. Residential development - infrastructure improvements north of Highway 60 and west of Interstate 10. Extension of Palm Avenue to Cougar Way. Flood control and drainage improvements from Brookside Avenue /east City boundary to Beaumont Avenue. Sewer main and lateral on Cherry Avenue from 14th Street to lst Street. Residential rehabilitation program and /or new construction activity. General Community improvements consist of infrastructure improvements and beautification on 6th Street from Highland Springs Road to Veile Avenue, including medians, curbs and gutters, utility undergrounding and lighting, pavement improve- ments, street trees and landscaping; flood control drainage improvements at 6th Street and Xenia; Interstate 10 circulation im- provements at Pennsylvania Avenue, Beaumont Avenue and 6th Street; railroad crossing /grade separation improvements at Beaumont Avenue and 3rd Street; construction and /or improvement of street rights -of- way and infrastructure on Cherry Avenue north of 11th Street - Page 20 Beaumont Avenue north of 14th Street - Maple Avenue north of 11th Street and Minnesota Avenue north of 1st Street. In addition to that, there are three public facilities projects which have been indicated as extremely low priority projects, but which may be needed in the future, and these are a new Civic Center Complex in- cluding a new City Hall, Police facility and Community Center; a parking facility somewhere near Beaumont Avenue and 6th Street and corporate yard improvements. Those are the projects that have been proposed that are in the plan. This plan has been made available for public inspection at the library and the City Clerk's office. There is no project proposed at 10th and Beaumont Avenue. Mr. Woodley: But you do have a proposed project adjacent to the freeway for a frontage road. Councilman Lowry: These are all conceptual. City Manager: AS of tonight, the Agency has not been formed. You would be very foolish to draw specific plans for one or ten or fifty specific projects when this governing body does not even know at this point whether or not the Agency will be formed. I think that you and everybody at this meeting who are rational people can see that if you consider what we are saying there. That is all that we are saying - these are proposals that may or may not come to pass at some time in the future, if this Agency is formed. Mr. Woodley: It doesn't make sense still. You have a proposed project. And Councilman Hammel was advised to not participate in the voting because of a possible conflict of interest. Now, later, you said that Councilman May and Councilman Thompson have a possible, potential conflict of interest. Now if the proposed frontage road is a specific proposal -- I am merely asking what is the proposal being considered for 10th and Beaumont Avenue. -- and if you people have a potential conflict of interest, then you surely know what is proposed for the future at 10th and Beaumont Avenue. Mayor.Thompson: At this time I know of no proposal to redevelop, to improve - -- 10th and Beaumont Avenue. Were there a project in the works for that particular area I would not be here because of the direct conflict of interest. Mr. Woodley: You are still talking around in circles. Mayor Thompson: I just told you Earl, and you weren't paying attention. Mr. Woodley: I am paying attention. Mayor Thompson: I have already told you, Earl. There is no project intended for Beaumont Avenue at 10th Street at this time. Mr. Woodley: But there is out at the frontage road. Mayor Thompson: This is a conceptual project. Mr. Woodley: Okay, then, he said there was a conceptual project at Beaumont Avenue and 10th, which leaves you two with a potential con- flict of interest. Mayor Thompson: Let me answer Earl. Mr. Woodley: Not unless you tell me the truth - the whole truth. Mayor Thompson: Have you ever known me not to tell you the truth. Mr. Woodley: No I don't. Mayor Thompson: Well, I am not going to start now. The project that Councilman Hammel may have a potential direct conflict of interest from is if the frontage road goes through, as indicated, from Pennsylvania Avenue to Highland Springs, and he participated - yes Page 21 he would have a conflict of interest. Mr. Woodley: Then you two do also. At 10th and Beaumont Avenue. Mayor Thompson: If we ever have a conceptual project at 10th and Beaumont Avenue - yes, I would have a direct conflict of interest. But at this time, so far as I know there is no project - conceptual or otherwise - in the works. Mr. Woodley: So the only conceptual project that this agency is talking about is a frontage road along the freeway. (The tape is changed at this point and continues as follows) Mayor Thompson: It is time now for the agencies to have their opposi- tion. For the County we have Supervisor Ceniceros. Supervisor Ceniceros: Thank you Mayor Thompson, and members of the Council. I am going to try to make this brief. I appreciate the sticktoitness that I have seen here tonight. I am a little concerned however, with reference to the County's position here this evening. I think that a lot of people who have left here tonight think that the County has endorsed this project. That is not the case. I would like to identify the reasons for you. Among the papers submitted by the County was a Statement of Protest by the legal counsel. This expresses the County's concern about the large amount of unimproved property that is included in the redevelopment agency, and our concern how that could be blighted. There are several other points of law contained in the letter and I won't enumerate them. It is of concern to me, and this has been gone over and over again in the presentation tonight, that the money that would be kept for redevelopment improve- ments would otherwise go to other agencies, or other jurisdictions. Those jurisdictions are jurisdictions that are providing services to the citizens of Beaumont, and I think that we should remember that, so, in effect, what we are doing is reducing some kinds of service potentially, and putting it into the redevelopment program. That is a decision that is possible to be made by this Council', and it is one that should be recognized for what it is. You are taking 19 %. Of the total ar•iount of money that will go to the redevelopment program 19% will come from the County of Riverside's share of the property tax. And that share of the property tax currently provide services for the citizens of Beaumont. (Tape on one machine runs out - picks up on another machine as follows) We have got to recognize that that money - this is not a free lunch - it means that the County of Riverside and various institutions like the school district, the hospital district and various others, will be giving up revenues that support their services to the City of Beaumont, in order to allow this project to move forward, and I just want to emphasize that. The Cooperative Agreement that we submitted in draft has been reviewed by the Board of Supervisors, informally, and we will negotiate with the City of Beaumont if it is the desire of the City of Beaumont and its citizens to go forward with this plan. What we are asking is that you leave us half of what we ought to have - basically. That is what it boils down to, and you will need to study it in detail. And that is just half of the amount of money necessary for the Flood Control District to supply the flood control project and operate the maintenance money that will be necessary to service this area. In addition to the Statement of Protest, which has been formally sub- mitted, and the draft Cooperative Agreement, I would like to leave also with you two resolutions, which is more or less a technicality, to any changes in the law which might occur in the future, such as a total remission of Proposition 13 - which is something that Mr. Krupp and Mr. Davis understand, and I hope to be understood by other Council Members. I would also like to note that in August we submitted a reply to the Environmental Impact Report. To our knowledge we have never received a direct reply to those specific statements made, and I do have the Planning Department staff member who initiated that response here in the audience tonight, along with County Counsel, and Ms. Thomason of the Auditor'Controller's Department to explain the Cooperative Agreement if you are interested Page 22 in hearing that, and the analysis made by the County of Riverside of the impact to the various taxing jurisdictions, which I would like to describe as service jurisdictions to the City of Beaumont. Do you have any questions. Marshall Krupp: The letter we received from the Planning Department dated August 9 is in the EIR, and it dealt with air quality, biolo- gical resources and financial resources. Ms. Ceniceros: Did you respond. Marshall Krupp: A response was sent. The other thing is the draft that you submitted tonight - dated October 20 to me - I have never seen or received prior to this evening. Ms. Ceniceros: I will explain that. As I referred to earlier, there are many similar efforts being made by redevelopment agencies through- out the County. One thing they all have is, they have a tremendous impact on the ability of Riverside County to serve the people within the jurisdictions. The service given by Riverside County to the citizens of Beaumont on a per capita basis if you want to average it with other people in the County, is actually worth more than the tax we bring in from the land - in other words, the amount of money that would be diverted into this program is less than the services pro- vided. We did not present that October 20 draft earlier because we had hoped to reach some kind of negotiated settlement. The cities did not like the policy the County drew to try and deal with this - and we consti- tuted a body made up of citizens including Mr. Krupp, representing cities and agencies. We were advised that there would be no specific recommendations made by that body to the Board of Supervisors. Had there been, we would have modified our policy and substituted that for this draft letter. That is why we did not submit that. Councilman Lowry: May I ask a question. You surprised me when you said we would take 19% of the County's taxes. I thought it was only 2% increase each year that we would be getting. Ms. Ceniceros: What I am referring to is the share of the tax incre- ment that is diverted. In the analysis presented tonight as to the fiscal impact of the Agency, it was stated that the County's portion of the tax increment would be 19.37% of the total 50 Million Dollars, 38% for the school district, and on down the list - hospital district 1.82% - library district 3.58% - and so on. That is the share of the diverted tax increment that we would lose, and the total amount of dollars is also specified in this schedule. It would amount to 9.6 plus million dollars for the 50 million dollars to be accrued. That is the amount of money that would be taken out of the services for Beaumont from the County of Riverside, over the life of the project. And these are only estimates because you really don't know what the growth of the area will be. So we are deeply concerned about our continued ability to serve the people of Riverside County, and those who are in Beaumont, with the total reductions that we are experiencing in all the redevelopment projects. We wanted to bring that statement of concern to you - at the same time we have to make a tentative cooperative agreement that will lessen the impact on services, but will certainly not eliminate it. I think it is fair for the audience to know that as well as the Council. Councilman Lowry: Isn't it true that the County is getting tremen- dous tax increases from other cities. Ms. Ceniceros: Councilman Lowry, we are limited to property tax in- creases just as all taxing jurisdictions are by Proposition 13. When a property resells, we do see an increase in taxes of 2% a year. Approximately 60% of the Beaumont area, I believe, that is in the report. What it means really, is the County will lose even more than 2% - we will lose the normal market turnover generated tax increases. The concept of the community improvement program, or redevelopment program, is that at the end of the period, 45 years from now, we will all have property valued more - whether your an owner of it - sell it - or whether you are going to be the taxing agency from that point Page 23 on. That is part of the reason we have submitted a cooperative agreement in draft. Our concern is, how are we going to provide services in that 45 years - or 30 years - or whatever. It is a very serious set of decisions that the Councils, in the plural, of the cities of Riverside County have before them, and on which they are imposing their judgment on what services should be provided - and what should be given up, in order to accomplish these long range goals. Marshall Krupp: Ms. Ceniceros. My comment this evening about not pursuing the agreement this evening, was not one of recommending that we not proceed with it. My comment was that I thought the Council should have time to review it. The other thing is, as you know, both myself and Mr. Davis have maintained a very cooperative position with the County trying to overcome this problem - trying to reach an acceptable solution. And I think that the agreement that has been presented this evening is very close to one that is mutually acceptable. I think, though, that the Council hs to have the oppor- tunity to look at it from their own standpoint and make their own decisions as to how that will impact the program. The other point is, as you indicated, I am on the policy committee - the cities policy committee on redevelopment, and I understand that this evening the policies that the committee has come up with are being considered. That is where Councilman Hammel is this evening. That policy will be brought to the Board after the Mayor's and Councilmen's Association has reviewed it and considered it. But I think you should be aware, though, and the audience should be aware of the fact, that we have had a lengthy process between yourself, the County staff and the City for the past three months trying to overcome the concerns you have raised, and I think we have both moved towards the center in reaching a mutual agreement, and I would like.to advise the Council I think we are pretty close, subject to your review of the agreement. Vern Tindell, County of Riverside: This is a follow -up on the County presentation. The letter of October 20. It has not been formally submitted to you, so I would like to formally submit that to you now. What it does - we went through the redevelopment plan, and assessed those portions that we felt were appropriate for redevelopment, and those portions that we felt might be a little extensive for rede- velopment. Marshall Krupp: Kay. Just a very quick question. Is this in lieu of the agreement, or is this in conjunction with the agreement - or is this something other than the agreement. Ms. Ceniceros: That is an analysis and comment on the community im- provement program itself. There may be some concerns that are complimentary to those that are made by the County Counsel in this letter. A cooperative agreement is intended to fix, as you know, and I don't know if your audience does know, is intended to fix a pass through some of the potentially diverted tax increments - to mitigate the impact on the affected services by the agency. If we are not able to come to an agreement, the full force of those impacts fall upon us, and obviously we are going to talk to each other in court. Consequently, it is necessary to identify the full array of our concerns - both by the County Counsel and by the Planning Department. Marshall Krupp: I hate to pursue the question, however, I have to - if we accept this, does this supercede the agreement - or if we accept the agreement does the agreement supercede this? Vern Tindell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the City Council, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Agency, Mr. Davis, I believe the two documents are two separate functions. I am sorry you didn't have a chance to review the agreement or the Planning Department analysis. I realize it came in very late. In those instances where a continuance cannot be made, or because of a late date they cannot continue the public hearing - which may be the case in this case - I don't know - I know there is another City who has a public hearing next week who have circumstances similar to yours - we have to protect ourselves by indicating any objections we have to be brought into the public hearing. It is too late to get anything into the record after the public hearing is closed. We have to Page 24 take action - even though we don't have an agreement with you at that time - we must lay that objection. In the event you pursue a second reading of the Ordinance, we have a sixty day period to file a lawsuit. If it is not filed within that sixty day period, we do not have the legal right to challenge the plan. The plan is a general concept. You have got a conceptual plan here. You are going to bring in specifics later on. There are a lot of questions that will need to be answered in the future, and this is our only chance to state our concerns - economically or otherwise - that we have with the project, so we have to lay a protective founda- tion. Marshall Krupp: Excuse me. I understand what you are saying. I guess my question is - if we respond to the map that you have just given us - by deleting those areas that you have questioned, does that supercede the agreement - or if we maintain the agreement, does that supercede the deletion of those areas that you are concerned about. Vern Tindell: We would request you to delete those in the event an agreement cannot be signed on - because, again, we are forever barred from putting anything in testimony in opposition. Marshall Krupp: I understand. Thank you. Vern Tindell: I will be glad to answer any questions. We have two resolutions from the County that we want to be sure is part of your record. The report, the planning report and the Fiscal Review Committee report - that is, the supplemental report - the Fiscal Review Committee report . . . Mr. Krupp: That was part of your document. Vern Tindell: You did get that supplemental report? You mentioned it. Mr. Krupp: No - but it is in the record. Mayor Thompson: Is there any other input from the County? Brien, you are representing the Beaumont - Cherry Valley Recreation and Parks District. Brien Ross, General Manager, Beaumont - Cherry Valley Recreation and Parks District: Honorable Mayor Thompson and Members of the City Council. I would like to respectfully request that you postpone your consideration on the referenced Community Improvement Plan until such time as amendments to the plan can be prepared by yourselves and approved by you - to alleviate or eliminate any detrimental fiscal effects on the Beaumont - Cherry Valley Recreation and Parks District. (Mr. Ross continued to read from his letter of November 9, 1982, which is a part of the record). Marshall Krupp: Brien, you just read the recommendations. You said A, B, C, or D. Are you saying any one of those or a combination? Brien Ross: A combination. Marshall Krupp: Mr. Mayor, I would like to advise you that we had many discussions with the Parks and Recreation District for about a mont now after previously inviting them by letter that we wanted to discuss with them the effects of the plan. My understanding was that a draft agreement similar to the draft agreement that the County gave us tonight would be available Monday, Tuesday or tonight. Brien indicated to me this evening that the attorney for the district is still working on that. I believe that the agreement - or the concept of the agreement - was basically acceptable to - at least - the staffs of the Agency and the District's representatives, without their Boards each reviewing that agreement, and I would think that an agreement would be coming back to the Agency within the next thirty days for that specific purpose. Brien Ross: I think the same thing holds true as the County has in- Page 25 dicated, that we are willing to look at the possibility of a cooperative agreement, however, we are here tonight to protect our interest. Note: There are no more tapes of the meeting from this point on. The balance of the minutes are taken from the Clerk's file and notes. Additional input was received from the following: Fred A. Hicks representing the Beaumont Cemetary District and Beaumont District Library District, speaking in opposition to the proposed Community Improvement Plan, reading his letter dated November 17, 1982, which is a part of the record. Donald B. Houston representing the San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency speaking in opposition to the proposed Community Improvement Agency. Irish D. Mitchell, representing various clients, speaking in favor of the proposed Community Improvement Plan. Florence Readman speaking on behalf of Lena Readman, who resides on Beaumont Avenue. Lyman Burhop, 1020 - 2nd Place, Calimesa, a Beaumont property owner. 12. The public hearing was declared closed at 11 :40 P.M. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adjourned to Executive Session regarding possible litigation at 11:42 P.M. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman Hammel The City Council reconvened to regular session at 11:58 P.M. Let the record show no action was taken in Executive Session, however, as a result of discussion in Executive Session, the following action will now be taken by the City Council. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont directs that the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency Plan and Project Area will be changed as follows: 1. Reduce the duration of the project from 45 years to 35 years. 2. Delete Sub - Project "E" from the Project Area with the Plan's Anticipated Initial Projects List to be modified to delete Sub - Protect Area "E" projects. 3. Delete the Civic Center Complex, i.e., City Hall, Police Facility and Community Center) and Corporate Yard Improve- ments from the Plan's Anticipated Initial Projects List. 4. Provide language in the Plan to preserve historic buildings so designated by the City Council and /or the State Historical Resources Commission. 5. Provide language in the Plan to limit the authority of the Executive Director without prior approval by the City Council and /or Agency. 6. Acknowledge the use of alternative financial resources as stated in Section 700.10, 700.40 and 700.60 of the Plan. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman Hammel Page 26 14. Community Improvement Agency Approval and Adoption of Resolutions. RESOLUTION NO. BCI 82 -15 - Approving the Final Report on the Beaumont Community Improvement Plan, Project Area, and Environmental Impact Report; and Authorizing the Transmittal of Its Final Report to the Beaumont City Council. On Motion by Agency Member Lowry, seconded by Agency Member Shaw, the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency adopts Resolution No. BCI 82 -15 with the necessary amendments if indicated by the changes directed by the City Council. AYES: Agency Members May, Shaw, Lowry and Chairman Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Agency Member Hammel. RESOLUTION NO. BCI 82 -16 - Adopting and Certifying the Environmental Impact Report and Authorizing the Filing of a Notice of Determination on the Beaumont Community Improvement Plan for the Beaumont Community Improvement Project Area. On Motion by Chairman Thompson, seconded by Agency Member Shaw, the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency adopts Resolution No. BCI 82 -16. AYES: Agency Members May, Shaw, Lowry and Chairman Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Agency Member Hammel. RESOLUTION NO. BCI 82 -17 - Finding that the Use of Taxes Allocated from the Beaumont Project Area for the Purpose of Improving and Increasing the Community's Supply of Low and Moderate- Income Housing Outside the Project Area will be of Benefit to the Project Area. On Motion by Agency Member Shaw, seconded by Agency Member May, the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency adopts Resolution No. BCI 82 -17. AYES: Agency Members May, Shaw, Lowry and Chairman Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Agency Member Hammel. RESOLUTION NO.-BCI 82 -18 - Approving the Beaumont Community Improvement Plan and Project Area; Approving the Agency's Final Report to the City Council; and Directing the Secretary of the Agency to Transmit Re- quired Community Improvement Documents to the Beaumont City Council. On Motion by Agency Member Lowry, seconded by Agency Member May, the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency adopts Resolution No. BCI 82 -18 as amended by the changes directed by the City Council. AYES: Agency Members May, Shaw, Lowry and Chairman Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Agency Member Hammel. 15. City Council Approval and Adoption of Resolutions and Ordinance. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -63 - Finding that the Use of Taxes Allocated from the Beaumont Community Improvement Project Area for the Purpose of Improving and Increasing the Community's Supply of Low- and Moderate - Income Housing Outside the Project Area will be of Benefit to the Project Area. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -63. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman Hammel. Page 27 RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -64 - Concurring with the Beaumont Community Im- Provement Agency's Approval and Certification of the Environmental Impact Report on the Beaumont Community Improvement Plan and Project Area. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -64. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman Hammel. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -65 - Electing to Receive the Allocation of Taxes Pursuant to Section 33676 of the California Health and Safety Code. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -65. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman Hammel. ORDINANCE NO. 559 - FIRST READING - Approving and Adopting the Beaumont Community Improvement Plan and Project Area. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont passes Ordinance No. 559, (As Amended) for its first reading. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman Hammel. 16. On Motion by Agency Member Lowry, seconded by Agency Member Shaw, the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency adjourns its meeting. 17. The Beaumont Planning Commission reconvenes and adjourns its meeting. 18. The Community Improvement Agency Project Area Committee reconvenes and adjourns its meeting. 19. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting is adjourned at 12:30 P.M., to November 22, 1982, at 7:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, CITY CLE D-- 09 BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL AND BEAUMONT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AGENCY MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8, 1982 1. The Beaumont City Council and Beaumont Community Improvement Agency met in a regular meeting at 7:31 P.M., on Monday, November 8, 1982 in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor /Chairman Thompson presiding. 2. The Invocation was given by Councilman Lowry. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Councilman Hammel. 4. On Roll Call the following Council /Agency Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor /Chairman Thompson. 5. There being no additions, deletions or corrections, the Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of October 25, 1982 were approved as sub- mitted. 6. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, warrants as audited per warrant list of November 8, 1982, in the amount of $105,759.16 and payroll of October 21, 1982, in the amount of $26,343.54, were approved for payment as audited. 7. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Hearing Regarding Conditional Use Permit No. CU 81 -1, Gladys Bell, (Beaumont Swap Meet). Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, directing that an additional condition of approval be added to Conditional Use Permit No. CU 81 -1 to collect an assessment of $1.00 per space was rescinded by Councilman Lowry and Councilman Hammel. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont directs that additional conditions of approval shall be added to Conditional Use Permit No. CU 81 -1, as follows: No. 37: The Swap Meet shall be allowed to operate seven days a week from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday, and from 6:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. on Wednesday, Saturday and Sunday. No. 38: A business fee of $1.00 per space per event shall be collected by the operator of the Swap Meet, except where a vendor has an annual business license that can be substituted therefor, records kept thereof and the weekly report to be submitted to the City on Wednesday the week following closing of business, with charitable organizations exempt from the fee. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. (Out of Sequence) Let the record show the Community Improvement Agency is in receipt of letters from the Beaumont District Library and Beaumont Ceme- Lary District requesting time to be heard prior to the Public Hearing on the Community Improvement Plan, and they were advised Page 1 a 10. 11. 12. 13. by the City Manager they would be given an opportunity to confer with the City Council in Executive Session for the purpose of discussing with them the Community Improvement Program, and that representatives of these two districts were not in attendance this evening although the opportunity was provided. The meeting was adjourned to Executive Session to discuss possible litigation regarding the Community Improvement Agency and for a personnel matter, at 8:20 P.M. The meeting was reconvened to regular session at 9:40 P.M. Let the record show no decisions were made in Executive Session on the litigation or personnel matters. ORDINANCE NO. 547 - FIRST READING - Regulating the Division of Land (Continued from October 25, 1982). This agenda item was continued until the regular meeting of November 22, 1982. ORDINANCE NO. 556 - SECOND READING - Amending the Land Use Zoning Map of the City of Beaumont to Provide for C -2, R -3 and R -T Zones. (Continued from October 25, 1982). On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Ordinance No. 556 at its second reading amending the Land Use Zoning Map of the City of Beaumont to provide for C -2, R -3 and R -T Zones; Location: East of Beaumont Avenue between Cougar Way and Brookside; Change of Zone No. 1005, by title only. The ordinance was read by title only by the City Clerk. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw and Mayor Thompson. NOES: Councilmen Hammel and Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. MOTION CARRIED Request from Committee of Local Officials to Urge Repeal of Davis - Bacon Act. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont endorses the concept of urging the repeal of the Davis -Bacon Act. AYES: Councilmen May, NOES: None. ABSTAIN: Mayor Thompson. ABSENT: None. Shaw, Hammel and Lowry. Consideration of Renewal of Lease with Beaumont- Cherry Valley Re- creation and Parks District. (Continued from October 11, 1982). This agenda item was continued until the regular meeting of November 22, 1982. Recommendation for Adoption of Sick Leave Policy. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts the Sick Leave Policy as recommended. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Page 2 14. 15. 16. 17. IF:p 19. 20. Recommendation for Adoption of Nepotism and Non - Discrimination Based on Marital Status Policies. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts the Nepotism and Non- Discrim- ination based on Marital Status Personnel Policies as recommended, and make the personnel policies as stated herein part of the City operating practice. AYES: Councilmen May, NOES: None. ABSTAIN: Councilman Shaw. ABSENT: None. Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. Authorization for Mayor Pro Tem Hammel to Vote on Behalf of the City of Beaumont Regarding City Member of Local Agency Formation Commission. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes Mayor Pro Tem Hammel to vote on behalf of the City of Beaumont; and further requests that Mayor Pro Tem Hammel be appointed as the City representative on the Local Agency Formation Commission. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Report of Schedule and Confirmation by Council of Time Frame for Consideration of Sewer Master Plan. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts the time frame for consideration of Sewer Master Plan as recommended. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Recommendation Regarding Relocation of Street -Sewer Maintenace Yard. On Motion by Mayor Thompson, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the transfer of the maintenance yard operations from Third and California to the Waste- water Treatment Plant site, and directs the City Manager to return a plan for development to the City Council, said plan to show development location and an improvement plan. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. The Beaumont Community Improvement Agency Statement of Operations for Period Ending September 30, 1982 was ordered filed. The City Financial Report for Period Ending September 30, 1982 was ordered filed. ORAL COMMUNICATION: a. Request from Irish Mitchell relative to Memo of Minute Order and Waiver of Legal Rights. Mr. Mitchell, 402 East Sixth Street, addressed the Council, stating he was representing Hershey Door Company, and further stating that Mr. Hershey is not available due to illness. Mr. Mitchell then read from a prepared statement indicating it was a formal request for reimbursement concerning expense incurred by Hershey Door in conjunction with relocation of a sewer line. The statement and attachments were given to the City Clerk as part of the record. Page 3 21. Consideration of Bid Received for Shear Wall Repair to Gymnasium. On Motion by Mayor Thompson, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the bid submitted by Peter Grimes Construction, in the amount of $15,554.00, for the shear wall construction in the gymnasium, so long as the contractor meets all performance requirements. AYES: Councilmen May, NOES: Councilman Shaw. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned to 7:00 P.M., on Wednesday, November 10, 1982, in the City Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, EAW'&J Q.- -OAA, CITY CLEAX, CITY OF BEAUMONT Page 4 BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL AND BEAUMONT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AGENCY MINUTES OF October 25, 1982 1. The Beaumont City Council and Beaumont Community Improvement Agency met in a regular meeting at 7:33 P.M., on Monday, October 25, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor /Chairman Thompson presiding. 2. The invocation was given by Reverand George Kreiger, First Christian Church. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Councilman May. 4. On Roll Call the following Council /Agency Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor /Chairman Thompson. 5. There being no additions, deletions or corrections, the Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of October 11, 1982 were approved as sub- mitted. 6. Acceptance of Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of October 5, 1982. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, juris- diction over Conditional Use Permit No. CU 81 -1, Gladys Bell, was transferred to the City Council for fee reconsideration, with date set for hearing November 8, 1982, with the balance of the minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of October 5, 1982 accepted as presented. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 7. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, warrants as audited per warrant list of October 25, 1982, in the amount of $138.145.13 and payroll of October 7, 1982, in the amount of $25,686.28, were approved for payment as audited. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 8. ORDINANCE NO. 547 - FIRST READING - Subdivision Ordinance. (Con- tinued from September 27, 1982). On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, Ordinance 547 was continued until the regular meeting of November 8, 1982. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 9. ORDINANCE NO. 556 - SECOND READING - Amending Ordinance 490 by Amending the Land Use Zoning Map of the City of Beaumont to Provide for C -2, R -3 and R -T Zones. (Change of Zone No. 1005 - Location: East of Beaumont Avenue between Cougar Way and Brookside Avenue). On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, Ordinance 556 was continued until the regular meeting of November 8, 1982 pending receipt of an opinion from the Chief Planner, Gary Croft. AYES: Councilmen May, NOES: Mayor Thompson. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Shaw, Hammel and Lowry. Page 1 10. ORDINANCE NO. 558 - SECOND READING - Amending Ordinance 361 to Prohibit Vehicles from Standing on the City Streets and Alleys for more than 72 Hours at a Time. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Ordinance No. 558 at its second reading by title only. The Ordinance was read by title only by the Deputy City Clerk. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 11. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -61 - Requesting the Public Employees' Retirement System to Extend the Funding Period for Current Service, Death Bene- fits, and 1959 Survivor Benefit Actuarial Liabilities for the City of Beaumont. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -61 with the Resolution to be read in its entirety. The Resolution was read in its entirety by the Deputy City Clerk. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 12. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -62 - Giving Notice of proposed Annexation of Certain Inhabited Territory Designated as LAFCO No. 82 -11 -3, Annexa- tion No. 27 to the City of Beaumont, and Fixing the Time and Place for Hearing or Protest Thereto. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -62, and sets the date of November 24, 1982, at 7:30 P.M., as the date for public hearing. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 13. Recommendation regarding Abandonment of Sewer Line Easement across Hershey Door Company Property. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts a Minute Order aban- doning the sewer line from Third Street diagonally across the Hershey property to a point where it connects into the manhole behind the Hershey Door building; such abandonment to be effective when the City Engineer accepts the work involving Mr. Bill Williams' lateral connection; and further authorizes the Mayor to sign a Quitclaim Deed as to any right to an easement when Mr. Hershey signs a statement of no rights to any claim in connection therewith as approved by the City Attorney. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 14. Recommendation on Sixth Street Median Bid. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont rejects the bid of Redlands Paving, and further authorizes the City Manager to re- advertise for bids. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 15. Utilization of Wastewater Treatment Plant Lagoon. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the request to utilize the lagoon for septic tank and cess pool pumping disposal and authorizes the City Manager to enter into agreement with any septic tank pumping operator for disposal at the rate of $15.00 per 3000 gallon truck load, such agreement to be revocable at any time, with such disposal allowed seven days a week between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. when the operator is available; and further directs that the revenue from the fees shall go to the sewer maintenance fund. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 16. Appointment to Fill Vacancy on Senior Citizens Advisory Commission. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont appoints James T. Bracken, 1211 Pennsylvania Avenue, to fill the one vacancy on the Senior Citizens Advisory Commission. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 17. The report of Planning Commission actions at meeting of October 19, 1982 was ordered filed. 18. ORAL COMMUNICATION: Brien Hammen, 1275 Pennsylvania Avenue addressed the Council stating they are members of Mr. Waller's government class and are required to attend a Council Meeting and School Board meeting once a quarter. James Hilvoskey, who resides on Cherry Avenue, addressed the Council advising he is also a member of the government class, and asked if this Council set the rules for the County area. The Mayor advised the County area was regulated by the Board of Supervisors. Brien Hammen addressed the Council asking what is going to become of the property east of Highland Springs Road, and was advised that LAFCO had ruled this land would be annexed to Banning even though it is in the Beaumont School District. 19. Request for Creation of Position of Block Mason, Cement Finisher and Laborer, and Authorization for Temporary Employment. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves adding the positions of Block Mason, Cement Finisher and Laborer, as recommended by the City Manager in letter of October 25, 1982, to be employed on a temporary basis. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 8:44 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Deputy City Cle BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL AND BEAUMONT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AGENCY MINUTES OF October 11, 1982 1. The Beaumont City Council and Beaumont Community Improvement Agency met in a regular meeting at 7:33 P.M., on Monday, October 11, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor Pro Tem Hammel presiding. 2. The invocation was given by Councilman Lowry. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Councilman Shaw. 4. On Roll Call the following Council /Agency Members were present: May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Pro Tem Hammel. Mayor Thompson was excused. 5. There being no additions, deletions or corrections, the Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of September 27, 1982 and Special Council Meeting of September 30, 1982, were approved as submitted. 6. There being no objections, the Minutes of Adjourned Planning Commission Meeting of September 14, 1982 and Regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 21, 1982, were accepted as presented. 7. On Motion by Councilman Shaw,, seconded by Councilman Lowry, warrants as audited per warrant list of October 11, 1982, in the amount of $130,496.92; and payroll of September 23, 1982, in the amount of $25,350.31 were approved for payment as audited. go �00 10. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Pro Tem Hammel. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Mayor Thompson. ORDINANCE NO. 557 - SECOND READING - Amending Ordinance 525 to Delete Laundries as an Industrial Waste Disposal Operation. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, Ordin- ance No. 557 was adopted by the City Council of the City of Beaumont at its second reading by title only. The Ordinance was read by title only by the City Clerk. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Pro Tem Hammel. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Mayor Thompson. ORDINANCE NO. 558 - FIRST READING - Amending Ordinance 361 to Prohi- bit Vehicles from Standing on the City Streets and Alleys for More than 72 Hours at a time. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont passes Ordinance No. 558 for its first reading. The Ordinance was read in its entirety by the City Manager. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Pro Tem Hammel. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Mayor Thompson. Consideration of Renewal of Lease Agreement with Beaumont - Cherry Valley Recreation and Parks District. (Continued from September 27 1982). On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, this agenda item was continued until the regular Council meeting of November 8, 1982. Page 1 AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Pro Tem Hammel. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Mayor Thompson. 11. Consideration of Recommendation to Declare Vehicles Surplus with Authorization to Offer for Sale and Solicit Sealed Bids. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont declares the 1973 Dodge Coronet, VIN No. WK41G3G215066 and 1973 Dodge Coronet, VIN No. WK41G3G180672 surplus; authorize they be offered for sale; and direct the Purchasing Agent to solicit sealed bids, to be sold as is, what is and where is. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Pro Tem Hammel. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Mayor Thompson. 12. Consideration of Recommendation to Upgrade Pay of Police Corporal. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the request to upgrade the salary range of Police Corporal from Range 272 to Range 275. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Pro Tem Hammel. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Mayor Thompson. 13. Consideration of Request to Purchase Transportation Department Van from National Bus Company. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the purchase of the 10 -12 passenger van with one wheelchair station and fare box from National Bus Company at a cost of $25,227.00, in the cooperative bid venture with RTA. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Pro Tem Hammel. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Mayor Thompson. 14. Request for Budget Transfer to Purchase Heater for Maintenance Shop. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the budget transfer from Account No. 01- 505 -260 to Account No. 01- 505 -300, in the amount of $400.00, to purchase a heater for the maintenance shop. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Pro Tem Hammel. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Mayor Thompson. 15. Report of Planning Commission Actions at Meeting of October 5, 1982. This report was ordered filed. ADD ITEM Request from Dick's VW Repair for New Hearing Concerning Conditional Use Permit. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts a Minute Order directing that the Planning Staff accept an application from Dick's VW Repair for a re- hearing without fee. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Pro Tem Hammel. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Mayor Thompson. Page 2 ADD ITEM Bids on Gymnasium Repair. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the engineering department to submit the matter of the shear wall in the gymnasium to public bid. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Pro Tem Hammel. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Mayor Thompson. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 8:05 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Page 3 BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1982 1. The Beaumont City Council met in a Special Meeting at 6:07 P.M., on Thursday, September 30, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor Thompson presiding. 2. On Roll Call the following Council Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 3. Discussion Regarding Plot Plan No. 1027. Location: 715 -719 Massa- chusetts. Applicant: Save -On Mobile Homes. Mr. Robert Taylor, representing Save -On Mobile Homes, addressed the Council concerning this plot plan. Gary Croft, Chief Planner for the City of Beaumont, addressed the Council concerning his report and recommendation to the Planning Commission, and answered questions from the Council. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves Plot Plan No. 1027 with all conditions of approval to be required, specifically Condition F, the sidewalk, be installed on Massachusetts Avenue to conform to the City Engineer's requirements, with at least a three foot wide concrete walk adjoining that sidewalk back to the new mobile home, and connect to at least the porch of the second house back. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 4. Discussion Regarding Authorization to Seek Bids for Improvement of Gymnasium. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the City Manager to seek negotiated bids for the improvement of the gymnasium, and to receive any other bids from anyone else who cares to submit one. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 6:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, EDNA J. URKETT, CITY CLERK BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL AND BEAUMONT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AGENCY MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 27, 1982 1. The Beaumont City Council and Beaumont Community Improvement Agency met in a regular meeting at 7:35 P.M., on Monday, September 27, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor /Chairman Thompson presiding. 2. The invocation was given by Reverand Del Boatman, Foursquare Gospel Lighthouse. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by City Manager Norman Davis. 4. On Roll Call the following Council /Agency Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor /Chairman Thompson. 5. There being no additions, deletions or corrections, the Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of September 13, 1982 were approved as submitted. 6. Acceptance of Planning Commission Minutes. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont transfers jurisdiction of Plot Plan 1027, Save -On Mobile Homes, 715 -719 Massachusetts, to the City Council. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. There being no further objections, the Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 7, 1982 were accepted as submitted with the exception as previously noted. 7. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, warrants as audited per warrant list of September 27, 1982, with Warrant No. 023727, in the amount of $310.79 deleted, in the corrected amount of $115,314.29, and Payroll of September 9, 1982, in the amount of $29,053.82, were approved for payment as audited with the deletion as previously noted. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. BEAUMONT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AGENCY 8. PUBLIC MEETING of the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency of the City of Beaumont to Review and Consider Report on the Beaumont Community Improvement Plan, Project Area and Environmental Impact Report. The Public Meeting was opened at 7:45 P.M. Marshall Krupp, of Willdan Associates, consultants in the Community Improvement Agency, addressed the Council stating that before the public meeting begins he should explain of a possible conflict of interest involving property owned by Councilman Hammel, and re- commended that he abstain from discussion of these matters, not participate in the vote and leave the discussion at this time. Councilman Hammel indicated Mr. Krupp's recommendation was in order, and removed himself from the proceedings. Page 1 Mr. Krupp then briefly explained the documents submitted to the Council for review and consideration. There being no input from the public, this public meeting was closed. 9. PUBLIC HEARING of the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency to Consider the Adoption of Rules Governing Participation and Pre- ferences by Owners, Operators of Businesses, and Business Tenants in the Beaumont Community Improvement Project Area Pursuant to Section 33345 of the California Health and Safety Code. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:00 P.M. It was noted by Chairman Thompson that proper legal notice had been given and was a matter of record. Mr. Krupp again explained what the Council was reviewing and con- sidering. Chairman Thompson asked for anyone in the audience with questions to come forward. Lyle Millage, Alpen Equipment Rental, 1048 East Sixth Street: A property owner or business that agrees to participate in the rede- velopment - what exactly are they committing themselves to? Marshall Krupp: The specifics of what they would be committing themselves to would come out of the specific planning programs that would be initiated by the Agency and the Council and the staff during the implementation of the project over a period of time. For example, when the rehabilitation program for the commercial area was formulated, the formulation of that program would include criteria and standards that would then be imposed upon the person participating in that commercial rehabilitation program. They would also participate in formulating that program, and the Project Area Committee, who represents the community would also participate in formulating that program so that the community clearly under- stands what they would be committing themselves to if they entered into that kind of agreement. And the agreement would also call that out. Mr. Millage: Well, that was my question. Would the business owner know ahead of time -- that answered my question. Chairman Thompson: Are there any other questions - any other input that you would like as a matter of record. Mr. Krupp: Mr. Chairman, as a final comment, I do want to advise the Council, or the Agency, as well as the community, that these rules can be modified at any time the Agency desires to, so if they are deemed inflexible down the road, they can be modified to make them more flexible to respond to the community. Chairman Thompson: May I ask a question regarding that. For instance, say these rules were determined to be not in the best interests of the Agency, or the community, who initiates the changes. Mr. Krupp: The Agency would initiate the change based upon a recommendation to the staff to bring back changes . . . Chairman Thompson: Or from the Project Area Committee? Mr. Krupp: It could come from the Project Area Committee, it could come from the Planning Commission, it could come from a participant in the community. Chairman Thompson: What I am trying to get you to say is that if rules have to be changed down the road, they can be initiated by citizens of the community that are involved in the Agency work. Page 2 Mr. Krupp: Yes. You do have to have rules though. You could not Eliminate the rules. You do have to have certain rules, but any- one in the community could initiate a recommendation to modify these rules. Chairman Thompson: Are there any other questions or any other input? There being no other questions or input, the Public Hearing was closed at 8:10 P.M. 10. RESOLUTION NO. BCI 82 -12 - Approving the Draft Report on the Beaumont Community Improvement Plan, Project Area and Environmental Impact Report; and Authorizing the Transmittal of its Report to the Beaumont City Council. On Motion by Agency Member Lowry, seconded by Agency Member Shaw, the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency approves the draft report on the Beaumont Community Improvement Plan, Project Area and En- vironmental Impact Report; and further authorizes the transmittal of its report to the Beaumont City Council. AYES: Agency Members May, Shaw, Lowry and Chairman Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: Agency Member Hammel. ABSENT: None. 11. RESOLUTION NO. BCI 82 -13 - Requesting and Consenting to Holding a Joint Special Public Hearing to Consider Final Approval and Adoption of the Beaumont Community Improvement Plan and Project Area; and Approval and Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. On Motion by Agency Member Shaw, seconded by Agency Member May, the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency requests and consents to holding a Joint Special Public Hearing to consider final approval and adoption of the Beaumont Community Improvement Plan and Project Area; and further approves and certifies the Final Environ- mental Impact Report. AYES: Agency Members May, Shaw, Lowry and Chairman Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: Agency Member Hammel. ABSENT: None. 12. RESOLUTION NO. BCI 82 -14 - Approving and Adopting Rules Governing Participation and Preferences by Owners, Operators of Businesses, and Business Tenants in the Beaumont Community Improvement Project Area Pursuant to Section 33345 of the California Health and Safety Code. On Motion by Agency Member Lowry, seconded by Agency Member Shaw, the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency approves and adopts Rules governing participation and preferences by Owners, Operators of Businesses, and Business Tenants in the Beaumont Community Improvement Project Area Pursuant to Section 33345 of the California Health and Safety Code. AYES: Agency Members May, Shaw, Lowry and Chairman Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: Agency Member Hammel. ABSENT: None. BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL 13. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -57 - Acknowledging Receipt of Resolutions and Reports of the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency Relating to the Proposed Beaumont Community Improvement Plan and Project Area; Consenting to Hold a Joint Special Public Hearing Thereon by the Agency and the City Council; Setting a Date for Such Hearing; and Providing for the Giving of Notice Thereof. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont acknowledges receipt of Resolutions and Reports of the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency Relating to Page 3 LIEN the proposed Beaumont Community Improvement Plan and Project Area; Consenting to hold a Joint Special Public Hearing thereon by the Agency and the City Council; setting the date of November 10, 1982 at 7:30 P.M., for such hearing; and providing for the giving of notice thereof. AYES: Council Members May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: Council Member Hammel. ABSENT: None. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why certain Structures Should Not be Determined to be Substandard, Unsafe and Dilapidated and Declared a Nuisance. Location: 549 Maple Avenue and 561 Maple Avenue. The Hearing was Opened at 8:22 P.M. with City Attorney Harry M. Dougherty presiding. City Attorney Harry M. Dougherty read into the record the contents of the Order to Show Cause. The owner of the property, Mr. Jack Bowie and one of the tenants, Ms. Lena Crow were present at the hearing. The original Order to Show Cause was marked City's Exhibit No. 1 and entered into the record. The original Affidavit of Mailing was marked City's Exhibit No. 2 and entered into the record. The Building Inspector, Roland Russell, was sworn in as a witness by the City Clerk. Under oath, the Building Inspector described the conditions of the structures as being dilapidated, substandard and in a completely unsafe condition. The Building Inspector's report was marked City's Exhibit No. 3 and entered into the record. Photographs taken of the structures were marked City's Exhibit No. 4 and entered into the record. The Health Department's report was marked City's Exhibit No. 5 and entered into the record. The Fire Department's report was marked City's Exhibit No. 6 and entered into the record. The City Council was then asked by the City Attorney to make a deter- mination whether or not, based on the testimony offered here, that the condition of the premises constitute a nuisance, and that if the City has to tear them down, the cost thereof be charged against the property, and further determining the time to be allowed the tenants to vacate. The hearing was closed at 8:35 P.M. Jack Bowie, 40323 Av.nida Miravilla, owner of the property, addressed the Council, stating - I am in complete agreement with what you are doing here in the City. I think you should be complimented on it. It is something that should have been done years ago. I own several pieces of property here in town and it is going to greatly increase the value of my property. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont determines that the condition of the premises located at 549 and 561 Maple Avenue constitute a nuisance, in violation of the Ordinances 534 and 548, Health and Safety Codes and Fire Codes of the State of California, and that said buildings shall be demolished by April 1, 1983, and, if after that period of time, any demolition undertaken by the City will then become a lien upon the property. Page 4 AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 15. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -60 - Requesting CalTrans to Control the Waters Channeled under the Freeway to 5th Street. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -60. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 16. ORDINANCE NO. 547 - Regulating the Division of Land. FIRST READING. This agenda item was continued until the regular Council Meeting of October 25, 1982 to allow sufficient time for review by,the Council. 17. ORDINANCE NO. 555 - SECOND READING. Amending Resolution No. 1972 -17 which amended Ordinance No. 369, Prohibiting the Use of Residential Streets and Areas by Heavy Commercial Vehicles. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Ordinance No. 555 at its second reading by title only. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 18. ORDINANCE NO. 556 - FIRST READING. Amending the Land Use Zoning Map of the City of Beaumont to provide for C -2, R -3 and R -T Zones. (Change of Zone No. 1005 - Beaumont Avenue between Cougar and Brookside). 19. Motion by Councilman Lowry to continue this ordinance pending receipt of answer to Mr. Lowry's Letter to Sacramento regarding the legality of this zone change was withdrawn by Councilman Lowry. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Mayor Thompson, the City Council of the City of Beaumont passes Ordinance No. 556 for its first reading by title only. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw and Mayor Thompson. NOES: Councilmen Hammel and Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. MOTION CARRIED ORDINANCE NO. 557 - FIRST READING. Amending Ordinance 525 to Delete Laundries as an Industrial Waste Disposal Operation. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont passes Ordinance No. 557 for its first reading by title only. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 20. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -58 - In Opposition to Southern California Gas Company's Application for Rate Increase. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -55. The resolution was read in its entirety. Page 5 21. 22. 23. 24. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -59 - Proclaiming National Fire Prevention Week. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -59 pro- claiming National Fire Prevention Week the week of October 3 through October 9, 1982. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Request from Ms. Sharon L. Nelson for Connection to City Sewer System. Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, to reject the request of Ms. Nelson for connection to City Sewer System. AYES: Mayor Thompson. NOES: Councilmen May, ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Shaw, Hammel and Lowry. Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel for recon- sideration of the previous vote. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont rejects Ms. Nelson's request for connection to the City sewer system. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Claim filed by C.G. Engineering Against City of Beaumont. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Mayor Thompson, the City Council of the City of Beaumont rejects the claim filed by C.G. Engineering against the City of Beaumont, and directs the City Clerk to send a Notice of Rejection. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Consideration of Renewal of Lease Agreement with Beaumont- Cherry Valley Recreation and Parks District. (Continued from July 26). This agenda item was continued until the regular Council meeting of October 11, 1982 for further report. 25. Request for Payoff Approval on Haskell Note. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont directs that $50,000 be transferred from the Continuing Appropriation for Land Purchases to Budget Line Item 01 -145 -300, Buildings and Lands, and further authorize the expenditure of $50,000 from that budget line item for the consumation of the purchase. AYES: Councilmen May, NOES: Councilman Shaw. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. Page 6 26. Request for Acceptance of Notice of Completion on Third Street and California Avenue Sewer and Street Improvements; Authorization for Mayor to Sign; and Authorization for Recordation of Same. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the payment to Merlin Johnson in the amount of $2,097.24 on Project No. B78UC 060506, Third Street and California Avenue; accepts the work as complete; and authorizes the filing and recordation of the Notice of Completion. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 27. Request for Budget Adjustment for Purchase of Pneumatic Sewer Plugs. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the request for budget adjustment for purchase of pneumatic sewer plugs, the transfer to be in the sum of $600.00 from Account No. 10- 405 -254 to Account No. 10- 405 -302. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 28. Request for Reimbursement for Costs Incurred due to Back -Up in City Sewer Line. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the request for reimburse- ment to Mr. Clifford Hodges for sewer back -up at 1062 Wellwood. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 29. Request for Authorization to Advertise for Bids on 6th Street Median Curb and Gutter. On Motion by Mayor Thompson, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes advertising for bids on the 6th Street median curb and gutter. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 30. Request for Minute Order Authorizing Release of Abatement Proceedings Brought by the City of Beaumont as Resolution No. 1972 -35. Location: 37860 Highway 60. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts a Minute Order authorizing the Mayor to sign a release thereby releasing the abatement pro- ceedings brought by the City of Beaumont as Resolution No. 1972 -35. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 31. Request for Permission for Mayor James B. Thompson to Leave the State for a Period of Ninety Days. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont grants permission for Mayor James B. Thompson to leave the State for a period of 90 days. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 32. Report of Planning Commission Actions at Meeting of September 22, 1982. The report of the Planning Commission Actions at Meeting of September 22, 1982 were accepted for filing. 34. Suggested Revision of Employee's Information and Policy Handbook. On Motion by Mayor Thompson, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the revised Employee's Information and Policy Handbook, to take effect immediately. AYES: Councilmen May, NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 33. ORAL COMMUNICATION: Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. Mr. Irish Mitchell addressed the Council stating he wanted this in for the record. He then read a letter addressed to the City Council regarding the Hershey By -Pass Concept, and handed the letter to the City Clerk for the record. The Council adjourned to Executive Session regarding a legal matter at 10:20 P.M. The Council reconvened to Regular Session at 10:35 P.M. Let the record show no decisions were made in Executive Session, other than to authorize the City Manager to employ Enos Reid for a report in regard to the Banning annexation application on the Duestch pro- perty. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the City Manager to employ Enos Reid for a report in regard to the Banning annexation application on the Duestch property. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, cs Page 8 BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL AND BEAUMONT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AGENCY MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 13, 1982 1. The Beaumont City Council and Beaumont Community Improvement Agency met in a regular meeting at 7:35 P.M., on Monday, September 13, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor /Chairman Thompson presiding. 2. The invocation was given by Reverand Grindstaff, Trinity Pencostal. 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Councilman Shaw. 4. On Roll Call the following Council /Agency Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor /Chairman Thompson. 5. There being no additions, deletions or corrections, the Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of August 23, 1982 were approved as submitted. 6. There being no objections, the Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of August 17, 1982 were accepted as submitted. 7. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, warrants as audited per warrant list of September 13, 1982, in the amount of $86,536.20, and Payroll of August 26, 1982, in the amount of $28,575.21, were approved for payment as audited. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 8. Acceptance of Resignation of Ms. Hazel Shannon from Senior Citizens Advisory Commission. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the resignation of Ms. Hazel Shannon from the Senior Citizens Advisory Commission with regret. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 9. Presentation of City of Beaumont Plaques to Bob Bruce, Jack Dawson, Ray Coe and Hazel Shannon in recognition of their Service to the Senior Citizens Advisory Commission. Mayor Thompson presented a City of Beaumont plaque to Ray Coe in recognition of his service to the Senior Citizens Advisory Commission. The remaining recipients were unable to attend the Council meeting to receive their plaques. 10. Presentation of Traffic Safety Plaque to the Beaumont Police Depart- ment from the Automobile Club. Mr. Richard F. Gaches, District Manager of the Automobile Club of Southern California, presented a 1981 pedestrian safety citation to the Beaumont Police Department for achieving the best pedestrian safety record for the year 1981 for cities of similar size in the nation. 11. ORDINANCE NO. 555 - FIRST READING - Amending Resolution No. 1972 -17 which Amended Ordinance 369, Prohibiting the Use of Residential Streets and Areas by Heavy Commercial Vehicles. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont passes Ordinance No. 555 at its first reading by title only. Page 1 12. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -52 - Declaring Cystic Fibrosis Week. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982- 52 declaring Cystic Fibrosis Week as September 19 -25, 1982. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 13. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -53 - Permitting the County Health Officer of the County of Riverside to Enforce Public Health Rules, Regulations and Orders within the Corporate Limits of the City of Beaumont, California. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -53 permitting the County Health Officer of the County of Riverside to Enforce Public Health Rules, Regulations and Orders within the Corporate Limits of the City of Beaumont, California. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 14. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -54 - Designating Certain Roads to be in the Federal -Aid Urban System. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -54 designating certain roads to be in the Federal -Aid Urban System. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 15. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -55 - Approving an Agreement for the Receipt of Olde r American Funds for the Period July 1, 1982 and Ending June 30, 1983. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -55 approving an Agreement for the receipt of Older American Funds for the Period of July 1, 1982 through June 30, 1983. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 16. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -56 - Requesting CalTrans to Provide Roadside Maintenance of the Freeway Ramps within the City of Beaumont. On Motion by Councilman May, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -56 re- questing CalTrans to provide roadside maintenance of the freeway ramps within the City of Beaumont. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Page 2 17. DECISION DUE - Change of Zone No. 1005. Applicant: AB- KOV /DEVCO. Location: East of Beaumont Avenue between Cougar Way and Brookside Avenue. Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, to accept Planning Staff recommendation Exhibit "B" as the designation for this zoning. Motion by Mayor Thompson to amend Councilman designating the area on Exhibit "B" shown as on the southeast corner of Brookside and Bea acres, the C -1 area be changed to C -2 with a fifteen acres, and the balance of Section 17 ation, was seconded by Councilman Shaw. VOTE TAKEN ON AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Lowry's motion, by Section 17, which is amont Avenue, 23.32 maximum acreage of be given an R -O design- AYES: Councilman Shaw and Mayor Thompson. NOES: Councilmen Hammel and Lowry. ABSTAIN: Councilman May. ABSENT: None. AMENDMENT TO MOTION FAILED. VOTE TAKEN ON MAIN MOTION. AYES: Councilmen Hammel and Lowry. NOES: Councilman Shaw and Mayor Thompson. ABSTAIN: Councilman May. ABSENT: None. MOTION FAILED. Motion by Councilman Lowry to increase the C -1 on Exhibit "B" to 7 -1/2 acres died for lack of a second. Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, to in- crease the C -1 area on Exhibit "B" to 7 -1/2 acres. Motion by Mayor Thompson to amend Councilman Lowry's motion, on Ex- hibit "B ", to go from 7 -1/2 acres to 12.26, with the designation of C -2, was seconded by Councilman Shaw. VOTE TAKEN ON AMENDMENT TO MOTION: AYES: Councilman Shaw and Mayor Thompson. NOES: Councilmen Hammel and Lowry. ABSTAIN: Councilman May. ABSENT: None. AMENDMENT TO MOTION FAILED. VOTE TAKEN ON MAIN MOTION: AYES: Councilmen Hammel and Lowry. NOES: Councilman Shaw and Mayor Thompson. ABSTAIN: Councilman May. ABSENT: None. MOTION FAILED. Further discussion on Agenda Item No. 17 was deferred until the end of the agenda. 18. Request for Reimbursement for Expenses Incurred due to Sewer Back - Up in City Line. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves reimbursement to Mr. Hodges for expenses incurred due to a sewer back -up in the City line. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Page 3 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. Q'IF 25. Renewal of Contract with Self- Insurance Administrators. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the renewal of the contract with Self - Insurance Administrators. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Decision re: Offer from Hershey Door Company regarding Sewer Lateral Relocation. The letter from Irish Mitchell, as agent for Albert Hershey, was accepted and filed and decision will be made pending a formal recommendation. CEQA - Negative Declaration on Cherry Avenue Sewer Project. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts the Negative Declaration on the Cherry Avenue Sewer Project. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Request to Employ Appraiser to Appraise the Court Building, Police Building and School Property. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont grants the request of the City Manager to employ an appraiser for the purpose of obtaining a joint appraisal report on the City -owned property located at 500 Grace Street and school district property fronting on Orange and Maple Streets, with the school district sharing one -half of the cost of $525.00, with the City's share of $262.50 to be charged to Budget Item 01 -145 -252. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Request for Maintenance Agreement Assurance by City of Beaumont for Pennsylvania Avenue Water Line. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts a Minute Order stating that the City of Beaumont gives the Beaumont - Cherry Valley Water District the assurance of the City that they will stand behind the materials and workmanship of the line installed in Pennsylvania Avenue between 8th Street and 11th Street, for a period of one year from the date of acceptance of dedication. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Suggested Revision of Employee's Information and Policy Handbook. This agenda item was continued until the regular meeting of Septem- ber 27 to allow time for further review. Report of Planning Commission Actions at Meeting of September 10, 1982. This report was accepted for filing. Page 4 26. ORAL COMMUNICATION: a. Mr. Oscar Leeb addressed the Council voicing his objections to the increase of the sewer charge, and asking why a 50% increase was necessary. Mr. Leeb's questions were answered by the City Manager. b. Mr. Robert Shelley, 540 Euclid Avenue, owner of Beaumont Laundry, addressed the Council objecting to the sewer fee increase for his business, which totals an 800% increase, and was informed his fee had been adjusted to be more equitable considering the amount of usage as compared to the normal residential user. 17. Decision on Change of Zone No. 1005 (Continuation). On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts the recommendation of the Planning Commission as shown on Exhibit "A ", except that the C -2 area be reduced from 23.32 acres to 12 acres, with the balance of the area to be zoned R -3. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw and Mayor Thompson. NOES: Councilmen Hammel and Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. MOTION CARRIED. The City Council adjourned to an Executive Session with the City Attorney to discuss legal matters at 9:54 P.M. The City Council reconvened to regular session at 10:30 P.M. The Mayor announced that the Executive Session had contained dis- cussions regarding legal matters relative to the gymnasium and LAFCO decision. Let the record show no action was taken in Executive Session. ADD ITEM: On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the City Manager the expenditure of a maximum of $2,500.00 for an engineer to design the seismic reinforcing for the stage wall in the gymnasium. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, DEPUTY CITY CLERK Page 5 BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL AND BEAUMONT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AGENCY MINUTES OF, August 23, 1982 1. The Beaumont City Council and Beaumont Community Improvement Agency met in a regular meeting at 7:33 P.M. , on Monday, August 23, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor /Chairman Thompson presiding. 2. The invocation was given by Reverand W. W. Brewer, lst Assembly of God. 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by City Manager Norman Davis. 4. On Roll Call the following Council /Agency Members were present: Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor /Chairman Thompson. Councilman May was excused. 5. There being no additions, deletions or corrections, the Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of August 9, 1982, Adjourned Meeting of August 16, 1982 and Adjourned Meeting of August 17, 1982 were approved as submitted. 6. Motion by Mayor Thompson to transfer jurisdiction of Plot Plan No. 1010 for Richard Whitman was withdrawn by Mayor Thompson. There being no further objections, Minutes of Regular Planning Commission meeting of August 3, 1982 were accepted as presented. 7. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, warrants as audited per Warrant List of August 23, 1982, with the deletion of Warrant No. 023517, in the corrected amount of $45,941.97, and Payroll of August 12, 1982, in the amount of $28,592.96, were approved for payment as audited. AYES: Councilmen Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman May. 8. ORDINANCE NO. 547 - Regulating the Division of Land. (Continued for Sixty Days from May 24, 1982). FIRST READING. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont continued the first reading of Ordinance No. 547 regulating the division of land until the regular Council meeting of September 27, 1982, pending the completion of the review by the Planning Commission and submittal of the updated draft of the proposed Ordinance. AYES: Councilmen Shaw, NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman May. Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 9. ORDINANCE NO. 553 - Finding and Declaring that the Interests of the Motoring Public and of Residents within Valley Mobile Home Community a Mobile Home Park in the City, will be Best Served by Making Certain Provisions of the California Vehicle Code Applicable to Certain Pri- vate Roads within Said Valley Mobile Home Community. SECOND READING. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Ordinance No. 553 at its second reading, by title only. AYES: C Councilmen Shaw, H Page 1 10. URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 554 - Adopting by Reference Article 4, Chap- ter 6, Part 3 (Sections 5470 to 5474.10 of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California) and Providing for the Amendment to Ordinance No. 370 and Resolution No. 1978 -28 and Ordinance No. 416 and Resolution No. 1978 -27. (Pertaining to the collection of Sewage and Sanitation Fees). On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Urgency Ordinance No. 554 at its first reading. The Ordinance was read in its entirety by the City Manager. AYES: Councilmen Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman May. 11. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -49 - Amending Ordinance No. 530 by Revoking Reso- lution No. 1981 -60 and Amending Section 6: Fees, of Ordinance 544, to Provide a Fee Schedule for Permit and Inspection of Encroachments, Including, but not Limited to, Curbs, Gutters, Sidewalks, Match -up Paving, Signs, Utility Connections and Cable TV Installations and a Bond Schedule to Assure Performance. 12. 13. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Mayor Thompson, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -49 amending Ordinance No. 530 by Revoking Resolution No. 1981 -60 and Amending Section 6: Fees, of Ordinance 544. The resolution was read in its entirety by the City Manager. AYES: Councilmen Shaw, NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman May. Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -50 - Requesting the League of California Cities to Request the President and the Congress of the United States to Continue Revenue Sharing. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -50 re- questing the League of California Cities to Request the President and Congress of the United States to Continue Revenue Sharing. The resolution was read in its entirety by the City Manager. AYES: Councilmen Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman May. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -51 - Requesting the League of California Cities to Seek the Revocation of the AB -8 Deflator Law. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -51 requesting the League of California Cities to Seek the Revocation of the AB-8 Deflator Law. AYES: Councilmen Shaw, NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman May. Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 14. Request for Budget Adjustment to Purchase File Cabinets for the Laboratory at Wastewater Treatment Plant. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the request for a budget adjustment from Account No. 10- 405 -254 to Account No. 10- 405 -303, in the amount of $300.00 for the purchase of file cabinets for the laboratory at Wastewater Treatment Plant. AYES: Councilmen Shaw, NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 15. 16. 17. Designation of Voting Delegate for League Annual Conference. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont designates Mayor Pro Tem Richard Hammel as the voting delegate representing the City of Beaumont at the League of California Cities annual conference, and designates City Manager Norman Davis as the alternate voting delegate. AYES: Councilmen Shaw, NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman May. Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. Request from Dionne Green for Use of Gymnasium. (Continued from August 9, 1982. Structural Report still Pending). On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the hiring of Len Knapp, of Knapp and Associates, to give the City a report on what needs to be done with the trusses to make them safe, or to make a determina- tion as to whether it is safe, and if there are needs, what those needs may be, to a maximum of $1,500.00 expenditure. On Motion by Mayor Thompson, the motion by Councilman Lowry was amended to state that the previous action of the Council be rescinded, and that this portion of the building will be made available for public use by September 1, 1982. VOTE TAKEN ON AMENDMENT TO MOTION: AYES: Councilmen Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman May. VOTE TAKEN ON MAIN MOTION: AYES: Councilmen Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman May. Request for a Finding that Premises Located at 549 and 561 Maple Avenue are a Nuisance. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont directs the City Attorney to prepare an Order to Show Cause to be served on the owner of the property at 549 and 561 Maple Avenue, to show cause why the dwellings should not be declared a nuisance. AYES: Councilmen Shaw, NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman May. Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. Authorization to File Claim for Article 8 Monies. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the City Manager to file the claim for Article 8 monies related to local streets and roads. AYES: Councilmen Shaw, NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman May. Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 19. Recommendation for Adoption of Federal Revenue Statement of Assurance. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts a Statement of Assurance specifying that the City of Beaumont will comply with the requirements Page 3 20. 21. 22. 23. W,F 25. of Revenue Sharing Act 31, U.S. Code Section 1221, et.seq., and authorizes the City Manager to sign said statement on behalf of the City of Beaumont. AYES: Councilmen Shaw, NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman May. Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. Request from CG Engineering for Additional Payment for Services on Pennsylvania Avenue. On Motion by Mayor Thompson, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont denies the request of CG Engineering for additional payment for services on Pennsylvania Avenue at this time. AYES: Councilmen Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman May. Request for Injunctive Action re: Albert Hershey. Mr. Hershey stated for the record that Mr. Irish Mitchell would be his agent in this matter. Mr. Mitchell addressed the Council regarding the historical background of this matter and, on the authority of Mr. Hershey, withdrew the notice filed by Mr. Albert Hershey, with Mr. Hershey concurring, with a meeting to be scheduled between Mr. Mitchell and the City Manager. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont files the request for injunctive action re: Albert Hershey, because of the withdrawal of the notice signed by Mr. Hershey dated August 3, 1982. AYES: Councilmen Shaw, NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman May. Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. State Controller's Audit Report on Special Gas Tax Street Improvement Funds as of June 30, 1981. There being no objections, the State Controller's Audit Report on Special Gas Tax Street Improvement Funds as of June 30, 1981 was accepted and filed. There being no objections, the report of Planning Commission actions of August 17, 1982 was accepted and filed. Decision Pending: Change of Zone No. 1005 (AB- KOV -DEV). Due September 13, 1982. No decision has been made at this date. ORAL COMMUNICATION: a. The City Manager requested approval for expenditure of $350.00 for the purchase of 25 ton of red clay material to be used to upgrade the 9th Street baseball diamond. Mr. Tom Daniel, representing the Softball Association, addressed the Council on behalf of this request. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the transfer of $350.00 from the Reserve for Contingency fund, No. 01- 900 -999, to Fund No. 01 -605- 301, Improvements other than Buildings, for the purchase of 25 tons of red clay material to upgrade the 9th Street baseball diamond. AYES: Councilmen Shaw, NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman May. Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. P a!'rA d b. Ms. Beverly Yuhas, 5346 Evelyn Drive, Banning, California, addressed the Council stating that she had been unfairly treated by Mr. Duersch, of the Personnel Department in the City of Beaumont, and giving her reasons for this statement. Mr. Mike Yuhas, of the same address, addressed the Council on his wife's behalf. C. Mr. Irish Mitchell, 402 East Sixth Street, addressed the Council concerning his inquiry regarding the proposed location for a new wastewater treatment plant, reading from a prepared statement dated August 23, 1982, which was handed to the City Clerk to be made a part of the record. d. Ms. Pat Renna, 987 E. 14th Street, addressed the Council concerning Agenda Item No. 11, which included an annual inspection fee regarding signs, and asked for a further explanation why there would be an annual inspection fee on signs. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:05 P.M. Respectfully submitted, 1 i ' Page 5 BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL AND BEAUMONT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AGENCY MINUTES OF ADJOURNED MEETING OF AUGUST 17, 1982 (Adjourned from August 16, 1982) 1. The Beaumont City Council and Beaumont Community Improvement Agency met in an adjourned meeting at 1:10 P.M., on Tuesday, August 17, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor /Chairman Thompson presiding. 2. On Roll Call the following Council /Agency Members were present: May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor /Chairman Thompson. Councilman Hammel was absent. 3. Community Improvement Agency Update Report. Mr. Marshall Krupp, Director of Community Development Services for Willdan Associates, the consultant for the City for the Improvement Agency, presented a verbal update report concerning the Community Improvement Agency. 4. Sewer Master Plan Update Report and Presentation. Mr. Vince Frasca, of Willdan Associates, consultants for the Sewer Master Plan, continued his presentation to the Council regarding the status of the Sewer Master Plan. (This presentation was given partially on July 26, and was continued until this meeting). On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes Willdan Associates to proceed with Alternative No. 1 of the Sewer Master Plan. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman Hammel. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Mayor Thompson, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the City Manager to contact the property owners, Mr. Parker and Mr. Danner, for the proposed treatment plant Site No. 1. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman Hammel. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 3:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, DEPUTY CITY CLERK BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL AND BEAUMONT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AGENCY MINUTES OF ADJOURNED MEETING OF AUGUST 16, 1982 (Adjourned from August 9, 1982) 1. The Beaumont City Council and Beaumont Community Improvement Agency met in an adjourned meeting at 7:10 P.M., on Monday, August 16, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor /Chairman Thompson presiding. 2. On Roll Call the following Council /Agency Members were present: Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor /Chairman Thompson. Council /Agency Member May was absent until 7:24 P.M., after which time he participated in the meeting. On Roll Call the following Planning Commission Members were present: Livingston, Seaburg, Medina, Chairman Thompson. Commissioner Schuelke arrived at 7:28, Commissioner Berg arrived at 7:29 and Commissioner Remy arrived at 7:42. 3. Authorization for Councilman L. W. May to Leave the State for a Period of Ninety Days. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes Councilman L. W. May to leave the State for a period of ninety days. AYES: Councilmen Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman May. 4. Budget Transfer to Allocate Funds to Reserve Pistol Range. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the transfer of $5,000.00 from the Appropriation for Contingencies, 01- 900 -999 to 01- 205 -301, Police Budget, improvements other than buildings, which will provide money for firing range construction at Bogart Park. AYES: Councilmen Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman May. 5. Authorization for Placement of Order for 1983 Vehicles with State Purchasing Department. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the City Manager to place an order for three vehicles with the State Department of General Services to be included with their bid package on September 1, 1982. AYES: Councilmen Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman May. 6. Joint Meeting of Council and Planning Commission to Review and Discuss Fee Schedules in Proposed Ordinance No. 547 (land division ordinance), and other Planning and Building Fee Schedules. Page 1 Chief Planner Gary Croft opened the discussion outlining the three basic approaches in setting fee schedules for planning purposes: a. Token Fee. b. Agency Average. C. Cost Approach: 1. Full Cost. 2. Percentage Cost. A general discussion and review of the proposed fee schedules by the City Council, Planning Commission, City Manager and Chief Planner followed. No action was taken. Respectfully submitted, Page 2 BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL AND BEAUMONT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AGENCY MINUTES OF AUGUST 9, 1982 1. The Beaumont City Council and Beaumont Community Improvement Agency met in a regular meeting at 7:34 P.M., on Monday, August 9, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor /Chairman Thompson presiding. 2. The invocation was given by Michael Duersch, lst Councilor in the Bishopric of the Beaumont Ward of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Councilman Shaw. 4. On Roll Call the following Council /Agency Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor /Chairman Thompson. 5. The minutes of the regular Council meeting of July 26, 1982 were corrected to reflect the correct spelling of Pastor Balleau's last name as being Balleau rather than Ballough. There being no other additions, deletions or corrections, the minutes of Regular Council Agency Meeting of July 26, 1982 were approved as corrected. 6. There being no objections, the Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of July 20, 1982 were accepted as presented. 7. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, warrants as audited per Warrant List of July 26, 1982, in the amount of $11.8,215.08 and Payroll of July 29; 1982, in the amount of $30,310.96 were approved for payment as audited. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 8. ORDINANCE NO. 549 - SECOND READING - Granting a Non - Exclusive Franchise to Field Cablevision of Riverside County, Inc. to Construct, Operate and Maintain a Community Antenna Television System within the City of Beaumont in Accordance with Ordinance No. 529 Subject to the Terms and Conditions Set Forth. 9. ORDINANCE NO. 550 - SECOND READING - Granting a Non - Exclusive Franchise to Delaware -Orcal Cable, Inc. to Construct, Operate and Maintain a Community Antenna Television System within the City of Beaumont in Accordance with Ordinance No. 529 Subject to the Terms and Conditions Set Forth. 10. ORDINANCE NO. 551 - SECOND READING - Granting a Non - Exclusive Franchise to Beaumont CableVision to Construct, Operate and Maintain a Community Antenna Television System within the City of Beaumont in Accordance with Ordinance No. 529 Subject to the Terms and Conditions Set Forth. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Ordinance No. 549, Ordinance No. 550 and Ordinance No. 551 at their second reading by title only. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 11. URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 552 - Amending Section 13 of Ordinance No. 492 and Repealing said Section 13 as Contained in Ordinance No. 492 per- taining to Wild Animals. The Urgency Ordinance was read in its entirety by the City Attorney. Page 1 On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Urgency Ordinance No. 552 with changes as follows: Line 22, Page 1, the word may to be changed to "shall ". Line 22, Page 1, after the word snake, the words "other reptiles ", shall be added. Line 23, Page 1, after the word amount, the words "in the amount of $1,000,000 "shall be added in place of the words "to be determined by the City Council. AYES: Councilmen May, NOES: Mayor Thompson. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Shaw, Hammel and Lowry. 13. ORDINANCE NO. 553 - FIRST READING - Finding and Declaring that the Interests of the Motoring Public and of Residents within Valley Mobile Home Community, a Mobile Home Park in the City, will be Best Served by Making Certain Provisions of the California Vehicle Code Applicable to Certain Private Roads within Said Valley Mobile Home Community. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont passes Ordinance No. 553 at its first reading, by title only. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 14. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -48 - Requesting the Creating of One Additional Seat on the Executive Board of the California Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions for Representation of Special Districts. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -48 re- questing the creating of one additional seat on the Executive Board of the California Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions for Representation of Special Districts. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 15. Request from Dionne Green, Jazzercise Instructor, for Reduced Business License Fee. (Continued from July 26, 1982). On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont reduces the business license fee for Dionne Green to conduct Jazzercise classes in the City of Beaumont to $60.00 a year. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 12. PUBLIC HEARING - 8:00 P.M. - Change of Zone No. 1005. Applicant: AB- KOB-DEV. Location: East of Beaumont Avenue between Cougar Way and Brookside Avenue. Change of Zone from R -1 to C -2, R -T and R -3. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:00 P.M. Gary Croft, Chief Planner, City of Beaumont: The subject property annexed to the City just over two years ago. At the time the proposal was to change the zone from R -1, which zoning it received upon annexa- tion as per the Ordinance, to R -3, C -2 and R -T. At the time they started an application and scheduled the first public hearing, at which time it was noted that the project was inconsistent with the then existing General Plan which, basically, limited the area to residential uses with a maximum density of three units to the acre. The Page 2 applicants then , in September, made an application to amend the General Plan, along with the zone change. And that application was filed with the City, however, it was pointed out that, at the time, there was an attempt to do a General Plan for the entire City at the same time, and the applicant submitted a letter requesting at that time that the item be continued and handled following the overall General Plan for the City. Subsequent to that, they did submit another letter requesting that be dropped. That was after, again, a change in administration in the City. We had a different City Manager and Planning Staff in the City. No action was taken on that letter, and the action on the General Plan proceeded as you are all aware. The applicants have appeared both before the Planning Commission and your City Council in regards to their pro- ject and the General Plan, and the General Plan was finally adopted in June, and the hearings were then scheduled on July 20 for this particular zone change. At that zone change, the staff recommended against the application as submitted, citing that the General Plan did allow some commercial in conjunction with the overall residen- tial use, but that as proposed, the amount of zoning requested would be inconsistent with that General Plan in its goals and policies. The Commission heard the action at their hearing on the 20th, however they made a recommendation to overrule the recommenda- tion of the - or to deny the recommendation of the staff, and to approve the zone change as per the original exhibit, which included approximately 23 acres of commercial. To get an idea of the comparison of that, in terms of acreage, the existing K -Mart Center including the Stater Brothers and all the shops and the vacant parcel on the corner of 6th and Highland Springs, is less than one - half of that acreage. It is less than 12 acres for that entire center. This would be approximately double that in size. That was the way, then, that the Commission approved it to include that commercial. If you would look at the exhibit on the board, it - basically, the strip running north and south on the left edge of the map. Running parallel to Beaumont Avenue, running from Brookside southerly to just north of the existing fruit and vegetable market, and running approximately 600 feet in depth from that. The staff recommendation, as you see in Exhibit "B" in your packet, which was to simply include approximately five to six acres at the intersection of Brookside and Beaumont Avenue. Councilman Hammel: I have a question. In other words, the Planning Commission overruled staff's recommendation in regards to this piece of property. Gary Croft: Yes, that is correct. City Manager: How would this proposal fit the Community Development Agency concept for the City of Beaumont. Gary Croft: As I understand in reading the Community Development proposal, one of the major goals of that is to revitalize the existing commercial in the central core of the City. From a planning point of view I would see this as having a very negative effect because the size of the center would be such that it would draw a tremendous amount of the business out of the core, and would make it very diffi- cult for business within the central portion of the City to revitalize. It proposes not only to serve the existing development within the project, but also the entire Cherry Valley area, and given the size of the project, even phased over a time, it would additionally serve really most of the City to the South of it that would be contiguous to Beaumont Avenue. The existing center of the City, Beaumont and Sixth Street, would have a very difficult time competing with a new center to the north of this magnitude. Much the same as currently the K -Mart Center is drawing a tremendous amount of business, and for any new business to establish itself here in the central portion of the City would be a difficult project at this time, and as the City grows, of course, then there will be - the thresholds will rise so that new commercial can come in. But to establish another existing center, I think, would thwart the redevelopment plan. Councilman Hammel: In other words, it is your sincere and honest opinion that this would be devastating for the downtown area at this time. Gary Croft: Yes. Page 3 Councilman May: Do we have any idea how many people live in Cherry Valley. What the population is? Gary Croft: The approximate number is somewhat less than the City. We have a little over 7,000 here. I have heard estimates of appro- ximately 5,000 in Cherry Valley. I don't have the exact figures with me. Councilman Shaw: How many units are supposed to go into that area, approximately. Gary Croft: I would have to rely on the developer to give us that information. Mr. Kulikov is here, and he could indicate on the portion that he owns. And then Steve Pleasant is here representing the other parties who are involved in this project. But I don't know the exact figures. They are proposing overall densities of approximately seven to eight units to the acre, so seven or eight hundred units. In the City currently we have approximately 2,500 units or 3,000 units. Mayor Thompson: In other words, the ratio of population to units is what approximately. Gary Croft: It depends on whether it is families or seniors or . . . but you can figure two to two and one -half per unit. City Manager: I think the census gave 2.9 people per unit in Beaumont. Councilman Shaw: And you feel that the population of that magnitude shouldn't support a center up there. A commercial area. Gary Croft: No, I don't think it would support a center of the size that they are talking. Not at this time. There needs to be a tre- mendous amount of growth in Cherry Valley. Cherry Valley itself, they are under the General Plan which basically requires densities not to exceed one unit per half acre. And much of Cherry Valley is one unit per acre, so that even fully developed, Cherry Valley will not be a tremendous population center. They propose, and try to maintain the rural lifestyle. In fact, that would be the reason that Mr. Kulikov annexed to the City because making the same proposal to the County, it was also inconsistent with the General Plan, and would not have been accepted over the counter. Therefore, by annexing to the City, he is attempting to increase the density, and he has gone through the General Plan process to achieve that goal. Councilman Shaw: If my recollection is correct, wasn't there supposed to be a family park, mobile park in that area too? Gary Croft: Yes. The portion that is not included in this - in the quarter section - the southeast quarter - approximate 40 acres - was designed to be a family park. However, I understand the property has been listed for sale, and how they expect to develop it would be up to whoever would own the property. Councilman May: Gary, are you including Highland Springs Village in your count of Cherry Valley. Gary Croft: Yes, that is included in the Cherry Valley area. Basically the County defines Cherry Valley as everything north of Brookside, which is essentially the way we count it. Mayor Thompson: Thank you Gary. We will get back to you. The nor- mal procedure on Public Hearings is to present opponents, then proponents. You are representing the City and should be neutral. I have been informed by the rest of the Council that they don't want to stay here until midnight tonight, so what we are going to do tonight is hear the applicant next on this, and then we will have rebuttal, and then the applicant will have one final time on that. Gene Thompson, Chairman, Planning Commission: Question in regards to format. Staff has presented their position, and since the Planning Commission did deny the staff recommendation, I would like to, at this time, state our position before the applicant, because I am really not for or against. I did vote to approve the application Page 4 of Mr. Kulikov and AB- KOV -DEV. But I would also like to speak as to the Other side of the staff opinion before the applicant. City Manager: Just by way of procedure, I would hope that this City never gets into the position of having the Planning Commission come in here as an applicant. They have made their applicancy or lack of applicancy in whatever their recommendation is. If they begin to take the position of coming to the hearings of the City Council, I think you are really going very amiss and far afield. You will never find another jurisdiction ever doing this sort of thing. That doesn't mean, or should not mean, that any member of the Commission that wants to come in as individuals should not be precluded from appearing as an individual, but to take a position as the Commission, or talking on behalf of the Commission, I think that would be very amiss and far afield. Mayor Thompson: Basically, what you are saying then is the minutes from the Planning Commission speak for themselves. In other words, they have no connotation or connection in regard to planning staff, even though they were divergent in their opinions. City Manager: They have made a recommendation to Council, that recommendation stands on its own. And, if we get into a position - I say we, I mean any jurisdiction - gets into a position where the advisory body feels so strongly that they have to come in and do battle in behalf of the position they have taken, then you have destroyed the whole procedural position of the agency. I think it would be most unfortunate if that starts to happen. Mayor Thompson: Then it is up to me to make a decision as to whether to . . . Gene Thompson: Let me also clarify something. First off, I am not an applicant or an opponent or proponent of the Kulikov project. I would like to make something clear in regards to the minutes, and that is what I was approaching as the Chairman. While the minutes do comply with the State regulations in regard that they do not have to be verbatim, there was other discussion that went on during the Planning Commission meeting, which I think should be brought out. Now, in that respect, maybe the Chairman should be - is at fault in regard to not getting that position in - and that is the reason that I think I should be down here. I am not down here to do battle with the City Manager or the City Council. Far be it from that. However, we do have some disagreement in regards to some of the things, but I think that these items should be in the public hearing - which it is a public hearing. City Manager: The minutes of the Planning Commission are not really a part of this public hearing. I am sure the City Attorney will tell you that the minute you opened this public hearing, this is all brand new. Nothing is supposed to have entered any of you gentlemen's minds that cause a precept determination on this case. You are a judge sitting here, in the first instance, taking testimony, and you are going to close this hearing and you are going to make a decision. There should be no prejudgment. And there should be no determination of trying to get all of the facts that occurred at the Planning Commission before you. Because that is what this hearing is all about. The Planning Commission really has nothing whatsoever to do with this decision. They had their set of facts. They made a determination. Now that determination has come to you as a recommendation. Now you hear the facts. You take that recommendation. You take any other set of facts coming from staff or whoever. It doesn't make any difference who - and then you make a determination. Mayor Thompson: Under these circumstances, it might be better, if you wish to speak, to speak as an individual. Before we get into that we will have to talk with Mr. Kulikov, since he is a proponent of this . . . Gene Thompson: But I am neither a proponent or opponent of this project. Just wishing to bring some facts that were not in the minutes. Mayor Thompson: Then you can speak at the termination of Mr. Kulikov's presentation. Paae 5 Roy Kulikov, AB -KOV Corporation: We are developing the particular area south of Brookside along Beaumont Avenue. We have been in line to help develop this particular area for approximately three years now. The research and development that we have done indicates that it is the correct area for our business enterprise. I would like to say that we are not in the business to lose money. If we were to build a shopping center there now, we would lose money. But we are looking to the future. We are looking at ten years and beyond. And between Yucaipa and Hemet, we hope to make Beaumont and the Cherry Valley area one of the most nicest retirement communities around the Pass. And we are going to gamble on it. In order for us to build this nice community, we have to have a certain amount of commercial to strengthen the financial end of it. Financial insti- tutions will finance the entire project providing that you have enough supporting commercial to make it worth their while. So that is why we made the request for the approximate 23 acres. On Page 33 of the information that I have submitted to become a part of this hearing - we gave the same information to the Planning Commission - is a letter that I had sent to the City at that time, and some statistics as to our plans. We are not going to build a shopping center if we can't make any money. We have it in three phases. And since this has taken so long, we feel we are going to move this up another three years, possibly even more, before we fill the area by any kind of a shopping center. On Page 35, I have the dates on the income revenue that was asked by the City at the time, that we approximate. Phase one would be completed by 1984, now we think it is going to be about 1987. Phase two would be completed by 1986, now 1988. Phase three by 1989, about 1993. So we are looking to the future gentlemen. We are not going to destroy the downtown area now, as has been suggested. In regards to . . . may I change the subject just a little bit about . . . I have got a copy of the minutes from July 20, 1982 before the Planning Commission, and the very last page - this is in regards to the City Manager's comments about . . . the very last item I would like to bring out was a statement made by the City Manager, Norman Davis. He opposes the project, but all his statements are there - the opposition. And I notice there are no proponents. And we had some good discussions on why this would benefit Cherry Valley and Beaumont area. But there is nothing in the minutes that are for the project, and everything in the minutes against the project, and I was hoping that, like the City Council meetings, they are word for word, in the minutes. Mayor Thompson: The City Council minutes are not word for word either. The only thing that we try to take down on a verbatim basis are the testimony in a public hearing. Mr. Kulikov: My apologies. Mayor Thompson: The rest of the Council minutes are not verbatim either. They comply with the requirements of the State. Mr. Kulikov: My apologies. I was just going by the minutes I read in the past in my files. City Manager: But did you point out Mr. Kulikov that those statements of mine were not part of your hearing. They were made after the decision had already been made on your case, so they in no way entered your case whatsoever. It was a policy statement of the ad- ministration to the Planning Commission. That is all it was. Mr. Kulikov: But from my standpoint, Mr. Davis, if the City Council had to go only by what was written before them from the Planning Commission, they get a one -sided view, and to me it seems unfair. That is the only comment I have. City Manager: That is what your whole reason for being here tonight, is to give your side and your side only, as far as you are concerned. Mr. Kulikov: That is right. City Manager: No, you have deviated now. Mr. Kulikov: No, not really. I am trying to clarify a point that seems to have been a bone of contention at the beginning here. I have submitted a bound application where we have been cooperating Page 6 with the City. I think it was about 70 pages or more. It seems that some of our documents get lost from the City files when we would check, especially about the shopping center. And we checked the City files as administrations would change, and our files are empty at the City. So for that reason I bound these together to let you know. The documents speak for themselves. So we respect- fully submit our request that we can go ahead with the project. It is something that will bring millions of dollars to the Beaumont area, and will benefit the entire area to put Beaumont on the map so far as an excellent retirement community in our opinion. Mayor Thompson: According to the recommendation - according to Exhibit "A ", the proposal was C -2 on Beaumont Avenue and Brookside, the southeast corner of Brookside and Beaumont Avenue. The C -2 zone listed here is 23.32 acres. I see 25 acres throughout the different correspondence. Which is correct - 23 acres or 25 acres? Mr. Kulikov: It is more accurate at 23.32 acres. We made an appro- ximate figure of 25 acres. Mayor Thompson: Will you look on Page 84 of the bound book that you have. For the benefit of the audience, would you read the copy of that letter from David B. DeLancy, and explain what that means. Mr. Kulikov: David Delancy is our attorney, and during several of the meetings, when we had the General Plan being discussed, there seemed to be a difference of opinion as to the amount of shopping needed to substantiate the project. And it reads "May 24, 1982. City of Beaumont, Attention: Mr. Gary Croft, Planner. Regarding Titleex FHA Insurance Requirement. Dear Mr. Croft: Mr. Kulikov informs me that you have had discussions as to the amount of commercial zoning needed for his project, Cherry Valley Acres (you have the map and projection on file). We have checked with FHA and they concur with their previous expression that 15% of the gross residential area that is under residential development may be commercial." We feel our client's map approximates that requirement and respectfully request consideration for the 15% commercial area as previously discussed. May we hear from you in this regard at your earliest convenience. Sincerely yours, David DeLancy. Mayor Thompson: Okay, what is the figure - 15% of what - the base figure that you take 15% of that comes out that amount commercial acreage. Mr. Kulikov: In our long range plans, we have an option to purchase Charles Ciraolo's forty acres adjacent to our property, and with our property, and with DEVCO, there is approximately 140, and if we get the ten acres on the corner - depending on how it comes out - there will be 150 acres. So, we are at approximately 15% of the total area that will be developed. Mayor Thompson: Are there any other questions of Mr. Kulikov at this time. We may get back to you in just a minute. Steve Pleasant, CM Engineering: Representing 40 acres of the project, DEVCO Development. I really have no other comments other than the staff is in support of the zoning requested, and we concur with staff and the Planning Commission action on it. Do you have any questions. Mayor Thompson: I have a question. I don't see it anywhere in here in any of your sketches. But quite a few years ago - wait a minute there was one here. It is on Page 51, or Page . . . it is the drawing - the architect's drawing or rendition of the proposal. Beaumont Avenue - we show, according to your drawing, we show one - two - three - four ingresses on Beaumont Avenue. Anywhere down the line has anybody told you - or mentioned to you the fact that the Deodar trees on Beaumont Avenue are not to be disturbed. There will be no ingress or egress on Beaumont Avenue. That there will be a frontage road beyond those trees, so that they are maintained and saved. Steve Pleasant: We have discussed that point in the hearing back before the Planning Commission and also with City Council, and I indicated my support for such a proposal. We felt that was an asset to the project. Primarily, Beaumont Avenue affecting the commercial Paqe 7 area. The specific plan was prepared some time ago, prior to the City embarking on the plan that they have now. We, I think, selected a way where - not specifically how many access points or what the final solution would be, but it would be resolved at the specific plan stage. We indicated that we could limit the number of entrances. But also at that hearing we indicated that for the commercial to extend along Beaumont Avenue, we are talking about 600 feet, but I would hardly call that strip development commercial where we are controlling access providing a master planned overall type of deve- lopment of commercial and residential, that we could control the number of access points, and it would be - it might not be a - as I envision - it would be a landscaped access drive perhaps not like a full public street, but I don't have the final solutions now. You would have quite a bit of pavement out front. At all costs you would want to preserve the trees. That is an amenity of the area. That is the symbol so to speak. We would have to work with staff and your honorable body in coming up with these solutions. But that is something that is in the future at that point. So, yes, I say yes we support the limiting of the access and saving the trees. In the commercial we would be able to work around that. Councilman Lowry: I shop at a little market up there along Beaumont Avenue, which I guess it is below Cougar Avenue. That must be zoned C also for them to be operating there. The little barn there. Councilman Shaw: They have a little farm in back there too. Gary Croft: It is zoned R -1. It came in under the same annexation. When it was in the County, it was not zoned commercial, it was zoned agriculture, and it went in with a plot plan approval for a permanent agriculture stand on a farm. The inspectors are very lax in checking on what is produced on the farm, and what is sold on the site, but it is really there as an agriculture stand of a permanent nature, and not as a commercial use. Councilman Lowry: How much area is involved in that. Gary Croft: Their actual development is probably less than an acre in terms of commercial use, and then they have approximately total acreage of ten acres. Councilman Lowry: By a grandfather act, they more or less have permanent rights . . . Gary Croft: They are a non - conforming use, and, as such, fall under in our rules in 490 related to non - conforming uses. The amount of agriculture clearly doesn't support the amount of commercial in the establishment, and that is the problem that the County had in approving it. Dowlings is another similar one, but it more closely conforms to what the County had in mind in that they have a very large orchard behind them, but many of these agriculture stands of a permanent nature tend to grow beyond what their original approval was at the County level. Councilman Lowry: What is our position now that the land is annexed as far as that land is concerned. Gary Croft: Basically, they are zoned R -1 and are a non - conforming use. And until . . . they fall under the same plan category and . Councilman Lowry: Well what do they have - twenty years, thirty years . . . Gary Croft: Thirty Years. Councilman Lowry: Thirty years that they can occupy that. That is the point that I was trying to bring out. Gary Croft: It is thirty years of non - conforming from the date that they became non - conforming - which was when they completed annexation. Councilman Lowry: How can they establish how much that area they can for thirty years use as C -1 or C -2. Gary Croft: It would be the existing developed area. The building and the parking. Page 8 City Manager: If it burned down, or should fall down by reason of earthquake they could not rebuild. Gary Croft: Any natural disaster or otherwise abandonment of the project for a year. There are various rules - could stop the project. Mayor Thompson: Are there any other questions. Could we have a proponent now. Irish Mitchell, 402 East 6th Street: Two councilmen were here at the time they applied for annexation. At the time of the annexation it was expressed that they were interested in having commercial development in this area, and it might be seven or eight years but they wanted to have it established and so it might discourage any other commercial development on the other side of Brookside up in the Cherry Valley area. There are around eighteen to twenty -two acres just off of Cherry Valley Boulevard they are looking very strenuously at getting in on zoning through the County to make that a shopping center. Now the whole question lies here. If this is granted as a commercial, it would have a deterrent in having another shopping center built within a mile or mile and a half of this City that would pull away sales tax revenue from this particular area. I believe all you gentlemen realize that almost the life's blood to the City at the present time is sale tax. Now putting in the commercial in that area is not going to be a detriment to any- one else, because it will not develop until such time as other developments come. As far as the community improvement, I do not see where it will affect the community improvement in the downtown area, because that would be a different type of a development and improvement. You cannot expect to make a shopping center in a downtown area. You don't find them any other place. I do not know what you gentlemen have in mind, I was not at the hearing at the Planning Commission, but I do recall when they first came in, they said they needed the commercial, everyone decided at the time that it was feasible to annex that area for commercial use at some time in the future, to keep from losing any more commercial out of the area. Thank you. Mayor Thompson: May I make one remark, Mr. Mitchell to one of your statements. Commercial development on that particular corner would be a deterrent for further commercial development in the Cherry Valley area that would draw sales tax away from the City. Is that basically what you said. Mr. Mitchell: Yes. It would have a tendency to hold the commercial within the Beaumont City Limits. Mayor Thompson: It doesn't really track what you just said. Because it would not be a deterrent per se. An example of that is the shopping centers that were built on four corners at Sanderson and Florida in Hemet. They do not deter other commercial developments in the area. Mr. Mitchell: I did not say deter - I said it would have a tendency to have the first developments in the Beaumont area, and it would not encourage the ones in the outside area, bearing in mind, of course, that we are living in Beaumont, we are not living in Hemet. There is a hell of a difference between the two towns. Gene Thompson, 295 West 12th Street: Now, hoping to bring a couple of more facts to the public hearing. At the public hearing at the Planning Commission meeting, it was also discussed that while the City of Beaumont is really, at this time, engaged in a project in looking towards the east in regards to an annexation, the City Council would like to turn its head to the west, and take a look to the west of this application. We considered not necessarily the City Limits itself, we considered the sphere of influence within the City. Now, you are apparently undergoing annexation - or attempting to annex the Deustch property, which is located directly to the east of this property. We were looking basically to the west. The Planning Commission was looking basically to the west of this area as a potential for it coming into the City. It is not in the City now, but it will eventually, I feel, it will eventually come in as the other projects have. We considered that, and we also considered the idea of the General Plan stating that they would Dn�_ a like to redevelop their downtown area. Well that is a noble concept. If you use that General Plan and take it to the next step, if that General Plan had been in effect three to four years ago, I doubt very seriously if you would have had K -Mart Shopping Center come in here, because they said they wanted to redevelop the downtown area, the K -Mart Shopping Center would not have been allowed to come in under the General Plan. Now this gentleman is asking for approxi- mately 23 acres. In the area zoned around his project, you have R -3, R -T, RMH and directly to the south you have Mr. Shelton's project, which is R -3 also, which was just done the first of July. So you will eventually have the base for a shopping center. Now Mr. Mitchell has alluded to the fact that in the downtown area I don't think that you are going to get a commercial area of this nature down there, and you are seeing that now. You are not seeing that now. I doubt very seriously if you will see that in any es- tablished township. What you are seeing now in Beaumont, you are seeing a revitalization of that downtown area through the manu- facturing zone. The town was a commercial through there before the freeway came, and then the freeway came and split the town, and you saw a decline in the township. Now, over the last four to five years you are seeing a revitalization of that through the manufacturing - through the circuit factory - through the machine shops - and things like this - and this is good - it brings a lot of cash flow to the area, which is definitely what a township needs. We did not feel that it would detract - the Planning Commission did not feel that it would detract from that area, because it would be built in stages, and I can't find the page I was looking for - in the first phase of this project, you find tennis courts, recreational facilities, and I think you find a restaurant and a motel. Now I really defy you to go out and find me some tennis courts and some other recreational facilities in this town that are going to be in opposition to it, or is going to have competition. You are going to point out Parks and Rec - but what do you have - you have two courts out there. In this area you are going to find this. You are going to find some kind of recreation. And I think in the first stage, that will be a magnet to draw in other residential areas to this shopping center and, as you know, the shopping centers need the residential areas, which we have, which the Planning Commission and the City has agreed to zone R -3, R -MH, R -T. Eventually, again, getting back to my first statement, is that that west side will come into the City. Currently it is in the County. It is just a matter of time. Mr. Kulikov has mentioned that it is going to take ten to thirteen years. I defintely give it all of that. But I think by the time that this project is here, we are going to see it. And I doubt very seriously, I don't think that the Planning Commission, given their sentiments right now, will allow any other base commercial to come in on any of these other lots. I know that the City Manager is going to say, well he set the trend. I don't think so. I think this gentleman here has a project that will definitely fly with the time alloted that the residential will build up in, and I think that once we get it, we will have a good project. Now I just hate to see going down here and going by recommendation of staff of six acres, then what are you going to have up there - you are going to have a fat Circle K. That is not good. I think you should have a legitimate shopping center. Mr. Kulikov, at the Planning Commission, stated that he could live with fifteen acres. Well, the Chairman was getting ready to make a motion and someone else made a motion to approve the total C -2, and so we went along with it. But I figured if the gentleman says he could live with fifteen acres of this, I think that fifteen acres is a little bit more viable project at this time - where in the future if he wants to build it up, then yes, you can go to this other seven acres. But just to have the C -2 area in the old town, and envision a shopping center of any magnitude - any decent shopping center, I doubt very seriously if you are going to get it. I know during the General Plan discussion, that the Planning Commission stated that they felt the commercial strip should stay on Beaumont Avenue. The City Manager stated that it should go all the way over to Euclid and Magnolia, and then have someone come in, hopefully, and buy up all those houses and build a shopping center down there. I think that if anybody really thinks about it - that is really not going to happen. Lets be realistic about that. Gentlemen, a developer is going to come in. He is going to find bare land and he is going to build on that much sooner than he is going to build on any lot that you have in town that is already existing with a building. Page 10 Mayor Thompson: Does anybody have any questions. Gene Thompson: Let me make one other thing clear. One of the other reasons that we were concerned about the minutes, or the minutes should be a point of concern, is that we gave a lot of discussion to it, and we also discussed the idea of - or the Planning Commission also discussed an idea of the frontage road. Now you are going to lose some acreage on that because we know exactly what the County says in regards to that, and we agree. We feel that the trees should be saved, and have limited access. So you are looking at 23 acres total commercial, but how much of that, when you get right down to it, that you are looking at actual commercial pads itself. You have to take into consideration the parking ordinances that we have in this town it is going to require for the square footage of these types of developments. And you have to take in that consideration, plus your 50 landscaping minimum. I doubt very seriously that he is going to do 50. I am almost positive he is going to do more. So, actually, when you get right down to the total commercial building pads itself, I think you have to really take a look at it and find out just exactly how much is going to go to parking, how much is going to go to commercial, and this will be done under the specific plan as required by the General Plan. Mayor Thompson: I have a question, Gary. Basically, staff recommended - what was the total figure that they recommended for commercial out there. Gary Croft: Approximately 5 -6 acres. Mayor Thompson: 5 -6 acres. Would that be net acreage. He raised a point, which I had not even thought of. What is the net acreage that would be used for commercial, exclusive of street - right -a -way, I mean street ingress. Gary Croft: It would vary depending on the design of the streets that would be developed, but probably in the neighborhood of 4 -1/2 acres out of the six at the minimum. And, in giving our existing development plan requirements for parking - and this is true of almost any jurisdiction today, normally you can figure about one -third of the project property would be developed into structures and two - thirds into parking and landscaping. You will recall the old ordinance several years ago was 50 -50, and that ratio proved unworkable because of the number of vehicles that people drive, and virtually all jurisdictions break out with a ratio of about one -third building, two - thirds parking and landscaping. It varys slightly, but that is a good rule of thumb. Councilman Hammel: How big would you say is the entire shopping area where K -Mart is, approximately. Gary Croft: Including the acre at the corner undeveloped, it is 12 acres, give or take a half an acre. Mayor Thompson: Is there any other person in the audience that would like to speak to this. Emeline Schuelke, 1316 Palm Avenue: Although the staff recommendation is not to zone the property for commercial use at this time, or at the present, but rather to consider it for commercial when their project site plan is actually presented before the City Planner and this Council. This is something I don't think I heard come up in the last - from the last few people - but, in looking at it from a financial standpoint on the developer's side, I would say that also it is very hard for a developer to go out and hire architects and have spent thousands of dollars on blueprints for a project that is zoned R -1, and take the chance then of coming to a City and hoping that the City will change the zoning to what their needs are - or to fit their blueprints. I think when I thought about it before, I thought also that if we are going to help our developers feel en- couraged to work in our City, and to use their developments out here, that we need to work with them also on helping them not spend so much money. If they make money, like Mr. Kulikov said, they are not here to lose money. They are here to make money, and you know that if they make money, the City will make money. And, I know Page 11 myself, if I were to start a project, I wouldn't want to go forward in spending all the money for blueprints, and all the engineering and surveying and all that, and then hope to get a zone that will fit my needs. I think that I can see that staff saying - wait until we have a project before us, and then approve it. But on a financial standpoint that wouldn't be feasible for the developer. I think the project is not going to be developed immediately. It is going to phased out over a certain amount of time. I feel that we need to give credit to the developers also that they have some intelligence as to when some of their stores should be put up. When some of the housing should be put up because commercial also warrants population in order to make it feasible business. As far as being a detriment to the downtown area, I think it would encourage the downtown area to take a look at themselves, and maybe motivate them to upgrade what they have to compete. Right now they have no competition, and I love Beaumont. I have lived here all my life, and I stand to gain nothing from what I am saying. I would just as soon see Beaumont remain empty up there, but either we are going to have houses on top of each other up there, or we are going to allow some housing and some commercial which would be kind of refreshing not to have to drive out of town for some of the things that we need here. When you look at other areas you see that their development in commercial is just as fast growing as their development of residential. And these are my opinions. Thank you for listening to me. Mayor Thompson: Is there anyone else out there that would like to speak on this subject. Charlie Rigley, 1162 Magnolia Avenue: Just a piece of information that I feel, that in my mind would be necessary before I could make a decision that you are being asked to make, and that is with regard to the developers, what is their track record for completion of developments that they have started. Mayor Thompson: May I address that. In considering amendments to the zoning ordinance, those that consider the plans that are pre- sented to substantiate the request for a zone change - in the past I - (tape changed - comment continues as follows) - those pieces of paper are not necessarily what you will find on the finished product. So, basically, what the question is - is do the Planning Department, the Planning Commission, the City Council feel that the proposal, if it is built, will be the best utilization of the land. Land planning, land utilization - and that is basically what it is. To be honest with you, I dont' expect Mr. Kulikov and Mr. Pleasant - I don't expect them to build that out there for the simple reason that once the zoning happens, the next thing you are probably going to see is a for sale out there. So, does that answer your question. Mayor Thompson: Do we have anyone else that would like to add input. Gene Thompson: That last statement that you made I really would not like to see a decision based on that statement alone. Mayor Thompson: No it is not based on that statement - from past track records on many proposals like this that come in with beauti- ful pieces of paper haven't materialized as presented. Gene Thompson: The thing is this project must stand on its own merits, and it can't really stand on the track record of other people, certainly the other gentlemen around in the area have to be taken into consideration. Mayor Thompson: Maybe I didn't say this correctly. The request at the public hearing is for the utilization of the land in that area. Would Mr. Kulikov and Mr. Pleasant's project be acceptable on that land - or Joe Doe from down the street, five years from now that has a development plan approved for that particular piece of property for that zoning designation. That is basically what I was intending to say, but maybe I didn't. Is commercial on the corner of Beaumont Avenue and Brookside a viable land use there, provided the other development goes with it. Gene Thompson: You have to consider the project on its own merits, but you also have to consider the surrounding area. We all know it is not a viable project at this time. We all know that the other Paqe 12 areas will build in the future, and then at the time as more build, the project will become more and more viable, and certainly if the othe area comes in it will definitely become viable. Now I have one more question, and then I will get out of your hair. A question to the City Planner. You stated that you consider one -third of the area to be the actual commercial built, and the other two - thirds would be the parking and the roads and the landscaping, so actually if we have 23 acres we are talking a little less than eight acres, the actual commercial. Is that correct. Gary Croft: Yes, it is correct. Their proposal is about eight acres of building. Gene Thompson: So, actually, we are talking about eight acres. Councilman Lowry: Maybe you can answer. I am looking at this Exhibit "B° here and. these lines - are these divisions of the lot lines as they are established - do you know that. Gene Thompson: This is what he has proposed along for his proposal. I doubt very seriously - I don't think they are the lot ,lines, are they Gary, as they are now. Gary Croft: The lot lines are found on Page 55. There is a Proof os Survey done on top of the parcel map. Councilman Lowry: It is essentially then the same. Mayor Thompson: Is there anyone else that would like input on this subject. Proponents. Is there anyone in the audience that is opposed to this particular project. City Manager: Let me speak as the Director of the Community Develop- ment Agency. I have heard a great deal of discussion about projects here. And, like you have already stated, this is not really a project, it is merely a change of zone and ought to be looked at only as a change of zone. As the Director of the Community Improvement Agency, for the City of Beaumont, I must bring to your attention, we have roughly eighty plus acres within the commercial area of the City of Beaumont that are not developed, or almost not developed at this point. And it was stated by people who came to the microphone that there is no chance that this area would ever be developed into a viable shopping center, and yet I submit to you that one of your major objectives in the creation of the Community Development Agency as the City Council was to create an organization that could work with any particular developer, if one ever did come to this community, put parcels together, and create just such a parcel of land, whether it be twenty acres, or ten or fifteen, or whatever. And keep that business within the present community commercial area. Someone came to the microphone and said this has never happened in any other area, and it won't happen here. I have to submit to you that that is really not the case. Redlands, as an example, allowed - twenty or twenty -five years ago - allowed the center to develop out on Brookside in the Redlands area, and after that one center was deve- loped, they made the decision - that Council made the decision that never again would they allow anything to go into the outlying areas. The result was that they forced commercial development back into the downtown area. Major commercial development. The Harris Co. and all the allied shops that went in there. Maybe it isn't the Harris Co. - I can't really recall. One of the big ones. And then of course all of the allied shops in the mall there in the heart of the downtown area. Not only did it bring that into the downtown area, and produce that terrific development in the downtown area, but it revitalized the balance of the downtown area, preserves those shops in the old area only a block away, and the result is that Redlands has become a very viable downtown business community. The exact opposite happened in the City of Riverside, and to a major degree in the City of San Bernardino. Those cities allowed the shopping centers to escape to the outlying areas, and put the death knell on their downtown areas. Almost completely in terms of the City of Riverside, and to a lesser degree in San Bernardino, because at least San Bernardino got started early and they brought back in a high commercial, in terms of the - not commercial businesses, but commercial development in terms of banks and these types of facilities Page 13 into the downtown area that did revitalize the downtown area to a degree, and then, subsequently then, back into the downtown area came the mall development of San Bernardino. So you see, if a City, through its development agency, does hold stringently to policy guidelines, they can produce the desired goal. It has happened in many communities, and it will continue to happen in those communities that allow itself to function the way they set out to function, and create what they want to create. If they start allowing these sorts of things, which as Gary has said, would permit a major, almost a regional shopping center in nature, which would, and could, and probably would I ought to say, totally destroy the downtown area of Beaumont, because there is not going to be any growing up, and the more you deteriorate the downtown area, the less chance you have of revitalizing it. I would suggest very stongly to you, as you consider what you are doing here, that either you go ahead with these sorts of developments and disband the agency, or you hang on to the agency and you control these sort of developments. It has to be one way or the other. It can't be both. Mayor Thompson: Basically, isn't the question here not so much whether C zone, commercial zone, is in that area, as to how much. City Manager: I think that is the precise question, yes. Mayor Thompson: Hasn't the Council already established by action previously that commercial zoning will be tolerated, or encouraged, developed on the edges of the City. On First and Beaumont Avenue, that was a commercial area that was put in by this Council. Councilman Lowry: It wasn't anything of this scope though. Mayor Thompson: Not of this scope, but it was approved at First and Beaumont Avenue. So the question is not really whether commercial, but how much. City Manager: I think you are absolutely correct. It is the question of how much. The Duestch property, if they annex to the City, have a projection in their plan of somewhere - do you recall Gary - was it fifteen, sixteen acres total. Gary Croft: Fifteen acres. City Manager: So, you see, if we were talking comparability, we might have eighty or a hundred acres of commercial out there, and even then it wouldn't be comparable, but it would be major regional shopping center type complex, so this is the question I think we have to ask ourselves. Are we going to permit these kinds of spot City creations all over, in the Pass area here, with the result that none of them ever really become viable institutions in terms of commercial activities. That is really the big question. Mayor Thompson: Anyone else that has items that they would like to present opposing this particular development. If we have no more opponents, opposition, negative input on this request, Mr. Kulikov, you are the applicant and you have had your input. Mr. Davis, as Director of the Community Improvement Agency, has had his input opposing your proposal. You have an opportunity now to answer some of his questions, or make comments on his things, and then we will terminate the public hearing whether we adjourn it or close it will be determined on what is said at this time. Roy Kulikov: I appreciate the information that Mr. Davis brought out in regards to destroying the downtown area. Gentlemen, at this time, I have followed development for thirty years, and if you read the Los Angeles Times on experts that have followed the development of the economic situation in the United States, you will find ninety - nine and nine - tenths of them will admit they were wrong, or the economy proved they were wrong. It is not necessarily a rule of thumb that it will destroy the downtown area. In fact, in my observation, developments go on the outside of the area and fill up, and then the downtown area is filled in like the Bunker Hill project in Los Angeles. Councilman Lowry: With public money. Page 14 Mr. Kulikov: Yes, that seems to be the indication of the way it is going to go. Now I am a developer. If you offered me several lots downtown, and knowing it took me three years to get to this point through the City agencies, just to get to this point on raw land, what kind of a headache would I have to try to come downtown. That is just from a developer's point of view. I would stay away from it because it is just a lot of trouble, a lot of political problem, a lot of money problems, a lot of hang -ups, a lot of lawsuits. So we feel that our project is projected on bringing new money into the area with retirement communities. We feel it is a natural, it is going to go from Yucaipa to the Duetsch property to Banning. Now I say this, either Beaumont has a shopping center there on the north end of town or Cherry Valley will, or Duetsch Company will have it right by Banning, or someone else will on the other side. So I feel that our project is going to benefit the Beaumont area with what we have got planned. Any questions. Mayor Thompson: You have heard the pros and cons of this request. Steve Pleasant: Excuse me. I represent a separate project adjacent to the overall project. The 40 acres of DEVCO. I would just like to indicate that, again, there has been very little discussion on the project, but we would support staff's recommendation and the Planning Commission recommendation for R -3 on the property. I would like to conclude, and I don't profess to be an expert on location of commercial property and development patterns, but I attended a study session of the City of Redlands Planning Commission some two or three months ago, where they are considering the General Plan. I happened to be there that night on an industrial project. There was one developer there requesting commercial in an outlying area of Redlands, and at that hearing they did discuss the policy that Mr. Davis indicated to try to keep the commercial downtown. But, discussion in that hearing was tending to be favorable to outlying commercial, because they felt that perhaps it was somewhat anti- quated. It had been in force for some time. The proposal was for an existing dairy property that had an existing sales operation and wanted to expand the commercial to make it more viable. Redlands, at the present time, has a very viable downtown center, and they were spreading out, but again, this is a truly different situation than what you have in Beaumont. You have to draw the people in. You keep them out by not providing a commercial area for them. Councilman Lowry: Did you say you supported staff's recommendation. Steve Pleasant: No, I do not support -- I support staff's recommen- dation on our forty acres - yes - but we have no objection to the commercial proposed by AB -KOV. Mayor Thompson: On Page 55 of this Proof of Survey - Parcel One, Parcel Two and Parcel Three . . . Gary Croft: And there is a Parcel Four also. Mayor Thompson: Parcel Four - just north of Mr. Ciraolo's property. The Proof of Survey encompasses all this area that is outlined in black here. Except Parcel One is to . . . Gary Croft: The original parcel map that was done in the County on this property created four parcels, which a parcel map is allowed to do. And they included Parcels One, Two and Three, which you see in the lower portion of the map in the lighter type, and then the balance is Parcel Four. They then came in and did a Proof of Survey, which is roughly equivalent to a parcel map, on the old Parcel Four, which included - which was then divided into four new parcels. The ones that are in the circles. Those are the four parcels that are in the Proof of Survey, which divide the old Parcel Four. Mayor Thompson: The whole thing is old Parcel Four. Gary Croft: Yes. In the Parcel Map you can see numbered there eighty - eight seventy -six in the lighter type. Mayor Thompson: What brought it to my mind is the parcel to the east. Is that the forty acres up there. Page 15 Gary Croft: Yes. It is really Parcels One and Parcel Four. Mayor Thompson: One and Four - that whole area there. Gary Croft: Well, it is a little more complicated than that. They own Parcel One, if I recall right, and have the option on Parcel Four east of the road running north and south. Councilman Lowry: Can that be divided now, again? Gary Croft: Not by a Parcel Map process. Not by these people. Under State Law you are only allowed to create four parcels via the Parcel Map process, unless it is a commercial or industrial project - zoned such - then you can create more than that. That is a special thing - but no - to divide that into two parcels they would have to do a tract map. City Manager: Well isn't Parcel Four in two ownerships then? Councilman Lowry: Yes. Gary Croft: No. They only own Parcel One. Unidentified: Parcel One has an option on Parcel Four. City Manager: But what I am saying though. If you look up there, Gary, the long piece, which is what - about 22 -24 . . . Gary Croft: 25 acres. City Manager: 25 acres. The lower half of that long piece is joined to Parcel Four in this map here. Gary Croft: It would require a land division before the development could occur. A tract map would be required if these people are the owners of the property. City Manager: Is it possible, if Parcel,Three there were made also commercial, which is what the request is, that anybody in the future could come in and present a tract map splitting that down into multi- ple numbers of commercial lots. Gary Croft: Yes. They could create any number of commercial lots as a commercial parcel map with the commercial zoning on it. Whether that would be approved would be up to yourselves - the Commission and yourselves . . . City Manager: How much jurisdiction does the Council - or any entity have - in terms of denying a map just because they want to deny it. Gary Croft: It is normally rather difficult. Extremely difficult. Maybe I ought to put it that way. You have the opportunity of modifying it. Of setting conditions on it. Restricting access - those kinds of things. City Manager: As long as the requirements are State Law in that, it is almost impossible . . . Gary Croft: That is right. If it meets the ordinances of the City, and the Subdivision Map Act, which is the State Law, it is virtually impossible to deny a land division. That is the main reason for having it, incidentally. The land can be divided with the Map Act alone. But the City adopts an ordinance to set conditions, and to set improvement standards. And that is the main reason we have our land division ordinance within the City. But under our ordinance, both the existing one and the one that is under discussion by both the Council and the Commission, it could be divided into any number of commercial parcels. Councilman Lowry: When you enter into a contract, you quite often make a contract to put up a bond. Is it possible to make a deve- loper, when he puts up a plan like this, saying this is my intent, put up a bond that he is going to follow through and do this. Page 16 16. 17. 19. 20. Gary Croft: No. You can only.do bonds when you come to actually putting in improvements. City Manager: There can be absolutely no conditions attached to zoning. Gary Croft: Improvement plans, subdivisions, can be conditioned, but zoning is unconditional. Mayor Thompson: The basic question restated is the corner of - parcel in question - do you feel you want commercial on it, and if so, how much. That is basically what it amounts to. Gary Croft: Yes. It is really a question that has already been indicated of how much commercial would be appropriate to the project. 25 acres commercial. If the ten acres to the south - that would make 35 acres. The entire Riverside Plaza, which you are familiar with - the Harris Company and Montgomery Wards and Builders. Emporium, is 35 acres. That is how much, if the entire area were to go. So it is a relative thing as to how much commercial is considered appropri- ate. The Commission has recommended considerably more than what the staff has recommended as you have heard. Mayor Thompson: We have heard the proponents and the opponents. I think Mr. Kulikov and Mr. Pleasant were supposed to be the last. We are through with public input now because everybody has been heard. Opponents and proponents. Do you have anything else you want to bring to the hearing. If the Council needs no further information under those circumstances, we will close the public hearing and we will exercise our option, under the ordinance, to render a decision within the prescribed time. The normal time on that is forty days from the closing of the hearing. The decision shall be rendered by September 13, 1982. The public hearing was closed at 9:25 P.M. Request from Dionne Green, re Use of Gymnasium. (Continued from July 26, 1982). This agenda item was continued until August 2.3, 1982 pending receipt of a structural report. Application for Special Permit fo Keep Wolf- Hybrid Dogs Within the Beaumont City Limits. With the adoption of Urgency Ordinance No. 552 (Agenda Item No. 11 of this Agenda) the applicant shall make his application to the State for a permit. No further action will be taken by the City Council. Request from William Salinas for Reimbursement for Expense Caused by Sewer Back -Up. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont denies the request from William Salinas for reimbursement for expense caused by sewer back -up, and directs the City Clerk to send a Notice of Rejection. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Sewer Master Plan Update Report and Presentation and Community Improve- ment Agency Update Report. (Continued from July 26, 1982). This agenda item was continued until September 17, 1982 at 1:00 P.M. Request from Ms. S. L. Nelson to Connect to City Sewer System. (Continued from July 26, 1982). No action was taken on this agenda item. The City Manager was directed to obtain the necessary figures and information for Ms. Nelson re- garding the possibility of annexation. Pats 1 7 21. 22. 01 24. 25. 26. Endorsement of Operating Procedure of Senior Citizen's Advisory Commission. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont endorses the operating procedures of the Senior Citizens Advisory Commission. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Adoption of Assurance of Compliance with Civil Defense Regulations. On Motion by Mayor Thompson, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts the Civil Defense Assurance of Compliance and authorizes the Mayor to sign same. AYES: Councilmen Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman May Recommendation on Disposal of City Truck. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the recommendation of the City Manager and declares the 1971 Chevrolet pick -up truck, VIN No. CS141Z665542 surplus, and authorizes the sale of said pick -up to the Beaumont Unified School District for $800.00; or by sealed bids. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Disposition of BOMAG Asphalt Recycler. On Motion by Mayor Thompson, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont declares the BOMAG asphalt recycling machine surplus to the needs of the City, and authorizes the City Manager to offer it for sale to the City of Banning at a cost of $5,700.00, with the funds to be allocated to Budget Line Item 01- 310 -300 for structure improvements in the City yard if the sale materializes. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Request for Bdmbursement of Items Purchased and Turned Over to Police Department. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the request for reimbursement of $14.84 to Officer John Hackman, to be charged to Line Item 01- 205 -254. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Request for Budget Adjustment. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the request for a budget adjustment from Account No. 226, Office Supplies, to Account No. 303, Furniture and Fixtures, in Fund No. 01 -140, for the additional amount needed to purchase a 4- drawer legal size locking file cabinet. Page 18 AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 27. Acceptance of Notice of Completion of Palm Avenue Sewer Extension and Authorization for Recordation of Same. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the Notice of Completion of the Palm Avenue Sewer Extension and authorizes the recordation of same. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 28. Recommendation on Wage Negotiations with PERC, KOPS and Management - Executive Group. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the wage negotiations with the City employees as stated in City Manager recommendation of August 9, 1982, and further authorizes the necessary funds to be transferred from the Reserve for Contingencies 01- 900 -999 to the budget line items necessary to effectuate the approved action. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 28 -A. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts the City Manager's recommendation dated August 9, 1982 regarding the Memorandum of Understanding with the Management- Executive Group and the Management Employee Benefits for 1982 -83. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 29. Acceptance of Resignations of Senior Advisory Commission Members. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the resignations of Robert Bruce, Jack Dawson and Raymond Coe from the Senior Citizens Advisory Commission with regret, and directs the City Manager to have City plaques prepared for presentation to each to honor their years of service. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 30. Appointment of Senior Advisory Commission Members. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont appoints John Minjares, Sr., Marian Ricker and Cleo West to fill the vacancies on the Senior Citizens Advisory Commission for two year terms, and reappoints Lila McKinney and Grace Begley to new two year terms commencing July 1, 1982. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Page 19 31. The report of Planning Commission actions at the meeting of August 3, 1982 was accepted for filing. 32. ORAL COMMUNICATION: a. Gene Thompson, Chairman, Planning Commission, addressed the City Council, requesting a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council in regard to Section 17 of the proposed Ordin- ance No. 547, which is the land division ordinance, for the purpose of discussing the fee schedule for the land division ordinance. It was agreed that this Council meeting would be adjourned until Monday, August 16, 1982, at 7:00 P.M., for the purpose of this joint meeting with the Planning Commission. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned until 7:00 P.M. on Monday, August 16, 1982, at 10:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, CITY LERK Page 20 BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL AND BEAUMONT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AGENCY MINUTES OF JULY 26, 1982 1. The Beaumont City Council and Beaumont Community Improvement Agency met in a regular meeting at 7:33 P.M., on Monday, July 26, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor /Chairman Thompson presiding. 2. The invocation was given by Pastor Balleau. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Councilman May. 4. On Roll Call the following Council /Agency Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor /Chairman Thompson. 5. There being no additions, deletions or corrections, the minutes of Regular Council /Agency Meeting of July 12, 1982 were approved as submitted. 6. There being no objections, the Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of July 6, 1982 were accepted as presented. 7. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves warrants as audited per Warrant List of July 26, 1982, in the amount of $242,939.57 and Payroll of July 15, 1982, in the amount of $28,364.49 for payment as audited. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 8. Dedication of Pennsylvania Avenue Water Line to Beaumont- Cherry Valley Water District. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont dedicates the water line on Pennsylvania to the Beaumont - Cherry Valley Water District, transferring ownership of said water line from the City to the Beaumont- Cherry Valley Water District, and requests the Water District to accept said water systems in writing, and further authorizes the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said document. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 9. Acceptance of Laura Stewart Funds and Allocation of Same. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the Laura Stewart fund gift and allocates $2,641.52 to Budget Item 01- 700 -300 for the purchase of one walkie- talkie with charger, and one remote radio unit. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 10. PUBLIC HEARING - 8:00 P.M. - ORDINANCE NO. 549 - FIRST READING. Granting a Cable TV Franchise to Field Cablevision of Riverside, County, Inc. 11. PUBLIC HEARING - 8:00 P.M. — ORDINANCE NO. 550 - FIRST READING. Granting a Cable TV Franchise to Delaware Orcal Cable, Inc. 12. PUBLIC HEARING - 8:00 P.M. - ORDINANCE NO. 551 - FIRST READING. Granting a Cable TV Franchise to Beaumont CableVision. The three public hearings concerning awarding of cable television fran- Paae 1 chises, were combined into one public hearing, since the subject matter was the same on all three hearings, with the exception of the company involved. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:00 P.M. Mayor Thompson: Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in opposition to the granting of a cable television franchise. Cliff Howrey, 1280 Orange, Beaumont, California: This is not necessarily in opposition, but merely a question. Is there any data that has been shared as to programming that will be on this cable program. Will there be, for example, my question is - is it an adult type of programming - X -Rated - that type of situation. Mayor Thompson: I will take your question, and, I can't answer it precisely, but . . . Rev. Howrey: The reason for asking that question is - understanding that this would probably be run on public property - and I would be in opposition if that kind of program is going to be dealt with on public utility property. Mayor Thompson: I will try to answer your question in just a minute, as soon as I get some more information. Oscar Leeb, 167 East Sixth Street: I would be in complete opposition to such a program too, if such is the case, which was just mentioned. Mayor Thompson: Is there anyone else who would like to speak in oppo- sition. Opposing the granting of such a franchise for cable television service in the City of Beaumont. The proponents that were named are here in the audience tonight, and at the last meeting I believe that the representative of Delaware - Orcal spoke, and, I believe, the re- presentative of Beaumont Cablevision spoke. So, I am going to ask . City Manager: Mayor Thompson, if you wish I might just read from each one of these applications what they propose to provide in the way of program service. The City Manager then read from each application submitted to the City regarding programming offered. Mr. Soper, Delaware Orcal Cable: I guess I can speak on behalf of three of the groups here this evening, because both of the gentlemen that spoke said they were against X -Rated movies. Well, so are we. We don't carry X -Rated movies on any of our channels. We carry basic cable stations, and then if anybody wanted HBO or the movie channel, they have a choice. There are no X -Rated movies involved. Mayor Thompson: I have a question for Dick Glascock. Let me ask this question, or maybe make a statement. In the event that a cable company wishes to present programming of the adult X -Rated nature, what are the basic requirements for the - what do I want to say - presentation of that type of program. What I am getting at is if this type of program is advocated by a cable company, would it come in as a separate channel - the utilization of that channel to be determined by each subscriber. In other words, it wouldn't be generally available under the present package. Basic subscriber package. Dick Glascock, Field Cablevision: Well, from a business standpoint, yes - it would have to be controlled. You have a drug store. I am sure you have got some things that are done that way. And, again, from a cable standpoint you do too. At this point it is on - none of our systems have that kind of programming. We are just - super con- servative and wouldn't even entertain the thought of running Escapade and some of those other things. The movies that are on HBO and the movie channel, and those kind of paid TV packages are R- Rated. There is Fort Apache, The Bronx, those kind of things - and you watch them or you change the channel. We go one step further. We make and pro- vide, what we call a PG key, and I have one at my house. They can put a key lock in there and turn off even HBO and R -Rated movies that you do not want your teenaged or younger kids to watch. And that is at no cost to the subscriber that wants it. Mayor Thompson: The reason I am asking these questions, and this was Page 2 brought up, is that in many instances the public thinks, erroneously probably, cable television as providing your late night X -Rated movies, which is not really the case anymore. Dick Glascock: No that is not the reason we are in business, at all. We're normal entertainment, if you will, and the after -hour stuff we just haven't gotten into. We have not had - the people that have requested it - of course we work off of a percentage of (tape changed - discussion continues as follows: Councilman Lowry: May I ask a question, you say - all three of you stated that your owners are very conservative. Suppose the station is sold to some other owner, and they go in for this. Are you held by the list you have given us here to not diverge from that. Mayor Thompson: Maybe I can answer that. According to the franchise contract before this can happen - if there is a major ownership change, it has to be approved by the Council, and at that time . . . Councilman Lowry: O.K., you are all corporations aren't you? Dick Glascock: I think we could come in and probably add a channel without the approval of the City of Beaumont, but, again, from a business standpoint, are you going to satisfy fifty customers and jeopardize 2,000. And that is really what it comes down to. If a minor percentage of the City of Beaumont wants X -Rated movies, and wants to buy X -Rated books - do you have an X -Rated bookstore in town. No - because the percentage of people who want to buy that program just aren't here. We don't have it in Redlands - we don't have it in the Yucaipa system - we don't have it in the Sunnymead system. It is just not the kind of business we want to be in. Councilman Lowry: The point I was bringing up, Tommy, is that since they are corporations, someone buys out the stock - the majority stock - they can change the entire character of a company and still be the same company. Mayor Thompson: They can, but before this can happen, there is a section in here that says that we must approve it. Dick Glascock: Yes. A significant change in ownership requires us to come back here and get your permission to authorize that change. Definitely. Which, again, opens up, as we did in the application, to come in and look at the background of the new owners - to -be, and what their financial position is. This is like a marriage, it is a joint venture between us and the City of Beaumont. The City Council, as well as the people of Beaumont, have to be happy or else we are not going to make it as a business. Councilman Lowry: Are we discussing the franchises tonight - or is this just a public hearing only - I mean so far as the Council is con- cerned. We are not at a point where we want to discuss any changes or. . . Mayor Thompson: Not yet. We are still in the public hearing for public input right now. Is there anyone else that wishes to expand on what Mr. Glascock has said? If we are not answering the questions that have been raised, let us know and we will try to get a little more definite answers for you. City Manager: Mr. Mayor, I would hope that any company that submitted his application here without the figures being included, have had a look by this time at the insertions here to be sure they are correct, because we don't want to ask anybody to have to live by something that might have been an error by the secretary in taking from these docu- ments here and putting them here. Are all three in agreement with what is in here, if they know what is in here. Mayor Thompson: You heard the question gentlemen as far as the Section 4 of the Ordinance, which deals with the charges for services. Have you looked at the individual rate schedule. Councilman Lowry: In regards to that, Field on sheet one, at the very bottom, aerial or underground, 175 feet or less, just has a dollar mark. Does that mean it is free. There is no fee shown. Page 1 under Field Cablevision. Paste 3 Mayor Tompson: What is your aerial or underground installation charge. Dick Glascock: Under 175 feet it is free. Mayor Thompson: 175 feet or less, no charge. Councilman Lowry: There is no charge on the over 175 feet either. Dick Glascock: There is no charge over 175 feet at the time of initial cable installation. Mayor Thompson: Now after the initial cabling term or period, when in- stalled at other times, aerial or underground over 175 feet is time and materials. Councilman Lowry: What is the rate. Dick Glascock: Well, it would be time and materials. If you lived five miles away, you have to help us bear some of the cost of getting it to you. City Manager: This is the installation Dick Glascock: The installation charge charge is the same. But if it costs us we would need some help from you to get Councilman Lowry: In other words it is are saying. Dick Glascock: That is correct. charge. The basic monthly service $10,000 to get to your house, that job done. your cost. Is that what you Councilman Hammel: O.K. Will there be a refund to these people at a later date if someone hooked up on this same line because they would build a house between that distance in there. In other words, you are stating that if the public pays for 1,000 feet of cable line that you put in, that you need some help. Now within that 1,000 feet there are no homes other than the ones that you serve. Now suppose you get one in later on - two years - three years. Don't you think these people ought to get a refund who paid you, and helped you pay, for the 1,000 feet getting to them. Dick Glascock: Yes, and we do that. Councilman Hammel: Then you should state it in the contract. Dick Glascock: We do that - we give them an estimate of the cost of materials and labor will be, and there is a paragraph that states that if anybody later on becomes attached to that same line, it will be prorated. In the City of Beaumont, at this point in time under the City boundaries, that is not the case. Our engineers have found there are only three houses that come out over 175 feet. They are like 200 or something. Mayor Thompson: Is there any this particular document many certain section on there, and Is there any other person out the public input. Does the C( these different companies for - you gentlemen, I am sure, have read times. We have your input as to a we will discuss that in just a minute. there with input. O.K., you have heard Duncil have any questions pertaining to cable television. Councilman Hammel: This is addressing all three of you. Inasmuch as you are going in on our Ordinance 549, and we have, in Section 3 of the ordinance, you are asking for a term of 15 years from the acceptance of the franchise and a guarantee. With the fast moving times of today, which you gentlemen know better than I, in television and all kinds of gadgets. Also, I realize the expense on your part, which you will have to get cable television in here. I feel, for the future, for the future of Beaumont, that if you have a ten year contract, with a renewal clause, that would be acceptable. Why should you have 15 years for cable tele- vision, and have a contract for 15 years. You are reaching out for a long term here. Kids can almost be raised in school. Mayor Thompson: Does Council have any other questions that they want to present. Page 4 At this point there was general discussion by the Council of certain sections of the proposed ordinance granting franchises, and Ordinance No. 529. Mayor Thompson: One of the questions raised is about the fifteen year term of the contract. Is there anyone out there who would like to respond to that. Mr. Soper. Cecil Soper, Delaware - Orcal: Mr. Mayor and Councilmen. We have entered into franchises in other places which are less than fifteen years. I am not sure who initiated the fifteen years - whether we did, which would be a smart move on our part - or whether you did, which it wouldn't be an unwise position, but, as you said earlier, to amortize a large capital investment, you need many years in which to do it, but if you gentlemen, in your wisdom, decided that it be preferable to have a ten year franchise period, subject to a clause that it could be negotiated for extension, we have no trouble living with that sir. Jim Monroe, Beaumont CableVision: Mr. Mayor, I might point out that in Section 5 of Ordinance 529, it stipulates that under Sub - section A, that the franchise granted by the Council under this ordinance shall be for a term of fifteen years. City Manager: This was based on the recommendation from the League of California Cities. Councilman Hammel: I know, but this doesn't mean that we can't change it. Jim Monroe: The standard term is generally fifteen years, and it is a highly capital investment. Dick Glascock, Field Cablevision: Fifteen years is required because of the amortization and depreciation in excess of the million dollars that we are investing in Beaumont. What does protect you, if the Cable system is not living up to its expectations, as are some of the neigh- boring systems, is that it is not exclusive, and you can't go in . . . Councilman Lowry: May I ask you a question. I noticed that you offered twelve channels, will you add additional channels over the life of your system. Dick Glascock: What we are doing in ours - we structure, basically, two price ranges. What we did is we come in with just a real basic minimal service - which is what we call the lifeline - which is twelve channel service. Then the second rate is basically senior citizens discount, which is 100 off of anything. And in the full basic fifty -four channel service at $7.75, which is cheaper than the other two applications. Councilman Lowry: Than you are offering more than the other two. Dick Glascock: More for less. Councilman Shaw: Under Section 7, it says should the grantee desire to upgrade the franchise, the grantee shall pay the entire cost. No expense shall be born by the subscriber. Dick Glascock: That is correct. Which is one of the things I think you were concerned about the other night. The two words that we did not get in here that I would have liked to see, Norm, was under the transfer that cannot be unduly be withheld, or something. That is the one thing we discussed. Those four magic words didn't make the final typing. And I don't know that that means anything, but our legal people say it does. City Attorney: Well, a little bit, but, I don't think they can arbitrari- ly just deny this. Councilman Lowry: It is already covered in the ordinance. Dick Glascock: Like I say, it is just a couple of words that the attorneys just feel better with. There followed a general discussion between the Council, City Attorney and Mr. Glascock regarding the wording of Section 14 of the Ordinance Paqe 5 granting the franchises. Dick Glascock: Other than that, we are ready to go. The construction of the system is basically, so far as we are concerned, underway. We have done the full application with the General Telephone, and we are rolling and will possibly deliver September 15. This ordinance becomes "law" September 9 if you go thirty days from the second reading. We hope to have subscribers by October 15. City Attorney: I don't think you could arbitrarily refuse a transfer. We have worked this over time and time again, and everytime there is something. I think you have enough safeguards in the law anyway. Mayor Thompson: Is there any further input from the public about the proposal to grant a franchise for a cable television service within the City limits of Beaumont. Is there anyone out there who would like to have input as far as the granting of a franchise for cable television in the City of Beaumont. If we hear no further input, does the Council have any further questions. Since we have no further input from the public, no further from the Council, we will close the public hearing on Ordinance No. 549, 550 and 551. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:41 P.M. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont passes Ordinances No. 549, 550 and 551 for their first readings by title only. Motion by Councilman Hammel to amend the motion to change the term from fifteen years to ten years with an option for renewal died for lack of a second. The three ordinances, No. 549, 550 and 551 were read by title only by the City Clerk. Vote was taken on the original motion without amendment. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: Councilman Hammel. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 13. PUBLIC HEARING: 8:00 P.M. - Conditional Use Permit No. 1002. Applicant: First Southern Baptist Church, 650 E. 14th Street. The public hearing was opened at 8:49 P.M. Gary Croft, Chief Planner, gave the Council the background information concerning this Conditional Use Permit, and answered questions from the Council. Mayor Thompson: I have a question of Cliff Howrey, who is representing the First Southern Baptist Church. Does the existing walkway and hand- rail in front of your structure project into the right -of -way, the City right -of -way. Cliff Howrey, First Southern Baptist Church: I don't know. Mayor Thompson: Gary, is that a reasonable - because of the proximity of the curbline, and proximity of the curbline with the walkway from the front of the building and the handrail. Gary Croft: It would appear from the photo, that, yes, the handrail would probably encroach into the public right -of -way. As I indicated, it would be eight feet from the face of the curb. It appears like it is about five feet back. Mayor Thompson: I have one other question. Is the existing sign that is on the eastern portion of the building, does it project into the City right -of -way because of its location. Gary Croft: Yes, they went out to measure it. I didn't happen to be involved in the group that went out and measured, but as I understand it, it is about six feet behind the curb, projecting in about two feet into the right -of -way. Page 6 Mayor Thompson: The reason I am asking on this is that if the Condi- tional Use Permit is granted, it affects the entire property, and if we condone continued encroachment without an encroachment permit, we are in error ourselves. Am I correct on that? City Manager: Well, basically, you are not supposed to allow encroach- ments within the City right -of -way. There is a provision in the ordinance that you adopted to allow that to happen based upon an application. Mayor Thompson: This is existing for three years. I remember when this happened. I was not on the Council, but at this time we may have a problem on encroachment, at least I think so, notwithstanding the 30" pipeline. Cliff Howrey, First Southern Baptist: I guess, like all of us in these times . . .(Tape changed - discussion continues as follows) . . . we do appreciate the Planning Commission making that suggestion to the Council, primarily from the standpoint that we, like you, are trying to be as economical and frugal as we can. One thing that Gary didn't bring to your attention, that we would be happy to, as we develop property to the east, and hopefully as property would be developed to the west, we would make that somewhat of a - I don't know if I am using the correct term - tie that in as a serpentine type of a situation where we would put curb and gutter, and sidewalks, and make that a flow. I think that was brought up in a Council meeting, similar to what they have down at Palm Springs and other areas, and that is a requirement there. On the other hand, if the Council feels that is what needs to be done, we will change our whole landscaping approach and put a stem wall in, and put a sidewalk in. We don't want to rattle the cage. But we were trying to saving $800 to $1,000, to be honest with you. Councilman Shaw: But you can appreciate our opposition to this. Should we give a variance here - then other people are going to want the same thing. City Manager: There is one other factor, gentlemen, I am not sure what the attorney would say here about the feasibility or advisability of the City attempting to make a requirement - waiving a requirement of a City sidewalk on City property, and saying no, don't put it there, use the Church sidewalk, which is steering the public on to Church property, and creating a terrific liability to the Church. Cliff Howrey: Another factor too, is, as we, and all of you who live in our City know, that the drainage that comes from the water pumphouse there on 14th Street, would make it almost impossible when they are draining, which seems to be most of the time, and during the inclement weather, to even use such a sidewalk, because, in fact, there is a river running down the street there, and it would be safer to walk in the middle of the street, then it would be to walk on that sidewalk. That was one of the appeals that we made to the Planning Commission, and again, I realize your situation, but that . . . Councilman Lowry: How deep does that water run. You have been there many times probably. Cliff Howrey: Normally, there was water running down there today, during the summer months it is probably an inch or two. But during inclement weather . . . Councilman Lowry: Goes over the curb in other words. On your property. Cliff Howrey: No it is five or six feet away from there, where they put the markers, out in the middle of the road. Be it as it may, we are here to cooperate with you, and we want you to know that, but we would ask for your consideration, and if that isn't possible, then we will sure work with you. Mayor Thompson: The reason I was asking the question I did, under condition of approval 3 -b, the Planning Commission says sidewalk shall be constructed along 14th Street in accordance with standards approved by the City Engineer. That is why I was asking the question. One other question too, 3 -c, all trash shall be stored in closed containers located within acceptable wall enclosure. What does that mean. Page 7 Cliff Howrey: They want a bin - we have a metal bin - trash bin. They evidentally want some kind of enclosed situation to prevent debris from blowing - that kind of thing. They talked to us about that, and we are in the process of going into some long range planning right now, and we are looking at that in a five year - ten year - twenty year program of expansion, and we will be bringing those plans to the City someday in the future. We asked them if we could put up a chain link type of situation now, because of the fact that we are not sure where the permanent block type of situation will be located, and they said that would be fine. Councilman Lowry: May I ask a question relative to the lot to the east of the church time that the . . . . Cliff Howrey: When the permits were taken out. No. It was near that same time, Councilman Lowry, but it was after the fact. Councilman Lowry: I see. That explains why we didn't require you to curb and gutter that also. Cliff Howrey: And we realize that will be a factor, and we want to do that. Mayor Thompson: I have a question for Gary. On conditions of approval, No. 8, What is that last date there. Gary: 1992. Mayor Thompson: This permit shall become null and void on July 1, 1992? Gary: Normally, with conditional use permits, they have a life span of a certain number of years, five, ten, fifteen years - and in this parti- cular case it was felt that it would be appropriate to review it, if in fact they want to continue with the type of operation that they are setting up, within ten years. Bascially, what that amounts to is applying for a new conditional use permit, and having a complete review, and new approvals, possibly new conditions. Mayor Thompson: This use that they are asking - what is the zoning designation - accepted kind of use. Gary Croft: Any residential zone, and some limited commercial zone. Most commercial zones are considered, really, are considered appropriate. Mayor Thompson: Are they considered appropriate? Gary Croft: Are usually considered appropriate. That is one of the reasons the conditional use permit is required as opposed to a plot plan procedure, or a simple permit, or business license. Mayor Thompson: Unlike commercial utilization of a conditional use permit, there is no annual review on this? Gary Croft: Right. Mayor Thompson: On commercial there is normally . Gary Croft: Well, it can be written either way. The conditional use permit could be written either way. If it is considered a particularly obnoxious business, in terms of the possibility of getting out of hand and not being easily controlled, then an annual review may be appropriate. Most businesses it would go five or ten years, and then require a new conditional use permit - this is the normal way it is handled. Historically here, virtually all of them require annual reviews. Mayor Thompson: Does anyone else have any questions that Gary might be able to answer for you. (Pause - no one responding). The reason this came to Council is to affirm or modify the procedure of the Planning Commission. Am I correct on that? City Manager: To change any condition or . . . Mayor Thompson: Or modify - or to let them stand. Anybody else have anything on this. Page 8 14. 15. 16. Councilman Lowry: The only two recommended changes were 2 -A and 3 -B. Gary Croft: Yes. 2 -A was modified because the existing paving was adequate. What it needed, however, was a general sweeping and, possibly, recoating. And, so, that was why condition 2 -A was modified. Councilman Lowry: They okayed the striping? Gary Croft: Yes. Mayor Thompson: Okay. We have heard the proponents for this conditional use permit. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak in opposition to this conditional use permit. Anyone wishing to speak in opposition to the granting of such a conditional use permit. Anyone in the audience who would like to speak opposing the granting of this conditional use permit. Does anyone else have any questions they would like answered by either the proponent or the planner. Any other questions. If we hear no more input pro or con on this particular application, we will therefore close the public hearing at this time. The time is 9:15. The public hearing was closed at 9:15 P.M. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont moves that the conditions of approval as shown in the Planning Commission Minutes of June 1, 1982, as furnished by the planning staff, be accepted, with the exception of the deletion of 2 -A, and that 3 -B be enforced including the removal of the encroaching structures in the public right -of -way. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Negative Declaration for E.A. No. CU -1002. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont grants Conditional Use Permit No. 1002 subject to the conditions of approval previously approved. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Request from Dionne Green, Jazzercise instructor, for ReducEd Business License. This agenda item was continued until the regular meeting of August 9, 1982, to allow the City Manager to ascertain why the fee was set at $72.00, with no penalty being assessed on the business license. Request from Dionne Green re Use of Gymnasium. This agenda item was continued until the regular meeting of August 9, 1982. Recommendation on Insurance Coverage for 1982 -83. (Continued from July 12, 1982) . On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont awards the contract for insurance coverage to Curtis- Kieley, Inc. for $5,000,000 umbrella coverage, in accordance with the City Manager's recommendation dated July 6, 1982. Page 9 AYES: Councilmen Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: Councilmen May and Shaw. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. MOTION CARRIED. 17. Application for Special Permit to Keep Two Wolf - Hybrid Dogs within the Beaumont City Limits. This agenda item was continued until the regular meeting of August 9, 1982, pending a decision by the State regarding a State permit. 18. Sewer Master Plan Update Report and Presentation. A presentation was given by Willdan Associates concerning the Sewer Master Plan. Due to the lateness of the hour, this agenda item was continued until a later date, to be arranged between the City Manager and the Consultant, for a continuation of the presentation and report. 19. Acceptance of Contract with Norman Davis for Services as City Manager, and Authorization for Mayor to Sign same. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the contract with Norman Davis for services as City Manager, subject to the changes which the City Attorney has been directed to prepare, and further authorizes the Mayor to sign the contract on behalf of the City. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry. NOES: Mayor Thompson. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 20. Consideration of Lease Renewal with Beaumont- Cherry Valley Recreation and Parks District for Space in Civic Center Building. This agenda item was continued pending the receipt of a structural report concerning the gym. 21. The report of Planning Commission Actions of July 20, 1982 was accepted for filing. 22. ORAL COMMUNICATION: a. Request from Ms. S. L. Nelson to Connect Property Outside City Limits to Beaumont Sewer System. Continued until next regular meeting of August 9, 1982. 23. Request for Authorization to Provide legal services for Police Officers in case of Cupp vs City of Beaumont. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes that legal services shall be provided for the police officers involved in the case of Cupp vs City of Beaumont, the attorney to be selected at the discretion of the City Manager, based on terms most favorable to the City. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 24. Action on City Attorney Contract. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the City Manager to enter into an agreement with the City Attorney under the condition that his monthly retainer fee be raised from $750.00 to $800.00 per month, and all other conditions remain the same. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. TDCVMM. TT --.-. ADD ITEM 25. Letter from Mr. Bob Bruce regarding Senior Citizen's. Advisory Commi- sion. It was determined that the City Manager and one of the Council Members will meet with the Senior Citizen's Advisory Commission at their next regular meeting on August 4, 1982, to discuss this matter further. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 12:17 A.M. Respectfully submitted, F'L A2 E NA J. LURKETT, City Clerk Page 11 BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL AND BEAUMONT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AGENCY MINUTES OF JULY 12, 1982 1. The Beaumont City Council and Beaumont Community Improvement Agency met in a regular meeting at 7:34 P.M., on Monday, July 12, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor /Chairman Thompson presiding. 2. The invocation was given by Reverand Harry Lansman. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Councilman May. 4. On Roll Call the following Council /Agency Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor /Chairman Thompson. 5. There being no additions, deletions or corrections, the minutes of Regular Council /Agency meeting of June 28, 1982, Adjourned Meeting of June 29, 1982 and Adjourned Meeting of July 6, 1982, were approved as submitted. 6. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont transfers jurisdiction of Conditional Use Permit No. 1002 (included in minutes of Planning Commission meeting of June 1, 1982) Applicant: First Southern Baptist Church, 650 E. 14th Street, to the Council, and sets the date of July 26, 1982 for public hearing. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the balance of the minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of June 1, 1982, and the minutes of Planning Commission meeting of June 15, 1982, for filing as presented. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 7. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves warrants as audited per Warrant List of June 30, 1982, in the amount of $64,897.99; warrants as audited per Warrant List of July 12, 1982, in the amount of $126,351.76; and payroll of July 1, 1982, in the amount of $27,400.73, for payment as audited. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 8. ORDINANCE NO. 548 - SECOND READING - Adoption of the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Building Code Standards. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Ordinance No. 548 adopting the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Building Code Standards, at it second reading by title only. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Page 1 9. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -44 - Supporting the Percy- Kramer -Winn Proposal to Sell Surplus Federal Property. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -44 supporting the Percy- Kramer -Winn Proposal to Sell Surplus Federal Property. The resolution was read in its entirety by the City Clerk. AYES: Councilmen May, NOES: Mayor Thompson. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Shaw, Hammel and Lowry. 10. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -45 - Resolution of Intention of the City of Beaumont to Grant a Non - Exclusive Cable TV Franchise to Field Cablevisionof Riverside, Inc. 11. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -46 - Resolution of Intention of the City of Beaumont to Grant a Non - Exclusive Cable TV Franchise to Delaware Orcal Cable, Inc. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -47 - Resolution of Intention of the City of Beaumont to Grant a Non - Exclusive Cable TV Franchise to Beaumont CableVision. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolutions No. 1982 -45, 1982 -46, and 1982 -47. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 12. Proposed Cable Television Franchise Ordinance for Format Discussion and Decision. The proposed cable television franchise ordinance was discussed con- cerning wording and format, with representatives of the three cable television companies participating in the discussion 13. PUBLIC HEARING - 8:00 P.M. - Proposed 1982 -83 Budget. (Continued from July 6, 1982). The Public Hearing was re- opened at 9:17 P.M. A brief summarization of the budget discussions and changes was given by the City Manager. Irish Mitchell, 402 East 6th Street, addressed the Council asking questions concerning warrants that were paid during fiscal year 1981 -82, specifically those paid on the purchase of the 6th and Orange Street land. Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, to accept the proposed 1982 -83 budget, as submitted. AYES: Councilmen Hammel and Lowry. NOES: Councilmen Shaw, May and Mayor Thompson. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. MOTION FAILED. The Public Hearing was closed at 9:58 P.M. 14. Declaring of Vacancy on Senior Citizen Advisory Commission and Appoint- ment to Fill Vacancy. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the resignation of Jess Wood from the Senior Citizen Advisory Commission, and appoints Ms. Dovie Bunch to fill the vacancy on the Senior Citizen Advisory Commission. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 15. Authorization to Pay Animal Control Services billed by County of Riverside. On Motion by Councilman May, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes payment to the County of Riverside for animal control services in the amount of $174.72, to be taken from Reserve for Contingencies, 01- 900 -999; and further directs that the owner of the animal shall be billed for these costs. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 16. Authorization for Transfer of Public Works Pick -Up Truck to Sewer Department; and Authorization for Transfer of Funds. Motion by Councilman Hammel to authorize the transfer of Public Works Pick -Up Truck to Sewer Department was rescinded by Councilman Hammel. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the transfer of Pick -Up Truck No. 3280 to the Sewer Department; and further authorizes the transfer of funds from the Sewer Department to the General Fund, Accounts No. 10- 405 -999 to 01- 009 -799. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 17. Recommendation on Insurance Coverage for 1982 -83. (Continued from July 6, 1982). Mr. George Sturgess, of MacClean Insurance Agency, Beaumont, addressed the Council requesting that MacClean Insurance Agency be appointed as Agent of Record to handle insurance for the City. This agenda item was continued until the regular Council meeting of July 26, 1982. 18. Report re Planning Commission Actions on July 6, 1982. For Information only. This report was accepted for filing for information only pending receipt of the minutes of July 6, 1982. The meeting was adjourned to an Executive Session re Personnel at 10:30 P.M. The meeting was reconvened to Regular Session at 11:03 P.M. Let the record show the discussion in Executive Session was in regard to budgetary amounts of Department No. 110, the City Manager Department. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the proposed 1982 -83 budget as submitted. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 19. ORAL COMMUNICATION: There was no oral communication. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:05 P.M. Respectfully submitted, BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL AND BEAUMONT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AGENCY MINUTES OF ADJOURNED MEETING OF JULY 6, 1982 (Adjourned from June 29, 1982) 1. The Beaumont City Council and Beaumont Community Improvement Agency met in an Adjourned Meeting at 7:30 P.M., on Tuesday, July 6, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor /Chairman Thompson presiding. Due to a conflict of meetings scheduled in the Council Chambers, the meeting was then adjourned to Room 6 (Community Room) of Beaumont Civic Center. 2. On Roll Call the following Council /Agency Members were present: May, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor /Chairman Thompson. 3. E 5. Reclassification of Position of Intermediate Account Clerk to Grants Account Clerk. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the reclassification of Susan Frye from Intermediate Account Clerk to Grants Account Clerk as recom- mended in letter dated July 6, 1982 from the City Manager, effective July 1, 1982. AYES: Councilmen May, NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman Shaw. Recommendation on Insurance This report was accepted by Council meeting of July 12, The City Council adjourned P.M. The City Council reconvened Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. Coverage for 1982 -83 Fiscal Year. the Council and held until the regular 1982. to an Executive Session re Personnel at 8:15 to regular session at 9:00 P.M. Let the record show the discussion in Executive Session concerned the request from the Police Department re employee salaries. No firm de- cision was made other than to refer the matter back to the City Manager for further clarification and consultation with the organization representing the policemen in the City. There was no acceptance or rejection of any one or all of the requests, leaving room for further negotiations. PUBLIC HEARING - 1982 -83 Proposed Budget. (Continued from June 29, 1982) The Public Hearing was re- opened at 9:05 P.M. Individual departmental budgets were reviewed with consensus agreement made on minor changes. Council requested the City Manager and Finance Director to bring back revised summary pages reflecting adjusted and corrected totals. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont, by Minute Order, directs the City Manager to implement a feasibility study to develop a Sewer Assessment District for the Sewer Lift Station. AYES: Councilmen May, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman Shaw. Page 1 The City Manager was requested by the Council to insert a letter of explanation to all sewer customers with the next billing explaining the reason for the sewer charge rate change, and, additionally, to give the newspapers an in -depth report for publication. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -42 - Amending Sewer Charges Pursuant to Ordinance No. 416 and Repealing Resolutions Numbers 1971 -27, 1973 -7, 1975 -15, 1978 -18, 1978 -24, 1978 -27 and All Parts of Resolutions in Conflict Herewith. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -42 as amended. AYES: Councilmen May, Hammel and Lowry. NOES: Mayor Thompson. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman Shaw. MOTION CARRIED On Motion by Mayor Thompson, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the addition of a Senior Account Clerk to the Finance Department budget to be hired at Step 1. AYES: Councilmen May, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: Councilman Lowry. ABSENT: Councilman Shaw. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the Public Hearing re the 1982 -83 Proposed Budget was continued until the regular meeting of July 12, 1982, at 8:00 P.M. AYES: Councilmen May, NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman Shaw. Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, JL.zd9__10L OMM%7a_"� Theresa Thompson, Deputy City Clerk Page 2 BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL AND BEAUMONT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AGENCY MINUTES OF ADJOURNED MEETING OF JUNE 29, 1982 (Adjourned from June 28, 1982) 1. The Beaumont City Council and Beaumont Community Improvement Agency met in an adjourned meeting at 7:30 P.M., on Tuesday, June 29, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor /Chairman Thompson presiding. 2. On Roll Call the following Council /Agency Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor /Chairman Thompson. 3. PUBLIC HEARING - 1982 -83 Proposed Budget. (Continued from June 28, 1982). The Public Hearing was re- opened at 7:31 P.M. Department Heads were requested to address the Council first if they had questions or requests concerning their departmental budgets. Prior to Chief Robert Bridges addressing the Council concerning the Police Department budget, the City Manager requested that the record show the Police Department budget has been allocated $471,660 in General Fund money and $172,276 Revenue Sharing money. Chief Bridges then addressed the Council requesting additions to his budget. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the addition of one patrolman position to the Police Department budget. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: Councilman Hammel. ABSENT: None. Mr. Irish Mitchell addressed the Council requesting clarification on the category of Reserve for Contingencies for Appropriations, with both the City Manager and the Council responding. Individual departmental budgets were reviewed and discussed, with no actions taken at this time. The Public Hearing re the 1982 -83 Proposed Budget was continued until Tuesday, July 6, 1982 at 7:30 P.M. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the continuance of the work experience program for the Finance Department clerical assistance for Fiscal Year 1982 -83, as per the recommendation of the Finance Director and City Manager. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned until 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, July 6, 1982, at 11:00 P.M. Res pectfully submitted, Susan Wamsley F e; Deputy City Cle` BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL AND BEAUMONT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AGENCY MINUTES OF JUNE 28, 1982 1. The Beaumont City Council and Beaumont Community Improvement Agency met in a regular meeting at 7:33 P.M., on Monday, June 28, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor Thompson presiding. 2. The invocation was given by Reverand Cliff Howrey. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Councilman Shaw. 4. On Roll Call the following Council /Agency Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 5. There being no additions, deletions or corrections, the minutes of regular Council /Agency meeting of June 14, 1982 were approved as submitted. 6. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 18, 1982 were accepted for filing as presented; the minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of June 1, 1982 were returned to the Planning Commission for a determination of the use of the word inappropriate in place of appropriate. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 7. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves warrants as audited per Warrant List of June 28, 1982, in the amount of $72,254.46; and Payroll of June 25, 1982, in the amount of $24,162.39, for payment as audited. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 8. Draft Ordinance Granting Cable TV Franchise. This agenda item was continued until the regular meeting of July 12, 1982 for the preparation by the City Attorney of a franchise contract. 9. ORDINANCE NO. 548 - FIRST READING - Adoption of the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Building Code Standards. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont passes Ordinance No. 548 for adoption of the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Building Code Standards for its first reading by title only. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 10. Consideration of the Draft Environmental Impact Report on the Beaumont Community Improvement Plan and Project Area. The City Manager explained this was a draft and that changes could be made at any time. The action tonight is to enable the consultant to transmit the draft environmental impact report to the appropriate County and State agencies. Page 1 10. _RESOLUTION NO. BCI 82 -11 - Approving the Draft Environmental Impact Report on the Beaumont Community Improvement Plan and Project Area and Directing Staff to Transmit the Required Notice of Completion. On Motion by Agency Member Shaw, seconded by Agency Member Lowry, the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency adopts Resolution BCI 82 -11 approving the Draft Environmental Impact Report on the Beaumont Community Improvement Plan and Project Area and Directing Staff to Transmit the Required Notice of Completion. AYES: Agency Members May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Chairman Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 12. Declaring Vacancy on Project Area Committee and Appointment to Fill Vacancy. On Motion by Agency Member Shaw, seconded by Agency Member May, the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency accepts the resignation of Jack Mobley from the Project Area Committee and appoints Randy Kilday to fill the vacancy for the two year unexpired term of Jack Mobley. AYES: Agency Members May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Chairman Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 13. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -41 - Approving and Adopting the General Plan. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -41 approving and adopting the General Plan. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 14. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -42 - Amending Sewer Charges Pursuant to Ordinance No. 416 and Repealing Resolutions No. 1971 -27, 1973 -7, 1975 -15, 1978 -18, 1978 -24, 1978 -27 and All Parts of Resolutions in Conflict Herewith. This agenda item was continued until the next regular Council meeting on July 12, 1982 for further clarification by Jacobs Engineering con- cerning the fee structure formula. 11. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - 1982 -83 Proposed Budget. The Public Hearing was re- opened at 8:10 P.M. The City Manager explained the projected carryover figure previously indicated was incorrect, and explained the reasons for this error; and stated further that budget adjustments will be necessary to correct the budget. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts the budget adjustments as documented on Budget Item 11 -A, 1982 -83 Budget. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. The City Manager then advised there would be other budget adjustments necessary due to the revenue loss from the State in the amount of just over $85,000, of which the City had just been made aware today, as well as other budget adjustments due to allocation to wrong line items. The City Manager then answered several questions contained in a letter to the Council from Mr. Irish Mitchell, and answered additional questions from Mr. Mitchell asked during the public hearing. There was no one else in the audience with questions concerning the Page 2 15. 11. 16. 17. no 19. proposed budget at this time. The Public Hearing on the budget was recessed until 9:30 P.M. to allow the Council to complete their agenda. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -43 - Providing for Mitigation of Local School Impaction. Motion by Councilman Lowry to repeal Resolution NO. 1980 -51 died for lack of a second. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -43 providing for mitigation of local school impaction, with the provision that the fee be changed to $650.00 per dwelling unit. AYES: Councilmen Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: Councilman May. ABSTAIN: Councilman Hammel. ABSENT: None. MOTION CARRIED CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - 1982 -83 Proposed Budget. Due to the lateness of the hour, the Public Hearing on the 1982 -83 proposed budget was continued until June 29, 1982, at 7:30 P.M., in the City Council chambers. Recommendation for Acceptance of Low Bid for Truck Mounted Sewer Jet Cleaner. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Mayor Thompson, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the bid of FMC -BEAN and authorizes the purchase of Model No. 6540 -1500 for the bid price of $38,206.53. AYES: Councilmen Shaw, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: Councilman May. ABSTAIN: Councilman Hammel. ABSENT: None. MOTION CARRIED Report re Request for Abandonment of Portion of Egan Avenue. The City Council accepted the report and referred the matter to the applicant to file his application. Interim Pre - Zoning of Properties Proposed for Annexation to City, Annexation No. 28 (Baumstark). On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont pre -zones Annexation No. 28 as shown on the map marked Exhibit "A" to Zone C -2. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Recommendation re Financial Audit for 1981 -82, Employment of Thomas, Byrne and Smith. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the audit proposal of Thomas, Byrne and Smith and awards them a contract for audit services in the maximum amounts of $8,800.00 for the 1981 -82 fiscal year report, and $1,200.00 maximum for the Revenue Sharing Audit review work. AYES: Councilmen May, NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. Page 3 20. Request for Authorization for Mayor to Sign Notice of Completion on Lift Station Project (Sewer Collection System No. 1979 -1). On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont makes a finding of satisfactory com- pletion and accepts the Sewer Collection System No. 1979 -1 project; and authorizes the Mayor to Sign the Notice of Completion on behalf of the City. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 21. Submittal of Financial Report for Period Ending May 31, 1982 for Filing Pursuant to Government Code. Financial Report for period ending May 31, 1982 was accepted for filing by the City Council. 22. Budget Transfer to Pay cost of Pool Filter. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves a budget transfer of $115.38 from reserve for contingencies, Budget No. 10- 025 -037, to 10 -081 -037, to pay for the pool filter. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 23. Agreement between City of Beaumont and M & M Auto Wrecking Yard for Removal of Abandoned Vehicles. On Motion by Councilman May, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the agreement with M & M Auto Wrecking Yard for removal of abandoned vehicles and authorizes the City Manager to sign same. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: Councilman Lowry. ABSENT: None. There was discussion concerning re- appointment of two Planning Commission members whose terms will be expiring. No action was taken. 24. ORAL COMMUNICATION: There was no oral communication from the audience. There being no further business to come before the Council the meeting was adjourned until 7:30 P.M., June 29, 1982, in the City Council Chambers at 10:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, CITY CLER4) Page 4 BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL AND BEAUMONT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AGENCY MINUTES OF JUNE 14, 1982 1. The Beaumont City Council and Beaumont Community Improvement Agency met in a regular meeting at 7:30 P.M., on Monday, June 14, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor Thompson presiding. 2. The invocation was given by Councilman Lowry. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Mayor Thompson. 4. On Roll Call the following Council /Agency Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 5. The Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of May 24, 1982 were corrected as follows: Agenda Item No. 16, Motion No. 5 on Page 3, should be corrected to read as follows: On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the requested change to expand the commercial designation on Beaumont Avenue between 6th Street and 11th Street from each alley to the next street on both east (Magnolia) and west (Euclid), and the existing one lot deep commercial designation from 11th Street north to the existing boundaries. The Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of May 24, 1982 were approved as corrected. 6. The Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 18, 1982 were continued for acceptance until the regular Council Meeting of June 28, 1982. 7. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves warrants as audited per Warrant List of June 14, 1982, in the amount of $379,468.53 and Payrolls of May 28, 1982 and June 11, 1982, in the amount os $24,181.35 and $23,843.70 respectively, for payment as audited. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 8. a. The Draft Community Improvement Plan of the City of Beaumont Community Improvement Agency was presented to the Agency Members, by Marshall Krupp, of Willdan Associates, with an explanation regarding the action necessary by the Agency. b. RESOLUTION NO. BCI 82 -10 - Preliminarily Approving the Beaumont Community Improvement Plan and Project Area Subject to Further Review and Public Hearing; and Directing the Secretary of the Agency to Transmit Required Redevelopment Documents to Appropriate County and State Agencies. On Motion by Agency Member Lowry, seconded by Agency Member Hammel, The Beaumont Community Improvement Agency adopts Resolution No. BCI 82 -10 preliminarily approving the Beaumont Community Improve- ment Plan and Project Area subject to further review and public hearing; and directing the Secretary of the Agency to transmit required redevelopment documents to appropriate County and State Agencies. AYES: Agency Members May, Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ARSTATN: Nnne_ Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Chairman 9. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -35 - Establishing a Project Area Committee for the 12. 10. 11. Beaumont Community Thereto. Improvement Project Area and Appointing Members The names of the Project Area Committee members selected by the City Council are as follows: Jack Mobley Lyle Millage Bill Bebee Irish Mitchell Bill Jett Charles Manning Willard Love Two Year Term Two Year Term Two Year Term Two Year Term Three Year Term Three Year Term Three Year Term On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -35 estab- lishing a Project Area Committee for the Beaumont Community Improvement Project Area and Appointing Members Thereto. AYES: Councilmen.May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Let the record show that the appointment of these members do not in any way affect any other matters that the City may be involved in or under- taking in the future. It only affects the Community Improvement Agency and the activities that are occurring within the Community Improvement Agency. PUBLIC HEARING - 8:O0 P.M.. 1982 -83 Proposed Budget and Relationship of Revenue Sharing Funds to that Budget. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:10 P.M. The budget message to the City Council from the City Manager was read by the City Manager. The City Manager then briefly read exerpts from the budget summaries which had been given to the Council Members. Due to the incompleteness of financial information from the State, no public input was requested, and the Public Hearing was continued until 8:00 P.M., on June 28, 1982, at which time the Finance Director should have obtained the latest information from the State during a meeting scheduled for June 16, 1982. Request for Approval to Contribute Back to the Taxing Entities the Annual Two Per Cent Increase on Base Year Assessed Value. On Motion by Agency Member Shaw, seconded by Agency Member Lowry, the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency approves the request to adopt in principle the concept to contribute back to the County the annual two per cent increase on base year assessed value. AYES: Agency Members May, Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None AB"'TAJN: ??one. Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Chairman Extension of Contractual Services of Mr. Hal Wells for Period June 9, 10, 11 and 14, 1982. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the extension of contractual services of Mr. Hal Wells through the period of June 9, 10, 11 and 14, 1982. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Page 2 13. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -38 - Finding and Declaring that the Interests of the Motoring Public and of Residents within Valley Mobile Home Community, a Mobile Home Park in the City, will be Best Served by Making Certain Provisions of the California Vehicle Code Applicable to Certain Private Roads within said Valley Mobile Home Community. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -38 finding and declaring that the interests of the motoring public and of residents within Valley Mobile Home Community, a Mobile Home Park in the City, will be best served by making certain provisions of the California Vehicle Code applicable to certain private roads within said Valley Mobile Home Community. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 14. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -39 - Setting Forth an Appropriations Limit for 1982- 1983 Consistent with Article XIII B of the California Constitution and Giving Notice of Availability of Information Supporting said Determination. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -39 setting forth an appropriations limit for 1982 -83 consistent with Article XIII B of the California Constitution and Giving Notice of Availability of Information Supporting said Determination. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 15. Request for Specific Appropriation of Funds for Capital Projects Fiscal Year 1981 -1982. General Fund and Sewer Construction (Trust) Fund. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts the recommendations contained in letter of June 7, 1982 for change of budget line items as recommended. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 16. Request for Authorization for Director of Finance to File Article IV TDA Claim for Fiscal Year 82 -83 on Behalf of the City of Beaumont. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the Director of Finance to File Article IV TDA Claim for Fiscal Year 82 -83 on behalf of the City of Beaumont. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 17. Request for Transfer of Funds for Purchase of New City Manager and Staff Cars. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the transfer of funds for purchase of the new City Manager and staff cars as recommended in letter dated June 2, 1982. AYES: Councilmen Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: Councilman May. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Page 3 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Request for Authorization for Director of Finance to Attend the 1982 Legislative Seminar on Local Government Finance. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the Director of Finance to attend the 1982 Legislative Seminar on Local Government Finance. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Request for Authorization for Finance Department to Hire Part Time Person Through the High School Work Experience Program for Balance of Fiscal Year 1981 -1982. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont grants the request of the Finance Department to hire a part time person through the High School Work Experience Program for the balance of Fiscal Year 1981 -1982. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Request from Weldon Blain for City Abandonment of Certain Strip of Land Adjacent to his Service Station on 4th Street. This request was ordered filed by the City Council. Request from Beaumont Precision Machining, Inc. for Installation of Street Light on Existing Pole in Alley between Euclid and Edgar, Parallel to Fifth Street. This request was ordered filed by the City Council. Request from Baldi Bros. Construction for Abandonment of a Portion of Egan Avenue. This request was referred to the Planning and Engineering Departments for a report to the Council at their regular meeting of June 28, 1982. Council Decision re Banning Water Company Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity to Extend its Service Area. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -40 opposing the application by the Banning Water Company for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity to Extend its Service area and instructs the City Manager and City Attorney to prepare said resolution for signature by the Mayor. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Request for Circulation of Petitions Concerning an Initiative Consti- tutional Amendment re Public Utility Rates for the November Ballot. This request was ordered filed by the City Council. Authorization for Mayor James B. Thompson to be Absent from the State for a Period of Ninety Days. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes Mayor James B. Thompson to be absent from the State for a period of Ninety days beginning June 19, 1982. AYES: Councilmen May, NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. Page 4 26. Contract Addendum to Sewer Master Plan Study for Sewer Cleaning Services. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves Addendum No. 1 to Sewer Master Plan Agreement and authorizes the Mayor to sign the addendum. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 27. Letter from Riverside County Transportation Commission Concerning the 1980 -81 Certified Financial Audit for Transit Services was accepted for filing. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Page 5 BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF MAY 24, 1982 1. The Beaumont City Council met in a regular meeting at 7:34 P.M., on Monday, May 24, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor Thompson presiding. 2. The invocation was given by Reverand Bob Whited. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Councilman Shaw. 4. On Roll Call the following Council Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 5. There being no additions, deletions or corrections, the Minutes of Regular Council and Beaumont Community Improvement Agency Meeting of May 10, 1982, and Special Council Meeting of May 13, 1982 were approved as submitted. 6. There being no objections, the Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 4, 1982 and Special Planning Commission Meeting of May 13, 1982, were accepted for filing as submitted. 7. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, Warrants as audited per Warrant List of May 24, 1982, in the amount of $56,956.95, and Payroll of May 14, 1982 in the amount of $25,363.08, were approved for Payment as audited. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 8. URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 546 - Amending Subsection (D) 303 of Ordinance 515 (Uniform Building Code). On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Urgency Ordinance No. 546 amending Subsection (D) 303 of Ordinance 515 (Uniform Building Code) by title only. The Ordinance was read by title only by the City Clerk. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 9. ORDINANCE NO. 547 - FIRST READING - Regulating the Division of Land. On Motion by Councilman May, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont postpones the first reading of Ordinance No. 547 until such time as an in -depth evaluation and report is received from the Planning Commission with a progress report within sixty days. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 10. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -33 - Declaring the Intention of the City to Make Certain Provisions of the Vehicle Code Applicable to the Privately Owned and Maintained Streets within the Valley Mobile Home Community. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -33 declaring the intention of the City to make certain provisions of the Vehicle Code applicable to the privately owned and maintained streets within the Valley Mobile Home Community. Page 1 AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 11. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -34 - Commending the Golden State Mobile Home Owners League, Inc. and Proclaiming May 19, 1982 as Mobile Home Day in the City of Beaumont. This agenda item was deleted from the agenda because the date is already past. 12. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -35 - Establishing a Project Area Committee for the Beaumont Community Improvement Project Area and Appointing Members Thereto. This agenda item was continued until the regular meeting of June 14, 1982. 13. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -36 - Requesting U.S. Customs and Immigration Services at Ontario International Airport. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -36 requesting U.S. Customs and Immigration services at Ontario International Airport. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 14. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -37 - Establishing Stop Signs at First and Michigan Avenue. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -37 establishing stop signs at First and Michigan Avenue, as corrected. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 15. Certification of Environmental Impact Report re General Plan. 16. Consideration of Adoption of General Plan. (These two agenda items were heard together). On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the change of a 40 acre area south of Brookside, east of Cherry Avenue, including and surrounding the Cherry Highlands Estates, from low density to rural residential. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont increases the number of units per acre allowable in PUD /SP area from five to eight units. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves changing the land use designation from low density residential to medium density residential in areas currently zoned R -3, and Parking Zones, south of 11th Street. AYES: Councilmen May, NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. •satappunoq buTgszxa aqq oq ggaou gaaagS gglT uioaJ uoT4Vu Tsap TPToaaunuoo aap -4OT auo uzpsixa aq-4 puP '(pTTong) -4s@m pua (�TTouf) qspa gqoq uo gaaags gxau aqq Oq AOITP gDPO wOJJ gaaa4S ggTT puP gaaagS q49 uoamgaq onuanV quownpag uO uoTgPUBTsap TPToaaunuoo aqq pupdxa oq abupgo pagsanbaa aqq sgdaooa quoumPag 90 AgTD aqq go TTounoD AgTo aqq 'TowuipH upuiTTounoo Aq papuooas 'AaMOZ uPwTTounoo Aq uoTgow up :sMoTTog su 'Z86T 'VT aunt go buTgaauz auTnbaa azag4 qP �puab� �o S 'ON uoT�oW TTounoo F4TO aqq Aq pagoaaaoo sPM 91 -ON wGgI On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the change of low density resi- dential to light industrial in the Rangel Park neighborhood. AYES: Councilmen Hammel, NOES: Councilman Shaw. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: Councilman May. MOTION CARRIED. Lowry and Mayor Thompson. Motion by Councilman Shaw that the commercial designation on Beaumont Avenue remain as shown on the present zoning map died for lack of a second. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the requested ch n eQ e, pand the commercial designation on Beaumont Avenue from(e �a l y to ii "ext street on both east (Magnolia) and west (Euc `id) ,,4 ai�a_�`orth to the existing boundaries. c _ AYES: Councilmen May, NOES: Councilman Shaw. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the expansion of light industrial designation north of the Sewage Treatment Plant, as a true rectangle from the south side of the Sewage Treatment Plant. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adds a General Plan policy on aircraft noise. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the inclusion of a 6" gas line on the General Plan Land Use Policy Map. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. A motion by Councilman Lowry and second by Councilman May to certify the environmental impact report was withdrawn. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont certifies the Environmental Impact Report; and adopts the General Plan as defined in previous actions and including the direction of the Council to prepare the implementing resolution as part of the action to be adopted immediately upon preparation by the City Attorney. AYES: Councilmen May, NOES: Councilman Shaw. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 17. Acceptance of Proposal from Book Publishing Company for Final Editing and Printing of Ordinances from the Municipality of Beaumont and Authorization for Mayor to Sign Same. Page 3 On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the proposal of Book Publishing Company for final editing and printing of ordinances for the municipa- lity of Beaumont; and authorizes the Mayor to sign same. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 18. Informal Hearing re School Impaction Fee. Mr. James Lucas, representing the Beaumont Unified School District addressed the Council concerning a school impact fee. This agenda item was continued until the regular meeting of June 28, 1982, with instructions to the City Attorney to review and rewrite Resolution No. 1980 -51 and return it to the Council at that time. 19. Proposed Resolution by Field Cablevision for Cable TV Franchise. This agenda item was referred to the City Attorney for preparation of a franchise document, to be returned to the Council on June 28, 1982. 20. Oral Discussion of County Lease for Court Room Facilities in the Police Department Building. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont grants a lease for the term of six months based upon the terms contained in the letter dated December 18, 1981, subject to the recommendations of the City Attorney concerning a hold - harmless clause. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 21. Declaration of Intent to Enter into Contract with County for Fire Services, Fiscal Year 82 -83. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont declares its intent to enter into a contract with the County for fire services for Fiscal Year 82 -83, with direction to the City Manager to report to the Council on the apparent dual administrative charge involved in the contract. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 22. Request to go to Bid on Sewer Jet Cleaner. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts the recommendation of the City Manager to go out to bid on the Sewer Jet Cleaner. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 23. Recommendation Regarding Purchase of Uniforms for City Personnel. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Be$� &� ccepts the recommendation of the City Manager to purchase/ City's personnel, with the stipulation that they upkeep the uniforms themselves. AYES: Councilmen May, NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. Page 4 BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF MAY 13, 1982 1. The Beaumont City Council met in a Special Meeting at 3:02 P.M., on Thursday, May 13, 1982, with Mayor Thompson presiding. 2. On Roll Call the following Council Members were present: May, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. Council Members Shaw and Lowry were excused. 3. Adoption of Interim Zone Use - Annexation No. 27 - (Cherry Highlands Estates - Deutsch - Highland Springs). On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Exhibit "A" as presented to the Council for Interim Zoning for Annexation No. 27. AYES: Councilmen May, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilmen Shaw and Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. 4. Recommendation on Remodeling and Upgrading Swim Pool Filter System. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the recommendation of the City Manager to accept Alternate No. 2 of the bid submitted by California Pools, and awards a contract to California Pools for Alternate No. 2 for a fully automatic sand filter system, and further approves the use of all unspent pool budget line item dollar amounts for payment of this contract award, with the balance of $477.88 being drawn from the Reserve for Contingencies in Buildings and Grounds, Budget Item No. 10- 025 -037. AYES: Councilmen May, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilmen Shaw and Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. 5. Designation of Acting City Manager During Temporary Absences of the City Manager from the City. On Motion by Mayor Thompson, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont confirms the City Manager's appointment of Michael Deursch as the Acting City Manager to serve only in the absence of the City Manager during short periods of time. AYES: Councilmen May, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilmen Shaw and Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. The agenda being completed, the Special Meeting was adjourned at 4:19 P.M. Respectfully submitted, BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL AND BEAUMONT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AGENCY MINUTES OF MAY 10, 1982 1. The Beaumont City Council and the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency met in a joint regular meeting at 7:33 P.M., Monday,May 10, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor /Chairman Thompson presiding. 2. The invocation was given by Reverand George Krieger. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Councilman May. 4. On Roll Call, the following Council /Agency Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel and Mayor /Chairman Thompson. Councilman /Agency Member Lowry was excused. 5. There being no additions, deletions or corrections, the Minutes of Regular Council /Agency Meeting of April 26, 1982 were approved as submitted. 6. There being no objections, the Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 20, 1982 were accepted for filing as submitted. 7. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, Warrants as audited per Warrant List of May 10, 1982, in the amount of $323,231.65, and Payroll of April 30, 1982, in the amount of $21,902.46, were approved for payment as audited. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilman Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. 10. Filing of Disclosure Statements for Beaumont Community Improvement Agency Members and Staff Pursuant to State Law. On Motion by Agency Member Shaw, seconded by Agency Member May, the disclosure statements as filed by the following agency members and staff are filed for public record as part of the requirement for financial disclosure for the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency: 1. James B. Thompson, Chairman. 2. Richard Hammel, Vice- Chairman. 3. Fred Shaw, Agency Member. 4. William Lowry, Agency Member. 5. L. W. May, Agency Member. 6. Norman J. Davis, Executive Director. 7. Edna J. Burkett, Secretary. 8. Julia White, Agency Deputy Secretary. 9. Gary Phelps, Public Works Director and 10. Ronney Wong, Director of Finance. 11. T. Milford Harrison, Planning Director. 12. H. 12. Dougherty, City Attorney. 13. Gary Croft, Chief Planner. City Engineer. AYES: Agency Member May, Shaw, Hammel and Chairman Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Agency Member Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. 8. Review and Consider a Project Area and Preliminary Community Improve- ment Plan within the Beaumont Community Improvement Survey Area and Adoption of RESOLUTION NO. BCI 82 -8 - Approving the Selection of the Boundaries of the Beaumont Community Improvement Project Area; and Accepting and Approving the Preliminary Plan for the Beaumont Project Area. Marshall Krupp, Consultant for the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency addressed the Agency, explaining what was beinq presented to them at this time, and pointing out on the map the proposed project areas. Mr. Krupp then answered questions from the audience. Page 1 On Motion by Agency Member Hammel, seconded by Agency Member May, the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency adopts Resolution No. BCI 82 -8, approving the selection of the boundaries of the Beaumont Community Improvement Project Area; and accepting and approving the preliminary plan for the Beaumont Project Area. AYES: Agency Members May, Shaw, Hammel and Chairman Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Agency Member Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. 9. RESOLUTION NO. BCI 82 -9 - Approving and Adopting Procedures for the Preparation, Processing and Review of Environmental Documents. On Motion by Agency Member Shaw, seconded by Agency Member May, the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency adopts Resolution No. BCI 82 -9, approving and adopting procedures for the preparation, processing and review of environmental documents. AYES: Agency Members May, Shaw, Hammel and Chairman Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Agency Member Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. 31. On Motion by Agency Member Shaw, seconded by Agency Member May, the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency directs the Executive Director to schedule one or two community information meetings to advise the community of the contents of the preliminary plan and the contents of the community improvement policy. AYES: Agency Members May, Shaw, Hammel and Chairman Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Agency Member Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. 11. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - The Draft General Plan. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:07 P.M. City Manager: I would like to ask Paul Secord to indicate to you the response of the State Office of Planning and Research as regards their review of the draft general plan. Paul Secord, Beland /Associates: The EIR has now gone through a forty - five day review period as required by the State. This is a review which comes through the State clearinghouse, which approves all State agencies, and more or less, other agencies which might have an interest in the General Plan itself. There were four specific comments that unintelligible that process. One of the comments was from the Department of Conservation . . . . let me back up a little bit. In terms of the kinds of actions which are required for Unintel. legible it is our responsibility as the firm who prepared the document, to respond to all these comments, and the lead agency, being the City, is required to include a detailed response to them, and that is some- thing that is part of our contract, and we would prepare. I didn't see anything in the comments that would substantially change any of the policy recommendations, major policy recommendations, or in any way alter the recommendations of the land use plan, or any of the land use plan recommendations. None of the comments really dealt with any of the factors which had come under controversy over the last several meetings. As I said, there are four major comments. The first one came from the Department of Conservation, and it had to do with the apparent lack of consideration relative to prime agricultural lands. I think, in part, these comments resulted from the fact that the people in the State Department of Conservation, when they look at a statement in a General Plan that says the entire area is Class II Soils (prime) ,agricultural, that they see that as being essentially the same kind of agricultural land that you see in the San Joaquin Valley, or the Imperial Valley, and they are not specifically familiar with the kinds of conditions which apply to Beaumont. They have asked for more detailed information, quantitative information on the amount of agricultural lands, the dollar value of agricultural lands within the area, and we can provide that. In fact, the most viable agricultural property in the community is included in the Paqe 2 rural - residential agricultural area. Portions of the specific plan area, which are currently under agriculture are, for the most part, dry farming - barley - and only about half of that is actually under cultivation, and doesn't really represent an economically viable kind of use there. So, I think we can deal with this quantitatively. City Manager: Did you point out the problem to the State, also, that is created with the use of this land during certain periods of the year in terms of the City. How it gets buried under the soil that comes off of that land. Paul Secord: I am not sure exactly. . . City Manager: The dirt blowing into the City . . . Paul Secord: Right. As I say, I really don't see any major problem. There was a comment from Cal -Trans recognizing the fact that the General Plan could not serve as a complete environmental under the General Plan EIR - was not adequate as the complete environmental documentation for major projects. And they gave a series of recommendations - information that they would like to see - these are the traffic data for a specific kind of development proposal. This sort of data that they are asking for is the kind of information that would be included in any specific plan submittal, to be done by a traffic consultant when a major development proposal was, in fact - came forward. We didn't see - and I don't think there would be any need from the standpoint of the General Plan - to generate a whole lot of traffic impact data for hypothetical developments, which may or may never, in fact, occur. That is more appropriately taken care of at the specific plan stage. That was the intent of the General Plan. There was a comment from the Air Resources Board asking for more detail on air quality. It has been our experience that, General Plan EIRs and comments, that the Air Resources Board always asks the local jurisdic- tions to do major air quality studies. The basic quantitative data that they have asked for is something that is easy for us to compile and include in the report. In terms of the potential - in fact, the General Plan, on air quality, the air quality problems - those few problems that the area does (tape changed - discussion continues as follows) . . and policy. The one comment they did make that could have an effect - they asked for a Statement of Consistency with regional growth projections. The SCAG 1982 projections have now come out. They were not available when we were preparing the plan. As a result of those projections, the kinds of development intensities that are recommended by the plan are within the SCAG 1982 projections, so there is no problem in making that Statement of Consistency with the regional requirements. There was also final comment from the Water Resources Board with a standard list of conservation matters that they asked to be appended to the document. They don't require any comment. We just include it with the report. Are there any questions concerning any of this material. I was pleased to find out there were no comments relative to basic land use policy - there were no comments concerning the housing element, which is traditionally something that the State has given a lot of consideration to. So, I was pleased that the comments were really very minor. And there were no comments from the County. City Manager: So, based upon these comments, what is your recommenda- tion to Council. Paul Secord: My recommendation would be that we prepare the quantita- tive data. I don't think . . . and include that in the final EIR, as would be required by the State. I don't think that there is any information in the comments that requires further consideration or any action. There is certainly nothing there that would alter any of the discussions, or any of the areas that have been under controversy in the last meetings. City Manager: You are saying the Council is in a position to go ahead and close its hearings when and if - at any point that it chooses - once it has satisfied itself as regards to public hearings. Paul Secord: That is correct. In fact, the review period is - so far as the State is concerned - the State Clearinghouse and governmental agencies are concerned - it is now closed. There is no requirement these comments go back to the Planning Commission or anything like that Page 3 for consideration. It is entirely up to the Council. Mayor Thompson: There is no requirements that it go back. Paul Secord: No. Mayor Thompson: But with the public input that you had. City Manager: We are not speaking of the public hearing. We are speaking only of this report here. Paul Secord: Just about the State comments. That is all I am talking about. Mayor Thompson: Okay. I have got the comments mixed up. Paul Secord: I was just talking about the comments from the State. That is all. Mayor Thompson: Do you have anything else on this Norm. City Manager: No, gentlemen, I think you should continue with the public hearing. I have several items I would like to read into the record later. But I would suggest that you hear from anybody who has not been heard from previously, and we will see where we go from there. Mayor Thompson: Okay. The public hearing is open. You have heard the report from Mr. Secord as far as the response from the State agencies have come. Anyone in the audience that hasn't been heard on this pro- posed General Plan. If they wish to have input, or wish to speak to a certain particular area, feel free to rise and give us your name and address, and we will go from there. Ernie Shamblean, 1278 California Avenue: I purchased an R -3 lot a couple of years ago in the 900 block of Edgar Avenue in the anticipa- tion of building a couple of units on it, and I would like it to stay that way. It would be on the west side of the street. Jess Archer, 217 West 4th: I purchased a lot at 217 West 4th that was zoned M -1, and I would sure like it to stay. Here is a sketch of roughly where it is at. Ray Schooley, 1104 Via Conejo, Escondido: I see one major big problem coming up with the General Plan that is proposed here. And, by the way, I think you have all done a real fine job on it. However, there is a definite lack, by looking at this map, of high density property. That, in the economy that we are in today, it is the only way that people are going to be able to afford to put a roof over their head. Whether they are renting, or whether they are buying - whether they are retired or whether they are a young couple just starting out - whatever the circumstances. It is going to be the vehicle of a town- house, a condominium. If they are renting, it is going to have to be a well - planned apartment that appeals to them, with rents what they are today. You have a lot of mobile home zoning in there, but not everyone finds mobile homes to be the answer. I don't know what your intent is with the residential planned unit development designation, if, in fact, you have left that open - but if the project is well - planned and well designed and merits perhaps the bonus of a higher density, if that is your intent, perhaps some of that land can be used to take care of the necessary higher densities to make affordable housing in this town. But, in looking at the map, it is very obvious that there is only - I see only two spots on there that are R -3 or higher density zoning that would take this type of development. Maybe Gary can answer that question for me, or perhaps you are going to keep the residential planned unit development zoning open ended so that you have that option without coming all the way back through this process to do a General Plan amendment to get these types of projects through. If that is the only type of housing that you can afford in this town. City Manager: Ray, this has been brought before the Council previously, and I feel that it is one of the concerns the Council ought to address when it makes its final decision as regards what the maximum allowable development or number of units may be within the PUD areas, and so, PacrP 4 hopefully, the Council will address that when they make their final decision. You are the second or third one who has. . . Ray Schooley: I would also request, too, that any zoning that has recently been adopted or approved be made a permanent part of this General Plan. So, once again, people that have planned projects and worked on them and had them approved through your government procedure do not have to go through all this again on General Plan amendments, to correct what they have already, perhaps, like in my case, spent a year working on. I would think everybody would think that to be pretty fair, because we have already been through hearing processes to get some of these changes, and not all of them are on this General Plan as proposed right now - that should, hopefully, be made a part of your approval of the final map. Mayor Thompson: Can you point out specific areas. Ray Schooley: Yes. Just south of First Street on Beaumont Avenue we recently went through some zone change hearings in that area where some C zone and some industrial zone - and it will take a while, I guess, to update the map. There is also several other areas, I believe, up on the north end of Beaumont Avenue where there has been some zone change. I see one of mine up there which is now commercial at the corner of 14th and Beaumont is shown on the map. But, I believe, further north of me there were some others that are not totally designated on there right now. I don't know specifically what they were, but I know there were hearings on them at the same time I was going through the hearing process. Mayor Thompson: I would like to ask Paul a question. When this input that you are getting, and have been getting for the last few weeks, when you evaluate this, do you then review the updated zoning that has happened more recently than what you probably had before you started, or at the time you started this . . . Paul Secord: Yes. In those areas which are inconsistent from the policy map as approved by the Planning Commission, would be reconsidered. Mayor Thompson: Does that answer your question. Ray Schooley: Yes. I just wanted to be sure that, again, we didn't have to go through the entire process, again, when you understood that your property had been zoned by going through this process once already. I think once your map is finally adopted, that it will probably take General Plan amendment process, or procedure, to get changes at that particular time, which is a lengthy, drawn out procedure. I think that on the Planned Use Development, you have an excellent tool there to really control a lot of these projects, and get the type of architectural that you want in this town, and the type of open space. Let a lot of these developers put in their own improvements and take some of the burden off of the City. I think that you are going to find, that in order to make that feasible, and make these projects attractive, and take some of that burden off the City for the improvements that they put in, really and truly the only way to make it economically work is approve some higher densities where they are needed, so please don't overlook that. Thank you for your time. James Moseley, 1117 Beaumont Avenue: I own five lots there. 1117 and 1121. Two of them faces Beaumont Avenue, and two of them faces Euclid on the back side. I would like to get all five of them the same as Beaumont Avenue due to the fact that I have put them together over the years, and that was my intent. But having the low density on the back side, and not the same as that on Beaumont Avenue. James D. Miller, 1846 West George, Banning: My sister and I own a lot at roughly 4th and Olive across from the processing plant, which, if I understand the map correctly, is suggesting to be changed to residential from the M -1, which is what it was when we purchased it. We do not own the whole corner lot there, but at the time we purchased it that lot was M -1, and the corner lot that finishes out that corner of the block was M -1, across the street was an M -1 lot, across the alley to the west, I believe, there is a building there that was at one time used for an organ repair, I believe. There is a woodworking shop back in there, I believe, I am not positive. There is an electric place and another place on the back of the electric, I forget what is AartA �; in there. I believe that should remain commercial. That was what it was purchased for light manufacturing, and it certainly is not going to be consistent with my plans if that is zoned into a residential area with so much of the M -1 lot being around in that area in the first place. I don't know what the plans would be, I would have a question of someone of the existing businesses that are there in that area, what is going to happen to them? Are they going to have to move out, will the lots be re- zoned, will it be a part of the general amendment procedure that was commented on a few minutes ago, or what would happen to those areas there. And if there is that much commercial, or light duty manufacturing technically, in that area, that area should remain as such to be consistent with the actual zoning and application of the land thereof. Charles Medina, 454 Wellwood Avenue: I have been tied in with the Rangel Park area in there . . . a lot of investments . . . . it starts way back in 1910 when my Granddad moved up in this area . . . little by little putting in one property going in through there, but yet the residents that have been there have been there quite a few years. I feel like the gentleman feels, if there is going to be an M -1, I feel the whole thing should be an M -1, not just part of it. There are still quite a few residents in there, and it has been in and out of manufacturing in there. There has been some new manufacturing in there. All I have seen is for sale signs in there. The majority of them really haven't kept them up. I realize there is a lot of graffitti down there that the kids spray and all that, but if you go down through there, there are some run down homes through there that do need work. Hopefully this redevelopment agency will come in and do something in there, but as for the majority of the people I have talked to in that area, that have their homes there, that are paid for, and still figure on staying in there, they will still like to keep it as an R -1. Now what took place years ago to make it M -1 is something different. In speaking with them, they would like to make it all R -1 as it was before. (Mr. Medina's input is incomplete due to the fact the microphone is apparently not working, and there is a great deal of background noise overriding Mr. Medina's voice). Mr. Simoff, 1385 Michigan Avenue: At the first meeting I say something about plan. I don't think . . . . that all territory of the City, all City, now become R -1. I have property on Magnolia, north of 7th Street, east side, second lot. I paid for 1 $20,000. South of my property, I don't see these people here south of 8th Street, three lots, $75,000 for high density. Now this is R -1, and I believe they could build duplexes. $75,000 in property (Again, Mr. Simoff's input is incomplete due to very heavy background noise overriding his voice). Again, I say, it must stay high density 6th Street will give you Mayor Thompson: Is there anyone else who has not had input in this particular hearing on this Draft General Plan. Anyone who has not had input that wishes to be heard. City Manager: Let me read these letters into the record. "I own the metal spinning shop at 205 W 4th Street, southwest corner of 4th and Walnut, and purchased the property two years ago as M -1. It has been since the 50s, and I would like it to remain so." He is asking that it not be changed. This is Nicholas W. Schnitzius. And here is another letter, also addressed to myself. "I am writing to you in mgards to my property located at 217 W. 4th Street." This is Mr. Archer, he just spoke tonight. This is from Mr. Severson. Has he presented himself before. "I am the owner of the property located at 401 W. 4th Street, southwest corner of 4th and Olive. This property and the surrounding area is presently zoned M -1. I request that it remain M -1 ". Signed Arvid L. Severson. Then a petition came in today, directed to the Honorable Mayor J. B. Thompson and Members of the City Council. "We the undersgined property owners, located in the 1000 block of Euclid Avenue, understand that our R -3 lots will be changed to R -1 lots in the proposed General Plan. We, therefore, respectfully request that our R -3 lots, which were purchased and valued as such, remain R -3 lots per the current General Plan. Please remit our request to the proper committee ". It is signed by Susan D,n- ti Brown, Leroy & Rosaline Wilson, Robert McDougell, Robert Landre, Alice Rote, William and Ronalee Salinas, Gladys Westbrook, Marguriete Eveland, Elsa Berndt and Steve Pratzer, all of them in the 1000 block of Euclid. Mayor Thompson: Are there any questions from the Council. Okay. We may close the public hearing at this time and we may make a decision to accept what has been presented as such. We may make a decision to refer this back to the Planning Commission and Beland /Associates for evaluation of the input from the citizens on this particular plan. We can close the public hearing and refer it to the Planning Commission and Beland /Associates with specific instructions, limited scope. Or we may continue the public hearing if we find it necessary. We have those options. Councilman Shaw: Tom. We do have a say in the final adoption. I would like to put that in the record, that we do. Mayor Thompson: Yes, it does come back to us. City Manager: Yes, it is your final decision. You can do anything. You can change that thing completely up there so far as your final decision. Mayor Thompson: I have a question before we do anything here on the public hearing. Once we close the hearing, and it is referred - if it is referred - whatever we do with it. When it comes back there has to be another notice of public hearing. City Manager: No, there will be no more hearings. If hearing, the hearings are closed. It goes back to the Commission reacts, sends back whatever - to reconfirm or they make some changes, then it is up to you within anything you please at that point, but I would like to a little bit, once you have closed the hearing. you close the Commission, the this recommendation, reason you can do explore that just Mayor Thompson: That would be germaine to the hearing, wouldn't it? City Manager: The exploring of what you can do, that is legitimate enough. Mayor Thompson: Well, before we close the hearing should we go ahead - would you like to do that? City Manager: Let me just ask you all a couple or three questions here, just to clarify what we may do in terms of sending it back to the Commission, if that is what you choose, and that is what I would recom- mend you do, based upon the requests that have come to you, I am sure you all want to do this. Let me explore some of these areas, and Gary too, the two of you could comment. The areas of concern that have been expressed to the Council - I will just run down through them here one by one. The matter of the low density going from low density on the map in the little spot - the forty acres up there on Brookside to Residential - Agriculture. Does that concern have to be referred back to the Commission for their reaction. Gary Croft: No, that was fully explored at the Commission level. City Manager: Okay. So that is an item, gentlemen, that you do not need to refer - but if you desire to make that R -A consistent with the request that I personally made to you on behalf of the property owners that I spoke to in that area, and represented that that would be the City's position, then you may do that without referring it. Mayor Thompson: The area you are talking about is . . . City Manager: That is the little forty acre - you want to point it out Gary. That is low density on the map, and it was requested that it be made residential - agriculture. Another item which was spoken to again tonight, which has been spoken to previously, is the planned unit development area, which is the massive areas on the map there in yellow - the brighter yellow, and you will recall that Paul indicated to us previously that this - in terms of the presentation - the number of units per acre would be about five to the acre. Does this have to go back Paul for any reconsideration by the Commission as to whether or not it could be eight or ten or twelve or fifteen. Paul Secord: It wouldn't have to go back, but I would like to make one Page 7 point of clarification on it. The actual maximum densities that would be allowed in those areas. The five units per acre is an overall densi- ty that would apply to a given specific plan area. This would not preclude a given area having development in densities of twenty units per acre. It is an overall figure. The consideration of those density figures would not have to go back because they were considered in some detail by the Planning Commission. City Manager: So, just an example. If the Council decided that they wanted to change the figure in the General Plan, from what it appears in there, from five to - pick a figure of say nine to the acre, for example - they could do that. Paul Secord: Yes. Councilman Shaw: We do have some latitude on that then. Paul Secord: Yes. You can make any change. City Manager: The R -3 that was spoken to by so many people here. Does that have to go back for reconsideration by the Commission? Gary Croft: Yes. Because that was not explored, really, in any detail. So that would need to be considered by the Commission. City Manager: The requests for the return to M -1, wherever it was asked for . Would it have to be reconsidered? . Gary Croft: No. That was explored at the Commission level, and they recommended leaving it in the residential. City Manager: Okay. The R -A to Commercial on the south side, which was a recent action of the Council, that would have to go back, because it was not . . . Gary Croft: Yes. It was only considered as a zone change at the Commission. City Manager: The commercial around Beaumont Avenue to Euclid, which was spoken to both for and against by different parties here, does that have to go back. That was originally considered by the Commission. Gary Croft: Yes, that was explored at some length by the Commission, and this is the recommendation. City Manager: It does not have to go back. Gary Croft: Yes. That is correct. It does not have to go back. City Manager: That would be at the Council's final discretion. So really, if I have touched all bases, I might ask you gentlemen, do you recall any other bases, as such, that were testified to, either Paul or Gary or the Councilmen, that ought to be considered here in terms of whether it has to go back to the Commission. Paul Secord: There is one other point, I think, that would probably have to go back to the Commission, and that is relative to an industrial designation next to the sewage treatment plant. Specifically in the area in there that is the treatment area for the poultry pro- cessing. There was a recommendation that that area be included to a light manufacturing. City Manager: All right, gentlemen, in that case, based upon that, unless somebody can think of something else, there are three things then, if you desire, you should send back to the Commission for their reconsideration, and that is the only term that you need to use. You can be specific in terms of the request made, or you can say the R -3 in total be reconsidered. Or what was previously R -3 that is now being recommended for R -1. Then the R -A on the south side, and the R -A next to the sewer plant. So there are really only three areas that you need to refer back to the Commission then. Mayor Thompson: I have a question. On the M -1 zone in the Rangel Park area, does that proposal, which you see on the board, create a spot Parry R zoning. If that plan is adopted, and the zoning map is amended, or drawn to accommodate that proposal, does that create a spot zone. Gary Croft: No. A spot zone is generally considered a single parcel or two or three parcels together. But when you have an area encompassing four or five square blocks, that would not be considered spot zoning,. A spot designation. I might point out, the existing General Plan currently calls that residential. It does happen to be improperly zoned industrial. Technically, our current zoning map is inconsistent with our adopted General Plan. This is simply reaffirming the resi- dential. Councilman Shaw: What is the general consensus of the people in that area. They would like to remain residential, right? Gary Croft: The residents would like to remain residential. It may be possible to prepare a more detailed exhibit for the Council that would clarify who the individuals are that own investment for industrial purposes, and those who want residential. A more detailed definition or line could be drawn for future consideration. Councilman Shaw: Well I think it would be an imposition, I mean, to find -- that those people that have lived here for a good many years into a different zoning. I mean, after all, I know if I lived in that particular area I wouldn't want something like industry or something slapped up along side of me. Gary Croft: I grew up in Los Angeles in an area that went industrial. I am familiar with that situation. I can share sentiments from both sides. Mayor Thompson: So we have how many areas to consider. City Manager: Really three areas to refer back to the Commission for consideration. You probably ought to refer the whole area of former R -3, or presently zoned R -3, back for reconsideration, at least in the areas -- it would be up to Gary to bring out the precise areas that were asked for by the residents here who have spoken as regards changing from the proposed R -1 to an R -3 designation. The R -A south of town at First Street down there along Beaumont Avenue to a Commercial designation, and the R -A next to the sewer plant from R -A to an M -1 designation. So those are the three things that you ought to ask for reconsideration by the Planning Commission. Then, whether they say yes or no, then you come back and you make the final decision, whether, again, it is yes or no. Mayor Thompson: Okay, you have heard testimony. Do you have anything else that you would like clarified. Do you have any other input that you would like to add or questions that you would like to ask. City Manager: If you feel secure in your minds that you have got all the public input that you need, well then you can, at this time, close the hearing, and refer it to a point where you can get yourself in a position of taking an action. That is where you are. Mayor Thompson: Okay, we have had numerous public hearings, public meetings, on this proposed General Plan draft, draft of the General Plan, and we have heard from many facets of the community. We have asked questions of the consultant and the planner, and I think the subject has been well explored publicly. I think everybody has had an opportunity to have input. I will call one last time. If anybody has not been heard, and wishes to have input better say so now. John Thomas, 21202 Kroll Lane, Huntington Beach: Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council, and Norm Davis, I just wanted to ask a question, first of all for clarification. First of all, Gary is pointing to a piece of property we own and have been in the process in the last two years of master planning out. The question I wanted to ask for my own clarification is this. Since the majority of that property is classified as a residential planned unit development, what is the over- all maximum density that is given to that type of planned unit develop- ment. Is there a set number, or is that number still flexible and is to be chosen by this City Council? Mayor Thompson: We will have to refer your question to either Gary or Paul. Paul. Who would prefer to answer that? Paul Secord: The overall density as currently shown for specific plan residential planned unit development is five units per acre. That would be overall density for the entire property. That would not mean that, once again, that you couldn't have a development that would be a substantially higher density then that specific portion of it. That overall five units per acre includes street areas, and open space areas, and if you had an elementary school, that would be included in the equation as well. So, in fact, dependent on the size of the specific plan area, and the types of improvements that you are considering, that would actually specify the actual densities that you would be allowed. John Thomas: My only concern in this area is basically this. We have prepared, through Touns Corporation and Webb Associates a specific plan as to how we want to develop the property, and we, in turn, have sub- mitted these maps which have been at the City Planning Department I guess for the last year and a half, and I have attended the citizens committee meetings on the type of development which is to occur in this area. The maps and the site plans that we have for the development of this piece of property is approximately 7.5 units per acre. My only concern at the present time is with all the planning that we have done on the piece of property. With all the final site plans that we have prepared, and have submitted to the City in the last year and a half, will this type of maximum density of being five units per acre, we would have to completely redo all of our site planning. And that is the only thing I am concerned about right now, if the City Council approves that minimum density of five per acre, then we, in turn, will have a specific plan map that we can't follow through with, and that we have been ready to -- actually go ahead with . . . (Tape changed, discussion continues as follows) City Manager: . . . .change this five unit per acre designation to something higher, in your case you said seven. You have also heard Paul tell the Council that issue does not have to go back to the Commission for further consideration. The Council can make the final determination if they choose to pick some other figure at the time they make their decision on the . . . John Thomas: Yes. I just wanted you to be aware that we have done a lot of work, and that our work has been in the City, the Planning Department, the citizens committee, for a year and a half, and I would like -- I do not want to be limited to a maximum of five. I would like the City Council to consider another type of density unit. Preferably 7.5 or 8, or perhaps maybe a range based upon the plan rather than a set maximum number. Paul Secord: Can I ask a question for clarification. The equation here - seven units per acre. Does that include commercially designated property as shown on your plan. Was that area as well included in your equation for five units per acre, or did that apply just to the residential area. John Thomas: That applied just to the residential area. Paul Secord: In fact, under the specific plan, the entire specific plan area, which in your case includes fairly substantial amount of highway service commercial, would be included in the equation as well. And I suspect, due to the amount of commercial there, that the overall densi- ty would, in fact, probably would be five plus. I think your project would probably be in the ranges that are currently recommended by the plan. Ray Schooley: Paul brought up an interesting item there. My commercial property, right here, which is six acres, is part of this parcel to the rear of it designed for planned unit development. I know that all of the studies that I have been working on for townhouses or condominiums work out to about twelve to thirteen units to the acre overall, after you put in your open space and your tennis courts and swimming pools etcetera. So I would like to know, seeing as though that is already zoned commercial, if I would also be entitled to this so- called number for those six acres of allowable units on the rest of my property. It is really a problem when you try to come up with a . . . parry l n Councilman Shaw: In other words, you are asking for a trade -off. Ray Schooley: Yes. It is a serious problem when you are trying to come up with a product that the public can afford, and work some trade -offs that is good for the City at the same time. It is a dilemma that every developer finds himself in today. I don't think five units per acre is going to make it for the developer. I mean you can zone it that way, but if you don't get any affordable housing built as a result of that, what has been accomplished. I think you should probably leave it somewhat openended. That you make the ultimate decision based upon what the developers are willing to do as a trade -off for you and to help the City to make our project more beautiful, etc. And if it doesn't make sense, if people can't afford it, it can't be built. And it won't bring taxes to the City either. That is a big decision. Mayor Thompson: I don't have an answer for you, and I don't think anybody else does either. I don't even think Paul would have one at this particular point. Ray Schooley: Maybe that is why, perhaps, the ultimate decision for density should be left up to the Council based on a case by case, plan by plan situation to determine what is best for the City. What the people can afford, as well as what the developer can make Councilman Hammel: Well then you wouldn't need a master plan. Why not just forget about it. Ray Schooley: Yes you do because the way you come up the PUD process is that it is openended enough to do some trade -offs and give you the power to say to the developer, we like your project. We like the aesthetics of it. We think it would be an asset to the City. We like the fact that you are putting in some parks, some open space, some tennis courts that we don't have to worry about. That you are giving a lot of amenities for the people to use on -site to take the pressure off of some of the other public facilities. In turn, you will say, Mr. Developer, we will give you the density that you require to make this feasible and affordable housing for the public, and, in turn, for the extras you would put into the project. That is my understanding of what PUD is all about. You ask me for something, and I, in turn, ask you for perhaps an increase in density to make it all work for everybody. Councilman Shaw: In essence, what you are saying is if you use the commercial area, you want something that would compensate you in the residential area as far as units are concerned. Mr. Schooley: Well, I only brought the subject up because Paul did. I am trying to find out really where I stand with regard to what we can put in there that is affordable. Otherwise, we will never get the financing and never get off the ground. City Manager: Probably five would be a fair statement due to the fact if it is separately zoned it would not compute out with the whole acreage, the planned unit development area would be exclusive of the prior zoned commercial area. Is that true or not. Paul Secord: Yes, that is true. In fact, it was his desire to include in a specific plan In a case like that it would have to be considered on an individual basis, but in a case like that you would have a pretty strong position (Mr. Secord's comments, and comments from an unidentified person are almost completely blocked out by background noise.) Paul Secord: That is correct. He would be developing it as a given specific plan as a whole unit. Mayor Thompson: I can't give you an answer. Mr. Schooley: I can understand. I am just asking you to consider this. To leave the power within your vote up here at the Council level to see each project and see what the trade -offs are. This would really - it is of as much benefit to the City as it is to the developer. It is nano ii almost to be a process asked for a better - much better overall planned project and therefore density increases are granted as a trade -off. If it is a nice project. Give us something extra. Mayor Thompson: We have had a lot of points that will have to be con- sidered I am sure, so we have had the public input, we will now have to evaluate it and under those circumstances we will close this public hearing at 9:05 P.M. The Public Hearing was closed at 9:05 P.M. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont refers the Draft General Plan to the Planning Commission for reconsideration as follows: 1. All property presently appearing as R -3 zone to be reconsidered as R -3 in the General Plan. 2. The R -A at First and Beaumont Avenue to be reconsidered for commercial. 3. The R -A around the Sewer Plant to be reconsidered for M -1 zone. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilman Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. On Motion by Mayor Thompson, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont directs the Planning Staff to do a blow -up in consideration of that area commonly referred to as Rangel Park area considered for R -1, for the present land use in that area, giving a different color for different land uses, also considering the potential vacant residential and potential vacant industrial. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilman Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. 12. URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 546 - Amending Subsection (D) 303 of Ordinance No. 515 (Uniform Building Code) and Declare this Ordinance as being Urgency Pursuant to Section 36934 of the Government Code for the State of California. This agenda item was referred back to the City Manager and the City Attorney for clarification. 13. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -28 - Approving the Riverside County Arts Plan as Prepared by the Greater Riverside Arts Foundation. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -28 approving the Riverside County Ants Plan as prepared by the Greater Riverside Arts Foundation. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilman Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. 14. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -29 - Expressing the City of Beaumont's Concern Over the Frequency of Major Traffic Accidents in the Area involving Commer- cial Trucks; Expressing Concern over Hazardous Driving Practices of Truckers on Local Highways; and Support Current Efforts to Alleviate present Conditions. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -29 expressing the City of Beaumont's concern over the frequency of major traffic accidents in the area involving commercial trucks; expressing concern over hazardous driving practices of truckers on local highways; and support current efforts to alleviate present conditions. n 1 7 AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilman Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. 15. DECISION PENDING: Appeal filed by Best View Land Development Company of Planning Commission Decision. On Motion by Mayor Thompson, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont denies the appeal filed by the Best View Land Development Company of Planning Commission decision, and the provisions of the Planning Commission conditions be implemented. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilman Lowry. ABSTAIN: Councilman Hammel. 16. Rescinding Previous Action of Council to Set Public Hearing on Tract No. 18414. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont rescinds their previous action to set the matter for hearing before the City Council. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilman Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. 17. Recommendation to Request January 1, 1982 Population Certification. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont recites the findings of the State Department of Finance estimated pursuant to Sections 2227 and 2228 of the Revenue and Taxation Code that the City of Beaumont has a population of 7,212 and authorizes the City Manager to request certification by the Controller of the State of California of this population figure for the City of Beaumont as of January 1, 1982. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilman Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. 18. Request for Acceptance of Population Figures for Inclusion in SCAG 82 Growth Forecast Policy Document. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the population figures as provided by SCAG as submitted for inclusion in the SCAG 82 Growth Forecast Policy Document. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilman Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. 19. Request from Weldon Blain for City Abandonment of Certain Strip of Land Adjacent to his Service Station on 4th Street. This agenda item was referred to the Planning staff for a report to be returned to the Council on June 14, 1982. 20. Authorization for Mayor to Sign Proposal from Book Publishing Company for Ordinance Analysis and Report and Code Structural Plan for City of Beaumont. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the Mayor to sign the proposal from Book Publishing Company for Ordinance Analysis and Report and Code Structural Plan for City of Beaumont. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilman Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. 21. Consideration of Claim Filed by Jimmie T. Duran Against the City of Beaumont. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont rejects the claim of Jimmie T. Duran Against the City of Beaumont and refers it to the insurance company. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilman Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. 22. Study and Recommendation Concerning Installation of Stop Signs at Intersection of First and Michigan. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont directs the City Manager to draw up a resolution to install stop signs at the intersection of First and Michigan adequate to a77eviate the situation, to be returned to the City Council at their regular meeting of May 24, 1982. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilman Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. 23. Authorization for City Manager to Sign Application for Title III -B Funds for Senior Citizen Program. (RFP AAA 82 -7). On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the City Manager to Sign Application for Title III -B Funds for Senior Citizen Program. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilman Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. 24. Request from Beaumont Taxi for Franchise in City of Beaumont. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont awards a franchise to Beaumont Taxi for the operation of a taxi service within the city limits of Beaumont, in accordance with Ordinance No. 293. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilman Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. 25. Request for Interim Zoning - Plot Plan No. 1017. Universal Medical Development. Location: S.W. Corner Highland Springs Avenue and 8th Street. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont grants interim zoning on the southwest corner of 8th Street and Highland Springs Avenue as shown on Exhibit 2. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilman Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. 26. Structural Report Concerning Gymnasium at Civic Center. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont directs the City Manager to obtain estimates from structural engineers for conducting a structural analysis of the gymnasium; and it is further directed that the gymnasium be closed pending the results of the analysis. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilman Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. P;; r i- 1 4 27. Submittal of Financial Report for Period Ending March 31, 1982 for Filing Pursuant to Government Code. The Financial Report for Period Ending March 31, 1982 was accepted for filing as submitted. 28. ORAL COMMUNICATION: There was no oral communication. 29. Request for Approval of Temporary Maintenance Worker in the Public Works Department. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves a temporary position of maintenance worker for the Public Works Department. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilman Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. ADD _ITEM Request for authorization to expend funds for Title Search re Flamingo Motel Condemnation. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council directs that any funds to be expended in regard to this request shall be taken out of the Building Department budget. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilman Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:37 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Page 15 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. M BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL AND BEAUMONT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AGENCY MINUTES OF APRIL 26, 1982 The Beaumont City Council and the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency met in a joint regular meeting at 7:30 P.M., Monday, April 26, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor /Chairman Thompson presiding. The invocation was given by Councilman Lowry. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Councilman Shaw. On Roll Call, the following Council /Agency Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. There being no additions, deletions or corrections, the Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of April 12, 1982 and Adjourned Meeting of April 19, 1982 were approved as submitted. There being no objections, the Minutes of Planning Commission meeting of April 6, 1982 were accepted for filing as submitted. 7. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, Warrants as audited per Warrant List of April 26, 1982, in the amount of $53,189.01, and Payroll of April 16, 1982, in the amount of $27,289.71, were approved for payment as audited. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 11. RESOLUTION NO. BCI 82 -1 - Organizing the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency. On Motion by Agency Member Lowry, seconded by Agency Member May, the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency adopts Resolution No. BCI 82 -1. AYES: Agency Members May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Chairman Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 12. RESOLUTION NO. BCI 82 -2 - Formulating and Adopting Bylaws for the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency. On Motion by Agency Member Hammel, Seconded by Agency Member May, the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency adopts Resolution No. BCI 82 -2. AYES: Agency Members May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Chairman Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 13. RESOLUTION NO. BCI 82 -3 - Requesting the City Council of the City of Beaumont to provide the Administrative Service of the Staff of the City of Beaumont to Carry Out the Purposes of the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency. On Motion by Agency Member Shaw, seconded by Agency Member May, the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency adopts Resolution No. BCI 82 -3. AYES: Agency Members May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Chairman Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Page 1 14. RESOLUTION NO. BCI 82 -4 - Approving and Authorizing a Cooperative Agreement to be Executed by and Between the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency and the City of Beaumont pursuant to Section 33220 of the California Health and Safety Code. On Motion by Agency Member Hammel, seconded by Agency Member Lowry, the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency adopts Resolution No. BCI 82 -4. AYES: Agency Members May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Chairman Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 15. RESOLUTION NO. BCI 82 -5 - Approving and Adopting Conflict of Interest Code Requirements Pursuant to Section 87300 et.seq. of the California Government Code. On Motion by Agency Member Shaw, seconded by Agency Member May, the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency adopts Resolution No. BCI 82 -5. AYES: Agency Members May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Chairman Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 8. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -25 - Approving and Authorizing a Cooperative Agreement to be Executed by and between the City of Beaumont and the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency Pursuant to Section 33220 of the California Health and Safety Code. On Motion by Agency Member Lowry, seconded by Agency Member Hammel, the Beaumont City Council adopts Resolution No. 1982 -25. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 16. RESOLUTION NO. BCI 82 -6 - Approving and Authorizing the Execution of an Agreement by and between the City of Beaumont relative to the Advancement of Funds for the Formulation of a Community Improvement Program, Project Area(s) and Plan(s). On Motion by Agency Member Shaw, seconded by Agency Member May, the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency adopts Resolution No. BCI 82 -6. AYES: Agency Members May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Chairman Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 9. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -26 - Approving and Authorizing the Execution of an Agreement by and between the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency Authorizing the City to Advance Funds to the Agency for the Formulation of a Community Improvement Program Project Area(s) and Plan(s). On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the Beaumont City Council adopts Resolution No. 1982 -26. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 10. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -27 - Requesting and Approving the Transfer of a Contract between the City of Beaumont and Willdan Associates to be Encumbered by the Beaumont Community Improvement Agency. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman May, the Beaumont City Council adopts Resolution No. 1982 -27. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Pane 2 Mr. Schnitzius: Well, then we would be west, and we would be on the south side. City Manager: Southwest. Thank you. And then the other property is immediately west of that one then. Mr. Schnitzius: Right. Right next door to mine. Mayor Thompson: What was your neighbor's name. Mr. Schnitzius: My neighbor's name is Jess Archer. He had submitted plans to the City to build a factory there, which he hasn't put up yet, but he has the plumbing in for it, and the City lost his plans, so I don't know what is going to happen. Mayor Thompson: Okay. We have another person. Arvid Severson. 401 West 4th. Arvid Severson: I have recently purchased a piece of property, it is industrial property, out in that area. And I am presently attempting to get a business started. I moved into the area with the idea this was an M -1 area, with the intention that I wanted to get a factory going and, hopefully, employ some people. I would like to see that area stay as M -1. It is going to be a bit of an encum- brance if we change it to R -1 at this point. City Manager: What lot is yours, sir? Mr. Severson: On the southwest corner of 4th and Olive. The street address is 401 West 4th. I would like to request that that stay M -1 if at all possible. I think, in the long run, I think it is going to be a benefit to the community to have some industrial area out there that small businesses can be in, and allow us to, hopefully, employ some people. And I think that is going to help the community. Mayor Thompson: I think you'll notice that - what is that - purple, light purple - down on the bottom there. This area there. That is all primarily designated - I think that is light industrial up there on that . . . Mr. Severson: The purple is light industrial . Mayor Thompson: The yellow is . . . Mr. Severson: . is R -1. But there are quite a number of R -1 . or light manufacturing businesses in this area at the present time. Mayor Thompson: They are all existing. Mr. Severson: Yes. And I think you will probably hear from quite a few of them tonight, because . . . they are mixed in with residential, and I understand the problem. But I think it is going to present a problem regardless of which way it goes, and I think, in the long run, if we look at it from a standpoint of what it is going to mean in terms of employment, I think it would be beneficial to consider that as an industrial area. Councilman Lowry: Had that always been - that entire area - M -1, or is it kind of split up - spotted R -1 and M -1. Are you familiar with what . . . Unidentified: Excuse me, sir. If you will look on the map behind you on the southside Beaumont there. The light brown there is light industrial. Right there where your finger is at. Mr. Severson: I think when you go into the dark brown you go into M -2. Mayor Thompson: I have a Mr. Floyd A. Wilson, 450 Egan. Floyd Wilson: I just come to say I would like to see this stay M -1. We certainly wouldn't have bought there if it wouldn't have been a manufacturing zone. City Manager: What is your property, Sir. Page 4 Mr. Wilson: 450 Egan. I wouldn't know how to find it on the map, but. . . Unidentified: Your property is located right here at B. It is located right up here. It is the old Aztec Bakery property. Mayor Thompson: Excuse me. Mr. Wilson. How long have you been down there in that area. Mr. Wilson: We bought it in 1980. Prior to that we were over on 601 West 5th, and we sold that and bought over here. Mayor Thompson: We have one here for Gerry Brey. Gerry Brey, 408 Elm: The others are 451 and 495 B Street. I would like to see them stay M -1. This is also the reason why I bought the property. City Manager: Are there structures on all three of these? Mayor Thompson: You are representing Brey Electric. Mr. Brey: Right (to both questions). Councilman Hammel: You have been down there how many years. Mr. Brey: Since about 1965. I would appreciate anything you can do. Mayor Thompson: Mr. Helmut Hans, 411 Minnesota. Helmut Hans: I sold my house and put all my money in a building on 4th and Minnesota. 411 Minnesota. And I would like to have it that way. Mayor Thompson: What is the name of your business. Mr. Hans: H & F Engineering. Mayor Thompson: I am trying to see where that is. Right in there. Okay. Do you go around the corner. Mr. Hans: Yes. Mayor Thompson: Gary Capps. Gary Capps, 38654 Florence Avenue, Beaumont: Not in the City of Beaumont, I am in the County, but I have some property on Chestnut, a lot that I purchased about eighteen months ago. It was zoned R -3, and I bought it as an investment, and it will lose value, of course, if it is R -1. So I would like to request . . . City Manager: What is the address there. Mr. Capps: There is no address, but I have a parcel number. City Manager: Or a relationship on the street. Mr. Capps: Okay. It is between 7th and 8th on the east side of Chestnut. It is between 716 and 738. Those are the two neighbors. I have plans to build, but with financing what it is, those plans were suspended. City Manager: Between 716 and . . . Mr. Capps: . . and 738. May I make one other comment. I would like to take this opportunity to compliment the job that has been done by Mr. Davis since taking over the City of Beaumont. Having lived here for forty years and read the paper, and followed the City government the last few years, I really think he should be commended for the job that he has done in getting the City government straightened out. Mayor Thompson: I have Cecil Baker, at 412 Elm. Page 5 Cecil Baker, C -B Cabinet Shop: I own, altogether, five pieces of property around. I will have to show you on the map. Some of it is just vacant. City Manager: What streets. Mr. Baker: 412 Elm is where the business is at. Then on 4th and Elm, I own that corner lot at 4th and Elm. Next door to Gerry Brey. Then on the five acres across the street. I want to keep everything like it was before. I have been there twenty years - it was 1962 when I got there. City Manager: Do you have property on both sides of Elm. Mr. Baker: Yes. Mayor Thompson: You mean it has been that zoning for twenty years. Mr. Baker: Across the street, that house, it has been rezoned. I want to leave it all the same. Mayor Thompson: These were the ones I had the names of. That is why we took them first. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to have some input on this particular . . . okay, I will start here and then we will work back. Leroy. Leroy Wilson, 1014 Euclid: I bought that R -3 lot, and I would like to keep it that way. And there are seven of us that live there on that street. We are all up here tonight, and we would like to see it remain R -3. Mayor Thompson: On this block? City Manager: Give it to me again so I can get it down. What is your address again. Mr. Wilson: 1014 Euclid. City Manager: You have a house at that spot. Councilman Shaw: What are you, R -3? Mr. Wilson: Yes. And we would all like to keep them R -3 lots. City Manager: Do the others also have homes on that block. In other words you are asking that the whole 1000 block of Euclid remain R -3. Mr. Wilson: Yes. It is already R -3. Now, all of them are not R -3. But the ones that are, we would like to keep them that way. City Manager: Could we get Mr. Wilson's . . Mr. Wilson has made an expression on behalf of some of his neighbors. Could you ask that they hold their hands up and just indicate that. Okay - in support of the whole 1000 block of Euclid. Harry Wieck, 902 California Avenue: I have property at 902 California Avenue that is now R -3, and I would like it to remain so. I just wanted to put my word in, along with the rest. Mayor Thompson: You sent us a letter, didn't you. City Manager: Yes, I have it here and will give it to the Clerk. Mr. Wieck: I didn't make a separate note of the property address, but it is 902 California Avenue. Francis Dowling, 1345 Orange Avenue: The property I want to speak to was the piece on Highway 60, which was recently annexed to the City, and at the time it was annexed into the City, Norm said that although we didn't have the zoning, that there was some commercial zoning right at the entrance there where we are operating the fruit market, and I notice on the map here, it shows it all in yellow, residential. It shows some red there, which would be on the piece adjoining me, that Mr. Thomas has, but at the entrance there -- I had commercial on that frontage there, fronting the highway prior to the time it came into the City, and I think I should have the commercial on that portion again. City Manager: Could we establish, Francis, about how many acres do you have there where your commercial site is located. Let's enter that as your request. How many acres are you asking for commercial where you have your present commercial operation. Mr. Dowling: I am not sure what the . . . City Manager: Well, just roughly. One, five, three, whatever. Mr. Dowling: I think I should have about three acres in commercial from . . . Mayor Thompson: You are basically talking about the area right in there. Councilman Lowry: All along 60. Where the existing fruit market is. How far is it extending eastward from that street that goes into the fruit market. Your property - how far is it . . . Mr. Dowling: It goes down to here and here . . . Councilman Lowry: And how much is the commercial that you are asking. City Manager: Well, he is asking for approximately three acres more or less. Mr. Dowling: There is 58 acres in the total amount. Councilman Lowry: In other words, everything along 60, you are asking be made commercial. Mr. Dowling: Yes. Councilman Lowry: Everything along 60 on this property. About what depth. Mr. Dowling: I don't know what it was before on the depth. Gary Croft: The existing County shows it as agriculture, and it is operating as a fruit stand, which is permissible under plot plan approval. City Manager: May I suggest to you Francis, that if you had 300 feet deep from your fence line, it would probably take in the buildings you have got there easily, and a total of approximately three acres, if you would make that your request. You know, this is only going to be approximate. So long as you get that approximation in there. If you could spell that out as your request - approximately three hundred feet deep from the fence line, in total approximately three acres, I think that would give you what you need. Mr. Dowling: All right. I will spell that out. As Norm said, 300 feet deep, and approximately three acres for commercial. Paul Secord: If I may comment briefly. Because I think, in fact, the General Plan really reflects the kind of land use that you want. In fact there is highway service shown there, and the intent was for that highway service span to run the entire length of the frontage on Highway 60. The idea was that highway service, commercial oriented uses were allowable all along that frontage. So, in fact, the General Plan land use actually reflects what you are concerned about. That is a stated policy, and it is described - a portion of the General Plan - a specific plan guideline. The reason it is not called out in a hard line is because the actual width or depth of the frontage, varies somewhat depending on what kind of uses. We didn't want to set an arbitrary limit of 150 feet . . . City Manager: You have your statement on record. You have also heard Mr. Secord tell you, basically, you have got what you want, so you have got it two ways. Page 7 Mayor Thompson: Okay, Manny, you had something. Emanuel Baldi: I was here last meeting, and I want to make sure that - am I supposed to point out exactly where my property was. Because I don't think I did that and I don't want to be left out on it. City Manager: I don't remember what I wrote down last time. Mr. Baldi: I just want to say - you guys are pinning these guys right down to the corners and the . . . and I want to make sure my property at 7th and Chestnut doesn't get left out. City Manager: Well, let's make it clear. What the Council has to do is refer it back to the Commission, and in order for the Commission to get something precise, it has to be precise when it goes back. Mr. Baldi: Okay. I want to go on record that the corner of 7th and Chestnut, on 8th Street . . City Manager: Yes, I think I have got that. Mr. Baldi: You have got that one. Okay, I want it to stay R -3. Mayor Thompson: What about down there in the . . . Mr. Baldi: All the lands I have got on the other side of Southern California. All M -1. Gary Croft: Okay. That is already shown. Mayor Thompson: The business over there on, what is it Egan. Mr. Baldi: Egan, California and Elm. Whatever it is. All of that. Mayor Thompson: What is that number on Egan. Mr. Baldi: 459 Egan. Gary Croft: That is on the west side, right. Mr. Baldi: I have both sides of the street. I just wanted to make sure we get it straight. That I didn't get left out. Are you only going to consider only what the people that have come up and asked for to be considered, or what. City Manager: Well, what the Council does . . . the only thing they are going to send back, unless they come up with something different, is what has been requested. Mr. Baldi: What I am saying is whatever happened to those people that didn't come up here to speak for themselves. Are they going to be just left out. Mayor Thompson: May I try to answer, Norm. I am sure that Paul from Beland /Associates has been very attentive in the last meetings that we have had, and I think that what has been said at these various meetings have not fallen on deaf ears. However, I am sure that in evaluating the testimony, that he has heard at these various public hearings, that there will probably be some adjustment in the specific areas in the General Plan, but the overall land use will probably be very much similar to what has been presented, with minor adjustment. I am sure this is what will come out of the discussion that we have had here. I won't say for sure now. Mr. Baldi: How hard is it to amend the plan after it has been accepted, for a specific use. City Manager: It is very difficult. That was the intent of the State law when they created this thing, so that is why you want to make sure that you got something you can work with, and that is what I have been trying to tell people. Make sure you get your viewpoints known now, because it is too late later on. Page 8 Mr. Baldi: Well that is fine. I am saying . . all these people that are here tonight did not have -- were not at any of the meetings before, just like I wasn't at the meeting here before this. I would still like to go on record that it was not adequately publicized. So all the people in the whole area had an opportunity to be . . . City Manager: I really hate to disagree with you, Manny. But there cannot be much more so well publicized in this community then this General Plan was in the last year. Mr. Baldi: Nevertheless, it all came about that not that many people here tonight raising hell, because if they were - if they knew about it they would be here. City Manager: As yoLr next gentleman approaches, may I suggest to you, and to the audience, the Council cannot close the hearing tonight. The State has not responded yet, and they have until the end of this week, so this hearing is going to have to be continued at least once more, until the next meeting, May 10. So there is still time, and we will continue at least that long, maybe longer, until the Council desires it. Joe Anhalt, 713 Chestnut: It is R -3 now, and I would like to keep it that way. Douglas Penrod, Cherry Valley: I am a little bit confused. I own some property on Sunnyslope, and I always understood it was in Cherry Valley. If it is in the City of Beaumont,when was it put there. City Manager: It is not in the City of Beaumont. This General Plan applies to the Beaumont sphere of influence. That doesn't mean it is going to apply to your property if you develop or utilize that property within the County. If you ever become part of the City, then you are going to be guided by this plan. Mr. Penrod: My property is light agriculture right now, 15 acres, west of the street there, and I would like to remain light agriculture. City Manager: Well this certainly doesn't change your use. It allows you to do more than what you are doing. If you get this in the agriculture zone, it stays in the general land plan that way, you nor anyone else are going to use it for anything but agriculture, no matter what you might desire without a change of the General Plan, if you ever became part of the City. I don't know what it is in the County. Gary Croft: In the County it is 0 -3 units to the acre. City Manager: So you got basically the same thing with the County. Really, in effect, it is not changing what you already have in the County. Mr. Penrod: How could you put part of Cherry Valley in your plan there. City Manager: This is the Beaumont sphere of influence as determined by the Local Agency Formation Commission, which has jurisdiction over such matters by reason of State law. City Manager: Could I read into the record - there is a letter here - that came in this week - from Wesley Chambers. He is asking -- he says , I am the owner of Lot 10 Block 68 located on the east side of Magnolia north of 7th Street. The lot is presently zoned R -3 and he wants it to remain that way in the future. Mayor Thompson: Is there anyone else that has something in an area that we may not have touched on yet - haven't heard about. Is there someone here. . Unidentified: Can I ask a question. Why turn that M -1 zone back to an R -1 zone. Mayor Thompson: I think Paul better answer that. He worked with the BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF ADJOURNED MEETING OF APRIL 19, 1982 (Adjourned from April 12, 1982) 1. The Beaumont City Council met in an Adjourned Meeting at 6:33 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor Thompson presiding. 2. On Roll Call the Following Council Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 3. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -24 - A Master Resolution of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California to Determine the Amount of Property Tax Revenue to be Exchanged between the County of Riverside and the City of Beaumont Relating to Future Annexations to the City of Beaumont. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -24 by title only. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 4. Adoption of Negative Declarations re Annexation No. 27 and Annexation No. 28. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts negative declarations regarding Annexation No. 27 (Cherry Highland Estates - Highland Springs - Deutsch) and Annexation No. 28 (East of Highland Springs Avenue between 5th and 6th - Baumstark). AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 5. Authorization for Mayor to Sign a Grant of Easement to Southern California Edison Company for Electrical Service to the Highland Springs -6th Street Lift Station. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the Mayor to sign a Grant of Easement to Southern California Edison Company for electrical service to the Highland Springs -6th Street Lift Station. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 6. Review of First Report, and Possible Action, on Master Sewer Plan Study. Mr. Vincent Frasca, of Willdan Associates, presented his first report concerning the Master Sewer Plan Study now being conducted by Willdan Associates, with discussion between Mr. Frasca and the Council with the Council stating their views regarding this report, and Mr. Frasca clarifying Willdan's recommendations. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the concept of a pump station at Protrero Canyon. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Paqe 1 On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the City Manager to process an application to Community Development for the sum of $5,700.00 to provide survey services to establish elevations on existing sewer lines and manholes, and establish a plan and benchmark system for the City. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. ADD ITEM: On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont pulls Tract No. 18414 from the Planning Commission for reconsideration by the Council, and sets the date of May 24, 1982 for Public Hearing. AYES: Councilmen May, Hammel and Lowry. NOES: Councilman Shaw and Mayor Thompson. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. There being no further business to come before the Council the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Deputy City Clerk Page 2 BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF APRIL 12, 1982 1. The Beaumont City Council met in a regular meeting at 7:37 P.M., Monday, April 12, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor Thompson presiding. 2. The invocation was given by Reverand Donald Heermans. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Councilman Hammel. 4. On Roll Call the following Council Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 5. Mr. Ronald Radtke addressed the Council and audience thanking the Council and the community for the plaque which was presented to he and his wife commemorating Scott Karnitz, and thanking everyone in the community, and specifically the personnel of Station 66, for their support. 6. There being no additions, corrections or deletions, on Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of March 22, 1982 were approved as submitted. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 7. There being no objections, on Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the Minutes of Regular Planning Commission meeting of March 16, 1982 were accepted for filing as presented. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 8. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, warrants as audited per Warrant List of April 12, 1982, in the amount of $404,647.69 and Payroll of April 2, 1982, in the amount of $24,576.76 were approved for payment as audited, with the typographical error on Warrant No. 022716 corrected to reflect $500.00 rather than $5,000.00. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 9. ORDINANCE NO. 545 - SECOND READING - Providing for the Abatement and Removal as Public Nuisances of Abandoned, Wrecked, Dismantled or Inoperative Vehicles from Private Property or Public Property. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Ordinance No. 545 at its second reading by title only. AYES: Councilmen May, NOES: Mayor Thompson. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Shaw, Hammel and Lowry. 10. RESOLUTION No. 1982 -21 - Requesting Support for a Street Lighting Program that Serves the Public with Equity between City and Utility Company. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Page 1 Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -21 requesting support for a street lighting program that serves the public with equity between City and Utility Company. The resolution was read in its entirety by the City Manager. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 11. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -22 - Initiating the Annexation of the Cherry Highlands Estates, Highland Springs and Deutsch Lands to the City of Beaumont, by title only. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -22, initiating the annexation of the Cherry Highlands Estates, Highland Springs and Deutsch Lands to the City of Beaumont. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 12. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -23 - Designating Certain Real Properties as Being Included within a Survey Area for Community Improvement Considerations; and Directing Staff, the Planning Commission and Community Improvement Agency to Conduct the Necessary Public Hearings and Prepare the Necessary Reports for Consideration and Adoption of the Beaumont Community Improvement Project Area(s) and Plan(s). On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -23 designating Certain real properties as being included within a survey area for Community Improvement considerations; and directing staff, the Planning Commission and Community Improvement Agency to conduct the necessary public hearings and prepare the necessary reports for consideration and adoptiong of the Beaumont Community Improvement Project area(s) and plan(s). The resolution was read in its entirety by the City Manager. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 13. 8:00 P.M. - PUBLIC HEARING _ Appeal filed by Best View Land Develop- ment Company of Planning Commission decision regarding on -site improvement requirements. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:00 P.M. The report from the planning staff regarding this appeal was read in its entirety by the City Manager. Following is the verbatim transcription of the Public Hearing itself. Mayor Thompson: The appeal of Best View Land Company from those conditions. Is there a representative of that group here. George Matthews, President, Best View Land Development. Mayor Thompson: In which particular one of these do you take excep- tion to. You are appealing the total decision of the Planning Commission. You want to tell us a little bit more. George Matthews: Yes, I would. What we thought about. We talked about the overpass, that is the main thing. We don't know if it is going to go in now - if it is going to go in in the future, or when it is going in. We thought, as we sold these pieces of land that we have across the tracks over there - that, at that time, it would be the time that we could put in the curbs and gutters, and so forth, Paae 2 or the buyers could put in the curbs and gutters and so forth. That is what we had in mind. Instead of going in and putting all of that in before we try to - we sold the pieces of land. Councilman Lowry: Do you have one buyer for one - quarter of it now. George Matthews: Yes we do have. We do have one . . . Councilman Lowry: Is he prepared to immediately put in curb and gutter and build a building on the property. George Matthews: We haven't talked with him about the curb and gutter portion of it at this point. We have told him that this would be a possibility. That he would have to put the curb and gutter in when he put the . . . Councilman Lowry: to go right ahead George Matthews: structure up. Councilman Lowry: George Matthews: City Attorney: E force and effect. That is only part of my question. Is he ready with a structure on that property at this time. Our understanding - he is ready to put the Do you think you could get that in writing. I believe so - yes. ven if you got it in writing - there would be no Mayor Thompson: What is the time period for compliance with these requirements. What is the time frame. Have you got to go out and do it tomorrow. Or next week. To put in the on -site improvements. Is there a time frame. George Matthews: There is no time frame - no. City Manager: There is to the degree that you could not sell a parcel until you do - based upon what the Planning Commission has done - you cannot sell a parcel until the improvements are made, because there is no legitimate split until those improvements are made. George Matthews: You see, we don't know. The next person who came along might want the whole other portion of it, all in one piece. So here we go along - put the curbs and gutters in, the driveways in, and they may not even need all that section in there. We don't know what is going to happen to that section there. In other words, to us we are putting the cart before the horse, because we don't know who the next developer is going to be who comes in there. What he might be putting in. So why go put all that in on Beaumont Avenue there, and again, even after they are put in, if the land isn't sold or something like that, if they come in with the over- pass, they are going to cover it up. Councilman Lowry: Mayor, when you were asking that question, you say is there a time frame. Are you saying that he can't put in curb and gutter on one portion - and he has a time frame that he can put in the next portion when he is ready to . . . Mayor Thompson: No, I didn't say that. Councilman Lowry: Well it sounded like it to me. Mayor Thompson: I said what is the time frame in which the on -site improvements have to be completed. Have to be put in. Councilman Lowry: Since you even asked the question, without asking that question, it seemed to me that he had to put them all in immediately. City Manager: No. One thing he may do gentlemen, is that he may bond - he may put up cash - a cash bond - he may put up a letter of credit. Anything else that is acceptable to the Council guaranteeing that they will be done within a time frame. Those run for a year at a time, and then can be extended, if that is the Council's desire. Paae 3 Or, I should say, a governing body's desire. Councilman Lowry: What percentage of the cost of the improvements does he have to put up as a bond. 100 %? City Manager: Well, if he goes to a bonding company they are going to want him to - at least in my experience it has been they are going to want you to put up more than what it costs, and then pay the cost of the bond besides. So that doesn't make much sense. If you go to your bank, you can get a letter of credit. But that depends on the bank. They may give you a letter of credit with nothing there. They may give you a letter of credit with all of that monies sitting there tied up. That depends upon the individual's credit rating with their particular bank. George Matthews: The only think I had in mind - thinking about is - talking with the planning committee - this is what they propose - and we still got to think about the other street that may go through. If the overpass goes in - then we are going to have to cover that up and we are going to have to put in the other street across the back part of that there - so, you know, we just really don't know which way to go. We are a point here you can go spend $20 or $30 Thousand dollars developing a piece of land in there that we don't know if it is going to be there for a year - or two years - or what might happen. Now, as the pieces of property are sold, we believe, at that time, as the builders put the buildings up, to begin to improve the place, that is the time to - the curbs and gutters and things like that, should go in. That would seem like, to me, to be the feasible way to do it. Instead of putting it in there before the fact - before - it may never be used - for that particular reason. Mayor Thompson: You mention the overpass. Whatever improvements ultimately go in there, would have to have the approval of Cal - Trans. Am I correct? Or be in cooperation . . . George Matthews: No - the land - your planning committee has already taken a big hunk of our land. Okay. They have set us back - they have taken a big hunk of our land - says you can't put nothing here but parking. So they backed us up some - oh, I forget just what the dimensions are - but they have taken a big section out of the front of it and says you can't put nothing here but some parking space. We have got to reserve this for Cal - Trans. This is the overpass. Now we go in there, they want us to put curbs and gutters in there. Councilman Lowry: At the setback point. George Matthews: On the setback, yes. On where Cal -Trans is going to be going in there. So it really - you know - to me - maybe it will be there for the next ten years - maybe it will be there forever - I don't know. I realize it has got to be done, when there is something built there. It has got to be taken care of. But to do all that, and that may never be used for that, is - seems to me - like we are just wasting a lot of energy there. And a lot of money there, to put that piece of land in. Councilman Hammel: It seems to me though, that you don't even know what you want to do. You don't know whether you want to sell the land - whether . . . George Matthews: We do want to sell the land. Councilman. Hammel: You want to sell the land. George Matthews: Yes sir. That is the whole intent. Councilman Hammel: Then why are we talking about development. George Matthews: I am talking about the people who are going to develop it. We are not going to develop the land. Councilman Hammel: Well, then you have to comply with the ordinance if you sell the land. The rules and regulations which are stated . . Page 4 George Matthews: I am not arguing about that. Councilman Lowry: He wants to sell four separate parcels though. He has the right to do that, and then put in . . . George Matthews: You see, we want to sell it in parcels. Mayor Thompson: George, you have some very valid points. George Matthews: Is that all you need. Mayor Thompson: We will reserve some time for rebuttal in just a minute. Do we have anybody else who wishes to speak on your behalf. Lyle Millage, 1048 East Sixth Street: You asked a question of George and I don't think he answered it quite properly. The curb and putter is not at the setback point but at the highway line, so that they have asked us to setback and taken part of our property, and now you want us to put curb and gutter out at the highway line. Councilman Lowry: out at the highway line, and then a whole new setback which is to be parking. Lyle Millage: Not at the setback line, but at the highway line. And it just seems like a waste of resources to do something like that. Mayor Thompson: We will come back to you in just a minute. Your from Best View, so we will come back to you in just a minute. Do you have something else to add to that George. George Matthews: Can I use the blackboard for just a second. We have Beaumont Avenue here. And then we have the railroad tracks coming across here, and we got this freeway coming here. And this is that piece - I am sure you all know where that is. From where our piece of land was originally, they have coming back here in the back, and they have said okay, some day this may be the street. Maple Street is it? Maple Street. So we have to reserve that. We have to give that to the City. Easement there. Let's go back a little further. Another business over here - we won't bring up the name - they put their building right on the line. So, con- sequently, we have to give land for both of us because something happened back there. We allowed them to get their building on the line, now they can't build their building, so we have to give easements for both our property and for their property. Councilman Lowry: How wide an easement is that then. George Matthews: For Maple Street. Councilman Lowry: How wide is it. Sixty feet? George Matthews: Sixty feet. Then we have to come over on the front, and for the overpass there, we have to go back here - I believe it was ninety, wasn't it - seventy feet. We had to go back seventy feet and give an easement there. But now they want us to come in here with curb and gutter down along this street line. Councilman Lowry: Which piece of property is the one you want to sell now. What parcel. George Matthews: This part up here - just about an acre. It was 4.2 acres - by the time it gets it all down, it is a little over 3.5 acres. Councilman Hammel: How long have you owned this land. George Matthews: We have had it about three years. We understand, if these buildings go in here, and as this is being constructed, yes there is going have to be something taken care of there. But just to go put that in there, and maybe before there is anything built in here, something will happen, and then we will have to put this street through. Page 5 Councilman Lowry: What is the south property line. Is that another piece of property there, or is that a street on the south. George Matthews: It would have been Second Street if Second Street had ever gone through, but it will be another property line. Second Street up here - this is Third Street down here. See, Third Street will be closed off. Consequently, now then, if they put the overpass in, you have got to go all the way through the housing and come through this way if we don't put the street here through here. So, the City took that part of it there. But, our point is, we don't want to put out $15 -20 Thousand Dollars putting in curb and gutter here, when it may not even be used. We realize that as construction goes in, that it will have to be put in, but not prior to. Mayor Thompson: Is there any other proponent for the appellant on why the appeal should be upheld. Gary, as representative of the City and the Planning Department, you made the recommendation that the appeal be denied for those four reasons as presented in your report. Do you want to amplify anything. Gary Croft, Chief Planner, City of Beaumont: I would like to comment on a couple of the items which have been presented. The seventy foot off of Beaumont Avenue is a building setback line, it is not an easement at all. That property remains the property of the owners of the land until such time as the State were to purchase it. If that were to be widened. Any development along Beaumont Avenue, because that is a State Highway, would have to conform to Cal - Trans' requirement, as well as the City standard. Magnolia, it is not Maple, but Magnolia on the easterly side, is a street on the circu- lation element, and is a designated street since the town of Beaumont was originally laid out. There was a problem, however, a number of years ago. Actually a series of problems. One that was an action by the original Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside back in the late 1800s, which supposedly vacated a number of streets throughout the town. This action was never recorded until the 1940s, almost fifty years later, at which time a number of streets, including Magnolia and Second, in this area, were indicated as being vacated, and all of the parcels as originally laid out , were considered reverted to acreage. There is an interesting problem that arises continuously, and that is the streets are always recognized as having been vacated to the property owners, but no one ever recognizes the lots as having been reverted to acreage. Likewise, besides the ones on the south side there were a number of streets running 9th and 10th Street and the bloc]s running from approximately Beaumont Avenue easterly to Cherry were acted upon in the same action. And yet those parcels have long since been sold off and the streets been used. So there is some kind of a problem, and it really depends on who you talk tows to the legal status of those roads. We have indicated that in the approval of the parcel map, that Second Street - it would be appropriate at this location to abandon it because of the buildings on the easterly side, and also the proposed overpass related to Beaumont Avenue - Second Street would become useless, and so it was indicated that Second Street could be vacated, if it hasn't already legally been vacated. Magnolia Avenue is to be reserved to be opened at such time as either properties to the south develop, or Cal -Trans decides that the overpass is to be put through, and that was written into the conditions of approval, and was the design developed by the engineer. The right -of -way from Magnolia is sixty -four feet of right -of -way, and that again is indicated in your conditions of approval from the Planning Commission. City Manager: Let me ask you. Are you saying that the condition for Magnolia is something off in the future - it is not a condition of improvement in connection with this parcel map split. Gary Croft: Okay. The engineer proposed, and the Commission accepted, the proposal that - basically a covenent be drawn up between the City and the developer, that Magnolia Avenue would be put in on demand of the City. City Manager: So somewhere down the line the second owner, the tenth owner - all of a sudden could be confronted with this condition (tape turned over - discussion continues as follows) Well, I will ask you the question again - Due to the fact that you are saying it is being written in as a condition for future development Page 6 as I say, the second, third or tenth owner, somewhere down the line, five - ten years from now, whatever - any time frame, could be con- fronted all of a sudden that the City's - I'll use the word "whim" - and that is not quite the correct word - but when the City decided they wanted that road developed, all of a sudden they could confront any owner somewhere down the line with the condition that he had to dedicate the land - that he had to improve the street for Magnolia. Is that what you are saying? Gary Croft: Basically - yes. Mayor Thompson: Would that be a C. C. & R.? Gary Croft: Yes. City Manager: In other words, it would be a condition that would go along with the land, and, as I say, people sell them. Not very often do they read conditions, and the second - third - or tenth owner of this property, somewhere down the line, could be confronted with a subsequent City government here with a demand to improve this, and it is up to you gentlemen to buy that sort of an idea, but that is a little strange. Gary Croft: This was a proposal which was - it is commonly used in Palm Springs. The engineering firm was from there, and gave us some samples of their actions in that regard. Councilman Lowry: How wide from Beaumont Avenue in depth eastward is that piece of property that would require an easement of sixty - four feet. In other words, what is left after he takes the sixty -four and the seventy feet off. Gary Croft: Unfortunately I don't have the map. They are in the file, but as I recall, in the neighborhood of four hundred feet. Councilman Lowry: So he is losing one hundred and thirty -five feet off of the four hundred. . . City Manager: He is not losing that front seventy feet. He is only losing the ability of placing a building on it. Councilman Lowry: He is losing it if Cal -Trans decides to take it later on. City Manager: Well, if that happens, they are going to take it whether he has got a building on it or not. The idea - what they are trying to do here - is keep a building from being placed on there, which would cost the State of California a great deal more money to buy a building, then it would to buy open land. That is the whole idea of the setback. Councilman Lowry: Then he loses his parking lot and City Manager: In any event, if Cal -Trans moves in on them, they are going to lose it no matter what happens. Whether they have got a building or don't have a building. Gary Croft: The current setback is fifty -five feet. This only an addition of fifteen foot of setback requirement, so it is not really an excessive request. It is not an easement or anything of the sort. Mayor Thompson: Do you have any other questions of Gary. Martin Shuler, Los Angeles: It has been stated that the vertical street there is Beaumont Avenue, and that the street on the left was Maple - and then it is Magnolia. It was also stated that the top horizontal street is Second Street. That makes north up on that map. That puts Magnolia on the wrong side of Beaumont Avenue. I wonder if anybody else in the audience is confused as to where those streets really are, and where the property is. Page 7 Councilman Lowry: We are looking south on that map. Because the railroad and the freeway was on the lower end, which is north. Martin Shuler: There was a statement that the top street was Second Street. Councilman Lowry: Right. That is correct. Martin Shuler: Second Street is south of Third Street. Councilman Lowry: Yes. Maple was a mis- statement. It is Magnolia. Martin Shuler: If that is Magnolia, then we are talking about the block between Magnolia and Beaumont - between Second and Third Street. Councilman Lowry: Yes. Mayor Thompson: George, do you or Lyle have any rebuttal on what has been said. Excuse me. I forgot one thing. I will come back to you in just a minute. I neglected to ask if there is anyone in the audience that wishes to speak against the granting of this appeal. Irish Mitchell, 406 E. Sixth Street: I don't know if this is for or against the granting - we have so many areas in the town right at the present time where when a person tries to work in one particular development, that is not going to be compatible with another, we had a contest like that just a little while ago relative to some cul -de- sacs, as recently as a week or ten days ago. If the engineers could draw the exact specifications of what they need there, just like Mr. Davis had said, the gentlemen can then bond to guarantee that will be done when, and if, the property is sold. And he can pass that bonded guarantee on to his buyer. And when the buyer goes in, then he can fulfill the obligation. We have done that in many areas in Riverside County. I know that a number of builders in here have put up their bonds, and the bonds have always worked out satisfactorily. Then, as it does develop, if it does develop, if he does sell, he sells it with the bond obligation, and it stops the conjecture of what will, or what will not, be developed - or when - or when it will not be developed. When it is put in that way it makes a lot better sense to most everyone. It has in most of the areas that I have developed. Mayor Thompson: Let me get this straight. Your suggestion would then be - Irish - your suggestion would then be to deny the appeal and require a bond. Irish Mitchell: I didn't know which way I was going on it, because of not exactly knowing the set up, I only mention - if, in deference to the developer, he could put up a bond to guarantee the development, it would save him putting up the cash at the present time. Those bonds are very reasonable. Mayor Thompson: As part of the preliminary, I mean the procedure, isn't it Norm, that they can do one of three things. Whatever they choose. City Manager: That is correct. Mayor Thompson: You have heard the Best View Land representative arguing or discussing - presenting testimony on the appeal of the Planning Commission decision. You have heard the City's planner give his reasons for the original conditions. We have heard both sides , and the appellant should have a rebuttal time. Lyle do you have something in rebuttal to what you heard. Lyle Millage: Mr. Croft stated that we would have to comply with Cal- Trans' requirements along Beaumont Avenue, as well as the City, but, to my knowledge, Cal -Trans has no requirements as far as that piece is concerned, unless I am wrong. City Manager: The type of requirements they would have, Lyle, would be the number of openings that they will allow. That would be the first one that would come to mind, and I know would be a certain one. n--- 0 Lyle Millage: Well, as I understand it, with our parcel map, it states one entrance per parcel. But as far as any curbs and gutters, I didn't understand that there was any State requirements on curbs and gutters. Mayor Thompson: Is there anything else from Best View or their representatives. Does the Council have any other questions they would like to ask. A Public Hearing can be held at the designated time and for the period necessary to gather the information. You may adjourn a Public Hearing for reason, for cause. You may close a Public Hearing, and once you have closed a Public Hearing, the decision must be rendered within a specified time. However, the Council, or members of the Council, have the option, or prerogative of, after the Public Hearing is closed, to render a decision by motion, or through other discussion. However, once a decision is made, then, according to the requirements - our requirements of a Public Hearing, they must be reaffirmed by resolution. So, what is your pleasure gentlemen. Do you want the Public Hearing closed. Do you have any other questions to ask, or what. Any other questions. Do you want the Public Hearing closed. Do you have enough to make up your mind. Councilman Lowry: A question I would like to ask. Best View developers are well aware of the fact that they can put up a bond aren't they. Mayor Thompson: I am sure that was explained at the Planning Commission level. Councilman Lowry: And explained by Mr. Davis. Mayor Thompson: You don't have to make a decision tonight. We can close the Public Hearing. You will have forty days to render a decision, and it is rendered by formal resolution. The Public Hearing for Best View Land Development was closed at 8:34 P.M., with the decision for the upholding of the appeal for Best View, or the denying, will be rendered within time prescribed by Ordinance No. 490. It was determined none of the Council wished to take action on this at this time, therefore, the decision was continued until the next regularly scheduled meeting, which is April 26. 14. PUBLIC HEARING Revenue Sharing Proposed Use. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:35 P.M. Mayor Thompson: In accordance with the legal requirements for holding a public hearing, a notice of public hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation, which we have an exhibit on, dated March 29, which states that the revenue sharing public notice pro- posed use hearing on April 12, 8:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, and we will declare the public hearing opened. City Manager: It has been indicated, based upon what we have re- ceived in the past, there will be approximately $172,000 of Federal Revenue funds coming into the City of Beaumont for revenue sharing use in the next fiscal year - the 82 -83 fiscal year. We will not know precisely what the precise dollar amount is until the Federal budget is adopted in approximately the month of October. But this is what has been projected by the feds as the amount that Beaumont will receive. At this time one of the requirements of receiving this money is to hold a public hearing inviting the citizens of any community, or of this community in this case, to present their ideas of the expenditure of the public funds. It doesn't mean that they have to be utilized for the purpose for which citizens come forward and advocate, but the public must be given a chance to give their input and that is the purpose of this hearing tonight. So if there is anyone in the audience who has a thought as to how they would like to see these funds expended, they may so indicate at this time. Page 9 Irish Mitchell, 402 E. 6th Street, Beaumont: Based upon what has happened in the past with the revenue sharing funds, they have mostly been used to go into the General Fund, without any specific earmarks on them. What I have to say this evening - may possibly fall on deaf ears. But I think it is well to have it in the record. It seems only fair that the entire Council and the general public should be given all of the facts. Prior to any allocation from anticipated revenue sharing funds for next year, the actual fiscal position of the City should be basically analyzed. The following figures are taken from the City Finance Director statements that all of you have had copies of. During fiscal year 80 -81, in the first eight months of fiscal year 81 -82, street and safety restricted funds have been transferred into the General Fund in the amount of $644 .. . Mayor Thompson: What has that to do with proposed use of revenue sharing funds. Irish Mitchell: I am coming to that - it is all germaine. If it were not germaine, I would not put it this way. Mayor Thompson: I am not sure about that but . . . Irish Mitchell: You could determine if it is germaine if I can finish sir. Mayor Thompson: Okay, go ahead and I will make that determination down the road. Irish Mitchell: I am only stating actual funds that have been basically for street and street - highway funds. Now it is easy to apply the unrelated funds on other expenditures, but it doesn't change the fact that the public has not received the maintenance and the rebuilding of the streets that they are deserving of from the funds available. The total restricted expenditures accounted for in the ledgers for the street and street - related funds amounts to $285,555.00. This indicates an over - transfer of restricted funds into the General Fund of $358,752.00. Now Mayor Thompson and Councilman Shaw were furnished with a complete breakdown of these figures two months ago. The purpose of this presentation is to have it in the record for all to see during the upcoming budget session for 82 -83. In the event the specific projects having expenditures of $644,337.00 can be produced and published, further allocation then should probably be considered. If not, any further commitments for parking lots, fire trucks, consulting services, or others would be a breach of any fudiciary obligation to the elected or appointed officials. However, please brush away the smoke screen and demand an actual, factual projection covering the $644,337.00 for streets and street - related projects. I would suggest that the funds be allocated to repair or replace safety street signs, repave needed areas, and clean up the alleys. Trim the trees and vines that hide streets and stop signs, above all be honest with the people. Get rid of some of our downtown Tijuanas. If these expenditures are made on streets it will compensate for the monies that were trans- ferred into the General Fund that were not spent on streets. Mayor Thompson: Mr. Mitchell, I told you I would make a determination on your presentation, and until you got to the last three lines, I can't see where it is germaine. Irish Mitchell: It is germaine. The point is Mayor Thompson: This is what makes a horserace. Your opinion and my opinion. And since I am sitting on this side of the counter, I don't think the first part of your presentation was really germaine to revenue sharing. City Manager: Could we ask, Mr. Mayor, ask Mr. Mitchell, once again, to give the precise item that he was asking that the funds be expended for. I would like to record them and . . . Irish Mitchell: Allocate the funds to repair or replace safety street signs, repave needed areas and clean up the alleys. Trim the trees and vines that hide street signs and stop signs. It would tie in and Page 10 be germaine to your general plan which has a small article in there about getting rid of blight. It would also tie in very closely with your redevelopment area. To have something done prior to the time that you get the redevelopment going. Councilman Hammel: You had some more on there. Irish Mitchell: Those were the only ones . . . Councilman May: What about clean up downtown Tijuana? Irish Mitchell: . . . .downtown Tijuana. Mayor Thompson: Okay. Thank you. Does anyone else have some input on the proposed use of the revenue sharing funds. What else do we need around town that would be an improvement. A benefit to most people. Harry Wieck: 1265 Michigan Avenue: I might be off on the wrong track. We have a post office location here that is - it is not desirable. It is on a busy street, right facing Beaumont Avenue. The post office was designed when the population was much less, and I don't know whether these funds could be used to build another post office, but I think it is badly needed in this community. The street is a hazard to come in and out of, and I don't know whether it could be used - these funds could be used to buy a lot on a street that wasn't so busy and erect a place, or how that is done. Whether it is - the City could do it, or whether it has to be rented from a private builder. Mayor Thompson: It has been my experience that the postal department usually leases from a private individual. If I am incorrect, some- body please correct me. But that is what I have always . . . Mr. Wieck: I have heard that. I don't know whether a City could properly go ahead and build a building and rent it to the government for that purpose. Councilman Shaw: Could I respond to that. About a year and a half ago I talked to the Postmaster in reference to that, and he sent a letter in, I think, to somebody in Washington, and the reply ghat was gotten back was the fact that the post office was adequate, parking facilities were adequate for the size of the town. I am just telling you what they told us. I believe you, because sometimes it is hard getting in and out of there, and I think we could stand more parking area, but according to those people, they sent people out making a survey, and he came back with a report to me and said that no way would they go for anything like that at all. Mr. Wieck: When was this post office built. Councilman Shaw: I don't know when it was built, but I am telling you the report that we got from them was within the last year and a half. Mr. Wieck: The population is fast increasing to the point where it is going to be inadequate for practical purposes. I just thought I would bring it up. Mayor Thompson: Anyone else who wishes to input on the proposed use of revenue sharing funds. What you feel that the City needs the most to use these funds for. Please come forward, state your name and address. Larry Partain, 308 East 12th Street: Mr. Mayor, I am not really familiar with this, but I would like to see something done with the parks. I don't know if this money can be used for tree trimming of the trees in the parks, for some kind of upkeep, for instance, the parkway on Palm Avenue used to be very attractive and in the last couple of years it has really deteriorated, and that would be my suggestion. Mayor Thompson: A little upgrading in the parks and parkways. Pam- 11_ Is there anyone else. I am not saying that we get this money - we get all of it, that we will be able to do all of the things that we should do, but ideas from the people in general will give us direction as to what you think is the most important. Any other in- put. Anybody else have anything else that they would like to see our money spent on. (Cannot hear the name of the next citizen on the tape, resides at 560 Euclid: All you have to do is maybe put some weedeaters in the hands of the park workers, instead of hoses and shovels, and you would get a lot more done on Palm Avenue. Mayor Thompson: You did say weedeater didn't you. That goes along with what Larry said. Tree trimming, shrubbery. Any others from the audience who would like to have some input on this. What do you think is a top priority when the money is available for improve- ment in the City. What do you think is a priority item. What is important to you. City Manager: Since you are putting it that way, let me tell you what this money has been used for. It has been used in the past to pay for the police and fire services of the community. Joe Welch, 450 West 4th Street: We have been a property owner down on 4th Street for the last year and a half. And if anyplace needs any improvement that certainly does. I think in every way, I am not saying we should spend that money specifically for that, but the crime rate down there is so bad, I think you are all aware of it. It is a situation of people driving to Beaumont, make a right turn instead of a left, they are going to get the hell out. I think that is where we should spend more money. Mayor Thompson: Do you have a specific suggestion as to what we should do. Mr. Welch: You drive in the area. I think that last year I have watched that area. We have spent money in the parks, when the baseball season came around. Cleaned it all up. Two weeks later, we go down we have graffitti written from one end of it to the other. We spent our money there for that. Why couldn't we spend money there to protect what we had done two weeks ago. There isn't enough police and fire protection down there to handle the situation. I think it should be looked into. Mayor Thompson: Anyone else. Councilman Hammel: We have spent a considerable amount of money at the sewer plant, and I think, as time goes on, we will prove to the public that a nice job has been done down there. Anybody would like to see the sewer plant, they should come to the Mayor's office, or the Manager's office, so they can see what has been done. However, if there is any available that can be used, I would like to see the area down there upgraded to the point where all the trash and the garbage and everything gets hauled out of there, or gets covered up. I would like to see a small lake down there. A lake cleaned up to the point where the elderly, sooner or later, could have an area of recreation, because our sewer plant doesn't smell, believe me. I was down there several times now, to see the construction, and if you folks would take the time to go down there I think a recreation area down there would be suitable. Mayor Thompson: Anything else. Any other comments or suggestions for any use of this windfall that we may get. I don't know whether it is a windfall or not, I don't even know how much we are going to get. City Manager: If we don't get it, we will have about fifteen people less in the City working. Mayor Thompson: Let me ask a question sharing, what are the strings attached other words there are no strings - in anywhere in the City in any category. City Manager: Pretty much so. Page 12 for information. On revenue to revenue sharing money - in other words you can use it 15. City Manager: I am not totally certain as regards some of the activities that have been delineated. I am not sure. You can spend them on improvements, or you can spend it on personnel. Almost everything of a general governmental nature. I am not so sure about some of these fine points. They may very well be all right. I am not certain. Mayor Thompson: For instance, repair of streets. In other words a portion of this could be put into the street fund and used to City Manager: I won't say yes or no until I check the law more thoroughly. I don't know of any governmental jurisdiction that does it because there is so much needed somewhere else. But I don't want to say that it is not possible, because I do not know. Councilman Shaw: I think we could spend a good portion on Michigan Avenue. That roller coaster ride between 12th and 10th. Irish Mitchell: Relative to using the funds, they are not re- stricted funds, and nearly every jurisdiction that I have checked with actually - actually I did the checking to be sure - they can be used for any improvement in the City, either capital improvement and /or maintenance. Revenue sharing is to cover up some of the blow the federal laws have taken away from the operational end, but the anticipated shortfall of revenue is going to be such that when you come to your budget session this year, you must bear one thing in mind, almost 50% of your entire general revenue at the present time is being taken by your police department. Almost 50 %. So something is going to have to happen. You are going to have to have money in there to run your regular services, and you are going to have to make a tremendous reduction in your police depart- ment. I think you will find that - and this is why I was suggesting before it goes into anything - because streets have to be fixed and repaired. If it is going to be allocated, allocate it for that. And it can always be transferred over into something else in general City operation. It is necessary to keep it alive. I will give you one example. You finally have in here, after much difficult time, an accounting department that is probably one of the best in the entire area for a City of this size. They need help. They need continuing help. If the revenue is all going to the police department, percentage wise, by having the general revenue fall off, you are going to have a devil of a time, and you will fall apart on the one thing that you fought three years to get. You finally have a good operational accounting department that will save you money - dollars and dollars - over the years. But if you can't keep them going, then forget about the rest of it. Mayor Thompson: Is there any other comment or other input that anyone wishes to . . . If there is no other input from the public or the Council, we will close this public hearing, and since there is no decision required at this time, we will take the suggestions under advisement and at budget time we will see who has got what and how much. The Public Hearing was closed at 9:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - The Draft General Plan of the City of Beaumont. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:01 P.M. Mayor Thompson: In accordance with the requirements, the notice has been previously published. The public hearing will be on the draft general plan of the City of Beaumont. We have had one public hearing already. This is the second public hearing that was pro- perly noticed, and we will open the public hearing at 9:01 P.M. Before we have public input, Paul, will you give us some input as to what has gone on at the other public hearings bringing the audience up to date on the general plan. Paul Secord, Beland /Associates, the consulting firm who were involved in guiding the citizens committee through the process which has led to the development of the draft general plan. The plan then went to the Planning Commission, and was approved by them. The plan consists of three basic parts. Let me hold up the documents. For the benefit of anyone who was not at the last meeting, this big report represents essentially three basic reports. The first part Page 13 Is the General Plan itself. The General Plan consists of a series of goals and policies relative to land use within the City. An integral portion of that is the land use map that is on display here. The second portion of the document is referred to as a master environmental assessment, which is a separate report from the plan, and its an inventory of background material relative to the City. Most of this material was gathered over the summer. There has been some - that was last summer - when we first started the program - there have been some additions to it, modifications to it - but essentially it is the same information that we used throughout the review process in the initial citizens meeting pro- cess. Following that is a short report which integrates the two documents together, the environment impact report. And the meeting tonight is a hearing both on the general plan document, these goals and policies, and the factual material which leads into the environmental impact report. So it is the entire package. It has come to my attention that there has been some concern in the last several weeks relative to some areas which have previously been designated as medium density residential development, and which on the currently proposed draft plan are shown as low density residen- tial. I have an exhibit, a rather sketchy exhibit, I apologize, which I hope will illustrate what areas we are talking about. The colors there represent the land use proposals as shown on the draft plan. The yellow - low density residential at proposed densities of one unit - one to five units per acre. That is essentially a single family residential kind of use which is representative of the types of uses which are predominate in that area. On the large color map here, it is the mustard color area. The rather orange -red area is area which is designated as medium density residential development - five to eight units per acre. And then the red area is commercial. Those large blocks which are shown outlined in black, and there are essentially three of them, those are the areas that I think are under - that have been under some discussion and some concern over the last couple of weeks. Those are areas which, in the current zoning ordinance and the current City general plan, are designated for medium density residential develop- ment. The zoning classification there is R -3. It is approximately 100 acres. There are about 340 single family residential uses in there now. Approximately 10% - between 10% and 12% of that area is vacant. In most cases, the vacant areas are scattered parcels or collections of single family residential parcels. The parcelization in that area follows a pattern of approximately 60 x 160 feet. That is the standard size of a residential parcel in the community. What I would suggest, based upon -- well, first let me describe why the area was changed initially. There was not a tremendous amount of discussion about this in the citizens committee meeting, and there was no discussion relative to it in the Planning Commission. The reason for the change was based on the existing land use in the area. The fact that, and the existing ownership pattern and parcelization, the fact that those areas - despite the fact that they have been designated for medium density development for at least twenty years, and I don't know, Gary, do you know - I suspect it may go back as long as thirty years. There has been some scattered medium density development in the area, but the uses which predominate, as I say, are single family residential uses, and they are a single family neighborhood. The change was to recognize what the existing pattern is. Now, I would mention that the changes in the density - the kinds of densities that are being proposed in the new General Plan are somewhat higher than the requirements of the current plan. The current plan shows low density that ranges from one to three units per acre. The proposed plan has densities at- for low density - of one to five units per acre. In addition there is a new State Law which makes it impossible for local jurisdiction to disallow a second unit on a single family residential lot. So, all of these low density areas could be developed with essentially duplex type development. What that would mean, if that entire area, all these low density areas, are developed to their maximum density under the current proposal, we would be talking about. . .(tape changed - discussion continues as follows) . . . Okay, I don't think it would be wise from a planning standpoint to retain the current density of medium density. To do that would - it is essentially from a planning standpoint - making an assumption that the entire area would be ultimately developed at multi - family densities. Which I don't think Page 14 is really the reality of the situation there, or ever really likely to occur. It will also, assuming that did occur, result in a situa- tion where we go from roughly 400 units in the area to perhaps 1200 units in the area under the maximum density, as there would be allowed under that kind of a proposal. That, I think, would put a very severe strain on the service systems in the area now. I know that the existing sewer there would probably not be able to handle that. There would be some difficulty with the service systems. Considering the amount of vacant land, like I say about 10% of it is vacant, I don't think that the development of those vacant acres, or even a little bit more, would probably have that effect. But certainly the whole area would. If there are any questions, I will be happy to answer them. If there is a desire for me to comment on anything that was said at the last meeting as well. Mayor Thompson: Thank you very much. We will probably be getting back to you in the near future. Councilman Lowry: Is he taking into consideration your request at Brookside that . . . City Manager: That is up to the Council to make a decision. Once the hearings close you are going to have to give direction as to what you wish to have reconsidered, if anything. All of these things that have been spoken to will be. . . Councilman Lowry: In other words, no decisions will be made at this time. City Manager: Not at this time. Mayor Thompson: Bernie. Bernard Fagot, 9477 Avenida Miravella: I tried to absorb everything he said. I am not too sure I did, but before I say any more, I would like to ask some questions. Is this General Plan, is it going back to the Planning Commission for any more public hearings? Mayor Thompson: It will depend entirely on the input, Bernie. If something is brought forth at this time that should be reconsidered by the consultant and Planning Commission , yes, it will go back. If everybody sits on their hands and don't say anything, we will assume that everything is just fine and dandy, and we will probably go along with it. Mr. Fagot: Well, I do admit one thing. I should have been at the Planning Commission hearings, when the Planning Commission was holding hearings on the General Plan. I know it was advertised in the newspaper, and we are in that type of business. We knew the Planning Commission was holding hearings. I mean we knew the City was working on a new General Plan. We weren't aware of the changes, or anyway, I wasn't, until last week. I would like to ask Paul Secord. . . I am going to give you just an example. We have a number of R -3 lots in the City of Beaumont. They are all 60 x 160 in size. Did I -- that is 9400 square feet, so that is less than a fourth of an acre. So all I can get now is two units on the R -3 lot. Is that correct. Paul Secord: Yes, that is correct. Mr. Fagot: We have got an R -3 lot on Massachusetts. We have got two R -3 lots on Magnolia. Now the two lots on Magnolia went from R -3 to low density. So that is one house per lot. City Manager: Can I interrupt you, Bernie. Would you be good enough to point out, or to do what you started to do here, say where your lots are. Make your request, and let Gary plot those, so they will all be recorded. Then if it is the Council's decision, at the conclusion of the hearing, to send them back for reconsideration by the Commission of all of your request, then that will all be put in the mill. I think that is all you can really do. Mr. Fagot: The first R -3 lot is on Massachusetts, the first lot south of 701. It is Lot 9, Block 63 of the Funk subdivision. Page 15 The proposed density there is medium. City Manager: Lot 9 in what block again. Mr. Fagot: Lot 9, Block 63. These two lots on Magnolia Avenue, the second and third lots south of 9th Street on the west side of the street. And that is proposed. Those two lots are proposed low density. Now the next lot is on Edgar Avenue, the third parcel north of 10th, on the east side of the street. That is Lot 12, Block 27. That is proposed low density. Another R -3 lot is on the northeast corner . . City Manager: Let me interrupt you again Bernie. Once you have identified each one, would you tell the Council what' you want it to be. Mr. Fagot: What I would like to do is . . City Manager: We know what it is supposed to be, you tell us what you want it to be. Mr. Fagot: What I would like is - we paid our three prices - we bought large water meters . . . City Manager: Just tell us what you want. Mr. Fagot: That is what I am doing. City Manager: So far you have said it is proposed. But you haven't said give us an R -3 use, or whatever you want to say. Mr. Fagot: Every one of them that I am mentioning, I want them to stay the way they were. Councilman Lowry: You mean retain what they are. Mr. Fagot: Sure. City Manager: That is all you have to say. Mr. Fagot: Where am I at now. City Manager: Lot 12, Block 27. Mr. Fagot: This one on Edgar. The northeast corner of 7th and Illinois. Proposed zone change medium density. I would like it to stay the way it is. Councilman Shaw: Well, Bernie, in order to expedite this thing, what you are asking for is to retain the original zoning. That is what it is in essence. Mr. Fagot: Retain the original zoning. And one more M -1 lot, and it is the southeast corner of 5th and Chestnut, Lot 2, Block 1.20. I would like for it to stay M and it is proposed medium density. I don't want to put a duplex on an M -1 lot next to Pass Transmission. The southeast corner of 10th and Chestnut. Don Archer, 837 Orange: I will make it simple. I would like to have it remain the way it is because that is the plans that I had was to put several units on the property. City Manager: Give me the location again so he can plot it. Mr. Archer: 837 Orange, just up the street about two blocks. It would be the third lot. Mayor Thompson: It is presently zoned what. Mr. Archer: R -3. I would say that I felt, when I purchased the property, that the area facing the park, and near the schools, should be more heavy density area because of the general location, and the fact that property is getting higher all the time, and there needs to be rentals, and I thought it was a real fine choice. Paae 16 I do think there should be some uniformity about what is done through there. But I think, along the area through here, is a natural location for multiple units to be, but that is just one man's opinion. Larry Partain, 308 East 12th Street: I don't know the lot number. It is right here at the corner of 7th and Orange. What is the lot number and the block number there. Gary Croft: It is Block 68. Larry Partain: It is the very first block, I mean very first lot, just on the other side of 7th. Right there. It is zoned R -3. I would like it to remain R -3. My brother and I bought that lot, paid R -3 prices, developed the plans. We got them through the Planning Commission - we were ready to build. We have just been waiting for the interest rate to go down a little bit, and it is going to represent a big loss of money - especially for me. I am just trying to get started. We bought them for R -3. We have got plans developed. They are nice plans for some townhouse units. I think it is really going to upgrade the looks of the area, and it is going to be a real blow to us. It is zoned R -3, and I would like it to remain R -3. James Kadev, Newport Beach, California: I am the owner of four lots located on Illinois Avenue between 6th and 8th Street. City Manager: Which side of Illinois, sir? Mr. Kadev: I believe it is west. Going towards 8th on the west side. City Manager: Are they just north of the real estate office there. Mr. Kadev: Going this way. City Manager: So between the real estate office and the existing apartments. Mayor Thompson: I don't believe we are quite located. Unidentified:It is not between the real estate office and the existing apartments. It is north of 7th Street, right on the curve, north of the existing apartments. Mr. Kadev: I believe, at the present time, this is medium density. The lots are R -3, and my idea was to build apartments or condominiums. I believe the future is for condominiums, including Beaumont, and with the present proposal I will be limited to probably two units per lot, which the size of the lots - the smallest one is 63.75 x 200, which are absolutely suitable for fourplexes or . . . . for condominiums. Now east and west, I believe, south and north, at the present time are apartment buildings, which are fourplexes, and single lots, and I believe it will be unjust to be denied to build buildings, which are at the present time. Paul Turner, 39423 Tokay, Cherry Valley: I would like to ask on the start - as it sits right now - how many units can you put on a 60 x 150 square foot lot under the existing R -3. Gary Croft: It would be two to three units, depending on the design. Paul Turner: Not the existing today. Then how come - as an example, on Edgar Street to the north of the lot that you have marked there, there is nine units. Gary Croft: They don't meet the current ordinance requirements for off -site parking, nor open space. In some cases, they may, depending on the location, in some cases they may exceed the General Plan density. Paul Turner: Well then it would be an impossibility to build an apartment house anyplace, even on the medium density. An absolute impossibility. Is that what you are saying. If it stays R -3 as it Paae 17 is right now, with a ruling of that kind, you couldn't even build an apartment house. I speak, for example, of the lot right over here, right next to the old Beck home. Mrs. Uber owns it on Palm Street between 6th and 7th. A beautiful apartment house there. Right next door to a house, and it is certainly anything but un- slightly. Under what you just said, there would be no chance of building any apartment house in this town, because if you can only put two to three, that is duplexes. That don't get anything on today's prices. You have got to be able to building apartment houses like they have here. And I cite another case, for example. This man here was saying over - crowding of the density, which would cause a problem insofar as - I don't hear so well - but I thought you said police and this and that and the other thing. Is that what you said. Paul Secord: I think what I was referring to was that if the entire area developed at densities to the point where we had 1200 units, which would assume that essentially all of the existing single family units would be removed from the area, and then we would have multi - family apartment type - high density kinds of development - we are talking about pretty large parcels in that case to be able to do that, because that kind of development would overtax the existing sewer and water systems that serve those areas. Paul Turner: Well let me ask you this then. Of course, we know that the older houses are not going to be going out, and high density apartments put in. We know that. But it seems to me that there is so many linear feet of street in this town, and it would be less problems for fire, for police protection, all of these things, much less problems by building up this area as to annex three or four or five square miles out here, which they are figuring on doing. Now it is going to cost a whole lot more, the City and the taxpayers, and those people out there, and the developers, to annex all of that ground. It is going to cost them a bunch more then to put in some housing that somebody can afford. This don't hold water to me, that by putting in a few apartments, a few units, here on the vacant lots that is already existing, does not hold water that it is going to be a burden, a sewer burden, or a police burden, or fire, or street maintenance, parks or anything else. I cannot, I may be thick, but I can't see where it is going to cause as much problem as annexing a bunch of ground out north of town, south of town . . . Paul Secord: One more point of clarification, because, in fact, I think we are in agreement. I did not say that if there were multi- family, medium density developments under current proposals, even fourplexes on existing single family lots, 60 x 160 lots. On all the vacant property in these areas that we were discussing, that 100 acres there, that that would overtax the sewer systems. In fact we are only talking about 10 or 12 acres of vacant property in that entire area that is not developed, so I agree with you in that sense. I don't think it would. You see, infill development at multi - family density, within these essentially single family areas - no, that would not overtax the areas, and I don't see a major problem with that. Paul Turner: This was my interpretation of what you were trying to bring out, that it could be, and I can't . . . Paul Secord: I was only trying to - talking about a hypothetical maximum kind of development scenerio - the sort of thing that would be implied if the entire area was designated as multi - family development. Paul Turner: And then one other point. I don't mean to really be picking on you, but I have a very definite interest. You said - you were speaking about putting an overlay map, so to speak, of two lots. Supposing you have only got one. What are you going to do with one lot. Just because we are not wealthy enough to afford a bunch of lots, we only got one lot, what is the matter with putting an overlay for one lot, rather than two, three or four, some of us have only got just single lots here and there. Page 18 Paul Secord: Conceivably, that could be done, but the basic effect would be essentially the same with one lot. Given the current allowable densities under the R -3 zoning, or medium density zoning. Gary would you care to expand on that. Gary Croft: I was saying two lots, or 15,000 square feet, because at that point you end up with a parcel which is large enough to actually develop a condominium or higher density kind of apartment unit and get in all the setback requirements and the allowable parking, and the rest of it. But there is nothing to say . . . (the balance of this statement is unintelligible). Norm Gordon, 1302 East 6th Street: I don't own any R -3 property, but I do sell R -3 property. I think it gets back to a very simple concept in real estate, to obtain the highest and best use out of the land. Under the present R -3, in some cases, most of the lots were split years ago 60 x 155, 60 x 160. I keep hearing 15,000 square foot lots. We don't have any. We have 9,000, 9,500, 10,000 maybe. We don't have 15,000 square foot lots. So I think it would r &ally be a restriction on anybody who owns R -3 property to suddenly to say we can put two units on that property, and that is all we can do, where they could get four, five or six in some cases. Councilman Lowry: Excuse me, Gary, didn't you state that under the present General Plan that is in existence, and the present ordinances which are in existence, that on that size lot they can put three units, and that is all. Mr. Gordon: All right. Who is still talking about a loss of one unit per lot. Under the proposed . . . Councilman Lowry: No, he said two or three. Gary Croft: Two or three. There is the possibility of putting your parking underneath, and put everything on top, and get four units. Mr. Gordon: I still sold property to people that paid R -3 prices for the potential. That is what they were buying - future potential. And I would like to say, in my opinion that the R -3 should stay R -3. Councilman Lowry: Well, if it stays R -3 under the present condi- tions, all you can put is three units. That is all you were ever able to put when they bought the property. Mayor Thompson: He said that is existing requirements. Gary Croft: That is if they actually meet the ordinance requirements. Most of the units coming in in the last few years have not met the ordinance requirements. Mr. Simoff: I have lots on Magnolia, north of 7th Street. The second lot off this corner. It is R -3. Now is R -1. It is not a question The next lot - corner from Orange is R -3. Somebody said which is 60 x 160 or 150, would be only duplex. Only weeks ago - two weeks ago, I talked with the Planning Director, and I asked him, because they were changing this General Plan, I asked him when this plan will come in effect. He answered me one month, two months. And I say if I represent and put in the City Hall a plan to build units for existing zoning coordinates on my lot, could we approve it to build now. I think my answer - his answer was no. Some say a normal lot is 60 x 160 could be only duplex. I have plans for a fourplex, four unit, and still I hear small unit. Now, if this General Plan if all this R -3 lots, you buy these lots for R -3, and then you tell us you pay $26,000.00 for a lot that is R -3. Now they are R -1. What kind of house would be on R -1. Maybe $100,000 - 200,000. Who will pay this. Four houses, how much could be, how much construction - 50o must be property to build the house. On 25,000 lot in 56, now $200,000. So many peo- ple don't intend to build . . . . . . that I could build six, seven eight units . . . . if I have space for parking. If there is no parking lot, I can build only four. So all this affect all this R -3 property, and I ask you to take and consider all R -3 to stay there. Page 19 Mayor Thompson: We realize that most people wish the R -3 to re- main as such. Do you have some R -3. Manny Baldi, 10185 Winesap: I want the R -3 to stay R -3. But I am not going to be selfish and say that what I have I want to remain, I do that, as well as for other people that have been affected by this change. I would like to have the - make a recommendation, if possible, that the plan goes back to the Planning Commission for further study due to the fact that it has, within the package, it appears it has too many inconsistencies in it. The other item is that all the people in the Pass, or in Beaumont, have not really had an opportunity to meet with the Planning Commission to discuss with the Planning Commission the effect this plan is going to have on the whole City of Beaumont. I know that you are aware of it, the people in this room are aware of it, and I live in this town, and I work in this town, and yet maybe I don't read the papers as often as other people do, but I wasn't aware of it until four or five days ago that this was even taking place - so I am saying that, I don't want to make excuses for what I didn't know, but obviously there is not enough people in this room to represent the whole City of Beaumont. That I think it should go back and give the people in the community a second chance. To let them look and see, to what they are affected, and their cost, and their loss or benefit is going to be. The whole community. I want to point out one area on the map that is an area of the park on Egan Avenue and California. You see that area that you have marked there all in yellow. That is now lower density. And I don't know what low density is supposed to have. I wasn't here earlier enough, so whatever. But that is what the new deal is. That land was previously, in that general area, was either M -1 or M -2. Am I right. Gary Croft: It was designated as manufacturing. Manny Baldi: In that same area, I just bought some land from the City of Beaumont, and this gentleman here can tell you it was worth a lot of money, because I paid for it with a lot of money, but at a stroke of a pen that land will be changed to R -1. That land will cease to be - anything at all. It will be absolutely worthless to me or to anyone else in the future in that area because it has become non - usable so far as residential. So right there, if this goes into effect, becomes a total - as far as I am concerned, robbery. City Manager: So what do you want it to be. Manny Baldi: I want it either M -1 or M -2 as it was. I am not speaking only for myself, but as well for those people in that area that are not here representing themselves. There is no one here who lives in that area that I know, that their land is worth money being sold as M -1 or M -2, and when it is changed to R -1 it becomes useless, at least valuewise to the people. I have made a proposal to buy some land there the other day, but it would not be right if this was coming up, and I withdrew the offer because it was worth- less to me. The fact that this City will be greatly devastated if this thing goes into effect. And speaking for, again for myself, I own some land on - between 7th and 8th on Chestnut, which I bought a few years ago, and because - you know - one thing led to another, I haven't built a house in there. But I am planning to do that. But if this changes, I won't. Again, this becomes useless. I would like to see that area remain R -3. Perhaps, being selfish, but that is what . . . City Manager: Would you delineate, in addition to what you own there what you feel ought to go M -1. All I am trying to get you people to do is spell out. . . Manny Baldi: All this area along here should be what it was - M -1 or M -2. Mainly, M -2. To give the people who live in this area a real value for their buck. Right there, this should be M -2. Then this, in the area . . . okay, I am not going to point just to my property, but in the area of 8th Street down through here, this should be multiple family type of area. Not just here and there - you know just take it, so that everybody benefits, not just one or Page 20 two individuals. I don't want to speak just for myself, but I am thinking of the whole community who have to benefit by this. If you are going to make such a drastic change, it should be to the community's benefit, not one individual. That is my recommendation on that, and I only had a few minutes to study this plan. I suppose I could find other parts that I would like to see changed, but I don't think this is the place to do that. I think it should go back to the Planning Commission. City Manager: No, this is the place. Because it is not going to go back to the Planning Commission unless you make your desires known. That is why I keep saying these things to you. I am not here to needle you. I am asking you to tell the Council here what you want, because that is the only way it is going to go back. Manny Baldi: The plan has inconsistencies in one area, for example, page 9, in regard to the light industrial. The definition of light industrial area. One is the classification includes a wide ranqe of industrial use. What are these wide ranges of uses according to the plan. Can anybody tell me, because it doesn't say there. It just says wide, you know, can you explain what the wide ranges. Paul Secord: I don't think it is necessary for the plan itself to specify exactly what kinds of uses are allowable under the light industrial kind of classification. There was a strong desire not to see polluting types of industries, and there was a description of basic types of industry that would not be acceptable. The zoning ordinance which will implement the plan will, in fact, specify the types of uses which are allowable or not allowable, but under the conditions of the General Plan, I don't think it is necessary to outline them. Rarely is that, in fact, done in the General Plan. Manny Baldi: How are we to tell then what we want, if we don't know what is going to be allowed. How can we stand here and tell you what we want when we don't know what we will be allowed to do. I think if you want us to tell you what we need, you will have to tell us somewhere where we can look and see what we are going to get if we go along with your plan. Gary Croft: I might point out, those are spelled out in the zoning ordinance, which is a separate document. That is where . . . Manny Baldi: But when you are changing all this zoning . . . Gary Croft: This isn't changing zoning. This is changing cate- gories of units in the General Plan. Zoning would then follow after that . . . . (Several people talking at once, cannot transcribe exact statements) . . . . We can't come back and say well you approved the General Plan. We are not approving the General Plan. We are saying that we would like to know if we are going to go along with this, tell us what.we are to be stuck with. That is one question. I would like to see you explain to us, the public, what we are going to get. I should have been here at the last meeting, but I wasn't. A question too. If any manufacturing company is now considered in an M -2 zone, what will happen to this plant. Paul Secord: The light industrial designation includes the types of uses that are allowable under the City's current M -1 zoning designation, as well as M -2. The destinction between the kinds of uses - M -1 versus M -2 - once again, was something that will be made in the zoning ordinance. It is allowable under a General Plan to have one basic category, then implement it through more than one different zoning classification. Based on the kinds of industrial uses which were - which currently exist in the community, and which the committee expressed a desire to see in the future, there didn't seem to be enough of a distinction between the M -1 and the M -2 kinds of uses - heavy and light types of uses that were being discussed. To really show two separate classifications Page 21 on the General Plan map. Now in the zoning ordinance, which would implement this, I would assume that those areas which are currently shown as M -2, would remain M -2, and those areas which are currently shown M -1, with the exception of those places where there were changes, would remain as M -1. And that would be under the new zoning ordinances which are being drafted. Manny Baldi: But by then you would have adopted the General Plan. You couldn't hardly make any changes then. It would be too late. Paul Secord: In terms of industrial classifications, - we are really not talking about any kind of major changes, with the one exception of the Rangel Park neighborhood. That is the one area that there is a major change. Manny Baldi: That is my property. How am I going to come and argue with you later if I didn't speak up sooner. How will we go about makina me heard on that point when this is approved. How do I come back to you later and say . . . City Manager: That is why you are here right now. Manny Baldi: I know. But I am afraid you guys are going to put this through and then what do I do. So that is the question. You guys will put it off until later. I would like to see it heard now. Question No. 3. Noise hazards are defined by decibel readings. 65 -70 decibels is considered unacceptable for residential zone, yet the noise on 8th Street - here next to the Southern Pacific Railroad between B and 3rd - which is the same area we have been talking about right now - this area is 65 and 70 decibels. This is a direct contradiction between the noise map and the recommen- dation policy. We recommend that this area remain as manufac- turing zone because of the contradiction that you have. Paul Secord: That inconsistency is, in fact, addressed in your plan. The rationale for the change to residential designations, even given the current noise, was something that is addressed in the plan, and was considered in fact. Manny Baldi: Well, there is already a contradiction with each other. How can we deal later if this thing is adopted. What I am saying is the plan that has been asked of Council to accept is already a contradiction in itself. How can we live with it every time we go for a permit, every time we go for an application of use, we are going to be hit with this thing here. He is going to look at this and say, that is what it says in the book. Goodbye. Then we have to come before the Council and say . . . Councilman Hammel: Then, according to you, we wouldn't have needed this. The way you are talking. Manny Baldi: I am just trying to point out to you that . Councilman Hammel: You have got to finish this today or tomorrow or sometime. You have got to get finished with it. Manny Baldi: There is something wrong with it. Before you approve it we want . . . Councilman Hammel: Then correct it right now. Manny Baldi: That is what I am saying. We should give it back to the board, for a little more study. That is all I am asking. Give the people another chance. City Manager: As Paul pointed out previously, Manny. The only way it can go back to the Commission is orders - direction to do precise things from the Council. That is why you are here to give them the input so that they know what to send back. Manny Baldi: That is what I am saying. Mayor Thompson: Basically what we have heard here tonight is that most p,2ople that have previously purchased property and because of economic conditions beyond their control have not deve- loped that as it was originally purchased. Now you are saying Paqe 22 that - hey, let us take another look at what the proposal is because on the R -3, the M zone. Is there anyone unhappy with the open space. There is a gentlemen back there who is unhappy with the open space. (Tape is changed - discussion continues as follows). Manny Baldi: I have no argument that it has been everytime. I have no argument with any of what you gentlemen have done. Believe me, because I know, I am as lax as anyone when it comes to reading the paper and showing up for meetings unless it effects the pocket. I mean I am as guilty as much as anybody else, but I think this is too great of an issue, too great of an item, to just pass like that when people have not taken the time. I am just asking, give them another chance. What have you got to lose. City Manager: Nobody is rushing. Neal Baker, 3472 Parkside Drive, San Bernardino: I have a couple of questions. Why, when you are making a change like this isn't the square footage, like R -3, 2000, or R -3 2500 square feet, or R -3 3000. Why isn't that used instead of just saying a lot. Because when you purchase a lot you can limit it to so many dwelling units per lot. It is very unprofessional in my eye. Most other cities and counties have the square footage spelled out. And I think for R -3 most of them are R -3 2000. Am I wrong. Gary Croft: You are talking about apples and oranges. This is the General Plan. You are talking about zoning. They are two different animals. There is, in fact, designations. The single family is one to five units per acre. It measures 43,560. It is a simple matter to divide it out. The same with the other cate- gories. Five to eight units. So it is spelled out. But you are talking about zoning, and zoning varies considerably by jurisdiction. Mr. Baker: What is the zoning in this City for R -3. Gary Croft: We don't have a designation like you are talking about in our R -3 zone. Mayor Thompson: See this area in the bright yellow. Mr. Baker: I understand that. But what I meant is there is no number set out. If you have a lot . . . Gary Croft: Our zoning ordinance does not spell it out in that fashion. Paul Secord: The General Plan indicates areas for medium family development which would correspond almost exactly with the R -3 zoning areas with an average density of about eight units per acre. That is the . . . Mr. Baker: How does that compare with the Paul Secord: That is the 1973 San Gorgonio plan. I think the range is five to twelve with an overall average of approximately eight units per acre. The actual allowable density on any given lot are based on the size of the lot and the kind of setback requirement that would apply to change a parcel of land. But that is something that is taken care of in the zoning ordinance itself, which is a much more detailed kind of document. That is the implementing process for the General Plan, which is by name and nature general in its outline. Mr. Baker: How does that compare with the County zoning in Riverside County and also the City of Riverside. Gary Croft: In terms of the County General Plan, they are basically identical because when I was at the County working on the County General Plan ten years ago, the City of Beaumont entered a contract that the County do for the City of Beaumont. So, in fact, it is basically identical. In terms of the zoning, the zoning category R -3 in the County - high density has an actual. It isn't termed high density. It is called R -3 general residential, and it allows a variety of residential uses, and Page 23 it allows densities which maps out at about twenty units to the acre - twenty to twenty -one units to the acre. Ours is different because of the way the other parameters in the ordinance. It says 2000 square foot, however, if you read the minimum square footage for the dwelling unit, the parking spaces and everything, it really changes. You have a lot of little clauses which have been ignored . . . Mr. Baker: In other words yours does say - interpret into R -3 2000. Does that mean 2000 . . . Gary Croft: Not really, that is just one of the factors, and it is not equatible to what you see either in the County or in the City of Riverside where I live. They are not the same. They are not at all the same, because the ordinances are written on a different model. The model for this ordinance is not the same model as the County or the City of Riverside uses, which also are different basic ordinances. Mr. Baker: Why wouldn't it be advantageous to everyone to make them the same as the County or the City of Riverside. Why change it, I mean, why have so many different kinds. Gary Croft: I have just rewritten the City's ordinance and it is based on the County's model. Mr. Baker: This new one is not based on the County's model is it. This new one that you wanted to put in. Gary Croft: The General Plan. Mr. Baker: Right. Gary Croft: No. In fact, the County is in the process of redoing their General Plan, and it is not based on any model you have ever seen. It is based on a completely different basis, and you think this hearing is exciting you ought to attend the General Plan hearings for the County of Riverside. Mr. Baker: I won't take any more time. Then I request the same as the gentlemen before me that it go back to the Planning Commission where more of us -- I, like he,, just found out about it a short time ago. I have the southeast corner of 8th and Michigan, that I paid a little more than $2.00 a square foot for that property thinking that I was going to put somewhere in the neighborhood of twenty units on. That, under the new plan, I would be out quite a few units. I think I only have about an acre, and under the new plan that only allows me to put approximately eight units, is that right. Gary Croft: That is correct. Mr. Baker: So I would like it to stay at least -- that is another thing, I have had this property for a couple of years now, and I have tried several times to find out exactly how many units I can put on there. Not through you, because you are new here, but I have never been able to pin it down to exactly how many units I could get on there. Gary Croft: That is because of the way the zoning ordinance is written. It is very complicated. There are several portions of that ordinance that have to be considered. Mr. Baker: Shouldn't that be changed at the same time. They get it simplified. Gary Croft: It is being changed. It has been rewritten and will go to hearing at the Planning Commission next week. Mr. Baker: I have been building for thirty years and I have never had the problem of going into a I mean, Rialto, Fontana, San Bernadino. . . City Manager: You have never dealt with the City of Beaumont before. Page 24 Mr. Baker: But, I think if you are going to change it, now would be the time to change it -- to simplify things instead of making them more complicated. City Manager: That is what we are trying to do around here. It may not seem like it to you, but believe me we are. Mr. Baker: Is it really a simpler deal and . . . Councilman Lowry: He is just saying it is coming before the Council in May. They are just rewriting it. Gary Croft: It has been rewritten. It is being typed, and will go to hearing in May. Mr. Baker: Well, whatever it takes, I would like to see my property and anyone who is around mine, like the other gentleman, stay at least the same as I thought I was getting. And I thought when I bought the property that that would take twenty units. That acre. I put together about an acre. There are three lots on that . . . Councilman Lowry: You probably thought wrong, sir, according to the ordinance that is in existence now. Mr. Baker: Well, I understand I did, but I know that they had already put in twenty units up on . . .I am putting a subdivision in on Pennsylvania and, I believe, it is 10th, and there are twenty units on an acre right across the street from my subdivision. And they are brand new. Mr. Tavaglione has just put them in there. And I have about the same square footage as he has got. Now I don't know how that permit was granted . . . that permit was granted probably in the last year. That is just one acre of ground. Councilman Lowry: That was a special grant for low cost housing for senior citizens. Mr. Baker: Well, was that a special . . was that a variance. Councilman Lowry: It was a variance, yes. Isn't that true. Gary Croft: It is not really a variance. Under State law there is a provision where increased densities are allowed, providing it meets certain qualifications related to low income. Mr. Baker: Would that apply to this same property that I have, or anyone else. Gary Croft: It would apply to any property in the City which meets those requirements. Our current ordinance does not really address that issue, and that is one of the things that is addressed in the new one. Mayor Thompson: It appears that we are beginning to repeat ourselves. I think we are going to hear about three more right now. Then maybe we should adjourn this to a later date, and have Mr. Secord take copies of what has been said tonight, and then go from there. We will try to get somebody that hasn't been heard tonight. Gary Croft: I want to make one point of clarification related to going back to the Planning Commission. That would not be another public hearing. And I think that is a mistake that a lot of the audience feels. To send it back to the Planning Commission, that is required anytime there is a new consideration. But they do not hold a hearing. They simply consider what has been presented to them by reference from the Council - make a decision - and then send it back to the Council. They have held their public hearings and will hold no more. They simply will make recommendations. City Manager: That is why I have been trying to list everybody. Their precise statements so the Council will have something to send the Commission, because, like Gary just said, they can con- sider nothing that the Council does not send back to them. Page 25 Mr. Aldrich, 550 B Street: I represent the owners of all of this area here - this area here - this area here - and all of this area down here (pointing at the map). I support Mr. Baldi's theory, and all of the area that is currently yellow or orange be returned, if it was in fact, manufacturing - it all should go back to manu- facturing. Mayor Thompson: You are talking about this area right here. Mr. Aldrich: This area right in here. Basically, I would recommend along the creek bed as a guideline. Everything north of the creekbed should be manufacturing, and look at your R -1 or R -3 development south of the wash. City Manager: Could we clarify, Gary, in the area where the homes are there, basically south of the park, is that presently M zone. Gary Croft: Yes, it is zoned M -1 on our current zoning ordinance. For whatever reason I am not sure. The residents have been there for a long time, and there have been new ones built in there from time to time. Why it is designated that way is not understood. Mayor Thompson: You mean down there in the . . . Gary Croft: Around Ranqel Park, basically between Walnut and Olive. And from B Street south to 7th, which is where the creek runs through. Basically, that is all residential. There is residential - industrial north of B Street between there and the railroad tracks. And then, of course, there is the new development of Manny's there on California between Walnut and California, which is designated industrial. Mr. Aldrich: One other question related to where your wastewater treatment plant is located, ours is located right next to it. This site here. I don't understand the logic of having that R -1. Mayor Thompson: Is that R -1? Gary Croft: Residential- Agriculture. Two units to the acre is the designation. Mr. Aldrich: It seems to me it would be a little inconsistent with the existing use, I guess is what my problem is. If we decide we want to develop that north portion along 4th Street, with manu- facturing being directly across the street, I don't see how you want in a . . two wastewater treatment facilities within a rocks throw as you would want low density development there. City Manager: So you are asking that your property south of 4th Street be zoned M -1, or light industrial. Mr. Aldrich: That is correct. M -1 or M -2. City Manager: Light industrial, which as Paul has said previously makes possible either zoning there. Al Hawthorne, 1140 Euclid: I want to get one clarification from the gentlemen regarding what he had said about that the noise level was taken into consideration in rezoning of some of these areas. I think there is an area shown in the yellow here just south of the railroad tracks, between B Street and the railroad, which is now classed as an M zone, one sort or the other, whether it is M -1 or M -2, now being redone as being residential -low densi- ty. According to what I find is in contradiction is, according to the map, it shows that from south of B Street there, that is a decibel zone of 60, so anything between there and the railroad would get higher in decibel ratings as you get closer to the rail- road. Obviously there are parcels of land between B Street and the railroad which are now residential, which later on, you go on to say, is not, in fact, you have it in here as being normally unacceptable for residential zone, without extensive barriers for sound and that kind of thing between the railroad and the existing zones. What I don't understand is why would anybody build, you know, in this day and age, up against the railroad, especially Page 26 since it normally seems to have an industrial use now. City Manager: This is the point Manny made? Mr. Hawthorne: Yes, but he discounted it by saying he took care of it in here, and I am saying he didn't take care of it, and I am willing to explain. City Manager: Well, your appeal is to these gentlemen, and these guys are going to make the decision, not him. Mr. Hawthorne: With what he says, I hope they can make a proper decision on it. City Manager: I have trust in them, and he and I have argued a good share of the afternoon, and Paul has done a job. That was what he was paid to do. I hope all of you people out there, and I am speaking, I guess, for the Council at this point. I hope all of you people out there will allow these people to make the de- cision, because these are the ones who are going to make it. Mr. Hawthorne: Okay. I appeal the question to the Council then, and let the Council ask me - or answer me - as to why. . . I don't understand the inconsistencies of zoning that a residential area in the General Plan. City Manager: You made your point, I think. Mayor Thompson: You have asked why that was changed from M zone to residential. Mr. Hawthorne: And it is inconsistent to what it says in here. Mayor Thompson: Personally, I can't answer your question factually. However, from the existing development in that area that has been there since lord knows when, it has been predominately R -1. Much of these developments in that B Street, 4th Street area down there, around Rangel Park, is R -1. This is what the citizens committee took into consideration when they were looking at this. Now whether they were right or wrong, I mean, there is going to be some disagreement from my part of it, but I am not sure whether it is right or wrong, but I personally, just as one person, think they may have erred a little bit. Mr. Hawthorne: Well that is why I am basically trying to get this basically the same point. Manny said that that is why we feel that these are the kind of inconsistencies that haven't been looked at. Obviously it has gotten all the way to the Council and nobody has really either caught, or to my knowledge, has brought up the fact that there are these kinds of inconsistencies. And it doesn't seem to follow what you would want for a General Plan. I may be wrong. Mayor Thompson: This is the results of the input from the citizens committee, and Beland /Associates, based on what they've seen, what they have heard. Evidently they didn't hear it all. What I have been hearing tonight . . . Councilman Lowry: There was another public hearing prior to this one, and there was some inconsistencies that some of the members of the Council pointed out also. Mayor Thompson: Okay. You are basically the M zone around Rangel Park. Mr. Hawthorne: I am kind of curious as maybe it would affect the board's decision as to . . . Mayor Thompson: We are not going to make a decision tonight. Mr. Hawthorne: I . . . do I have to go back to him later on to try to get an answer out of that, or do we just leave it at that. Mayor Thompson: Well, I think we have pretty well covered most of Page 27 it tonight, unless . . is there something new that you had Paul. Paul Secord: It is a little bit new, and I will keep my comments very brief. This comment is relative to the change in the designa- tions in the Rangel Park neighborhood. This area was something that was discussed at great length in the citizens committee, and there were members of the committee who had lived in that area, and represented the people who are living there. It is recognized that portions of that neighborhood are heavily impacted by noise. It was also recognized that those houses, and the people who live there, have been there for many, many years, and have lived with that. The 65 decibel line is, to a certain extent, a rather arbitrary kind of a line. It is based on Federal guidelines which say - okay, when you are exposed to noise levels of this magnitude, most people find this obnoxious, and undesirable, and would not want to live there. The fact of the matter is, that there are a number of units in that area which are exposed to noise levels of that magnitude and the people have continued to live there. And from the input that we received at the committee meetings relative to the people that are living there, there was a desire th t they remain, and that that neighborhood be recognized as a viab e resi- dential area, despite the fact that it is impacted by nois , and that is mentioned in the plan. It is a portion of the plan relative specifically to the Rangel Park area. So, in fact, it is not an oversight, and it is nothing that was not considered either in the process, or by the Planning Commission. Councilman Lowry: What would be wrong, it has been M -1 all along, with leaving it as M -1, and then as these people want to sell it off they get more for their property, selling it M -1. Paul Secord: The principal concern had to do with the people who are living there now, and with the fact that . Councilman Lowry: You mean to make them feel more comfortable, to be rezoned R -1 instead of M -1 . . . Paul Secord: From a planning standpoint, that functions as a single family, residential neighborhood, and we felt that it would be appropriate, in the General Plan, to recognize the fact that, yes, indeed, it is a single family, residential area. There are some light industrial uses scattered in the area there. But the principal uses there are single family residences, and from just a planning standpoint, to not recognize the fact that it was not an M -1 was inappropriate. Councilman Lowry: Well, even living there and putting up with that noise, isn't it a known fact that that high decibels actually, causes physical damage to them in a way, and psychologically damage to them also. Paul Secord: At those kinds of levels, not necessarily. It is really a very subjective kind of a criteria. It is true that ex- posure to very high noise levels do cause severe mental and physical problems. But when you get down to these kinds of levels, these are subjective guidelines that have been drawn up . . . Councilman Lowry: Well, industrially, and I do a lot of industrial design, they try to keep it to 40 decibels. Henry Gerwin, 1406 East Sixth: I acquired that place in 1960. When I acquired that place in 1960 it was M zone in the back, and C -2 or 5 in the front, and I still have a workshop - cabinet shop - on the property. I would like to leave it M zone, if possible. That 150 feet in the back was M zone because there was a cabinet shop. Other than that, I had a fruit stand in the front that somebody ran over and wrecked, but we are going to eventually replace it. City Manager: The corner of American and 6th. Northeast corner. David reLanc77.� , attorney practicing in Newport Beach, California: I represent Ab -Kov Corporation, Mr. Kulakov is President, and is present here this evening. I would like to address for a moment property that is on the board behind you shown on the map there pang '?Q to the left, shown as Cherry Valley Acres. I am sure you are all familiar with that - that is the southwest corner of Brookside Avenue and Beaumont Avenue. I will state, since the City Manager has reminded everyone to state what they want. I don't want to be remiss in that. What we would like, and what we request of the Council, is that the plan be sent - the General Plan - be sent back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration as to this property, in any event, for zoning that is commensurate with the prior agreements of the City, and the basis under which the property was originally annexed. The property was annexed by Resolution No. 1980 -13, on April 14, 1980, under a recommendation from the Planning Commission that set forth that there would be, in this it says 25 - and what we are seeking is 35 acres commercial, and the balance would be - of the property would be medium and high density housing. With that thought in mind, application was made to the City of Beaumont on October 17, 1980, and I will be happy to supply your City Attorney and the Council with all - copies of all these documents in the event that are hard to find in the files. I realize how those things happen. But we did apply at that time - we did receive a request for additional funds, and on October 29, 1980, we sent a cover letter to the City with a check for $1,020.00 for the General Plan amendment requested as outlined, and as we had fulfilled all the requirements at that time, of application for the necessary zoning. The money was accepted. The letter that accompanied that called attention to the fact that we had previously paid $250.00, but nevertheless, we would pay the additional amount. Again there was no rejection or acceptance of that zone change request. I would call the City Attorney's attention to Assembly Bill 884, which has not become Government Code Section 65920, Chapter 4.5, which states that any development - and it defines development under Section 65927 as development means, among other things - one of them is change in the density of intensity of use of land, including but not limited to subdivision pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, and any other division of land. In effect, what this assembly bill, and later government code does - is says that if there is -- if you have met the requirements of the City, which we feel we did, and there is not a denial or an approval within one year, you are deemed approved. We therefore ask that you resubmit this plan to the Planning Commission for reconsideration with your City Attorney, Mr. Dougherty's, opinion accompanying it, regarding the applica- bility of this Government Code section and Assembly Bill to our project. We think it is very much applicable, and that the property should be zoned as it was promised by the City, and as originally applied for by the developer. Councilman Lowry: This plan was up here at our last Council meeting, and as I understand it you don't own all this property that you thought you were going to own. Is that true. Mr. DeLancy: That is right. We have an option to purchase part of it. Councilman Lowry: At the last meeting you said you didn't know if you were going to get it or not. Mr. DeLanc­. It depends on the City. If they don't want . why should we buy it. Councilman Lowry: That wasn't what I got. This ten acres here, that is not included. You hoped to get that too at the time. Mr. DeLancy: That is not part of the property that is owned by this developer. Councilman Lowry: Then how can you present this plan to the Planning Commission when you don't own the property. Mr. DeLancy: We are not presenting anything on that ten acres you pointed to. Councilman Lowry: Well, the rest down here. You don't own that too. Page 29 Councilman Hammel: Gary, didn't the gentleman say that this was submitted - the plan was submitted in October 1980. Right. And you also stated that the law provides that after a year is gone, that you have to resubmit your plan. You haven't done so. Gary Croft: No. Under AB 884, a decision must be rendered within a year. The decision was rendered that it was inconsistent with the General Plan. In fact, it was the decision, and they were told to apply for a General Plan amendment. And that is what is going on at this time. Mr. DeLancy: We made the application, and within the year we did not receive a response. That is the document I said we would be happy to submit to the City Attorney. Gary Croft: 884 does not apply to the General Plan. It applies to land division, zone changes, and development type projects. Mr. DeLancy I agree. But if you are then enacting a General Plan which does change that property, then we think it should have consideration by the Planning Commission along those lines before you enact a General Plan. The same as these other . . . Gary Croft: And they considered it at the hearings. You were not present although the other representatives . . . Mr. DeLancy: With all due respect, I don't wish to argue with you sir. I am merely here - I am here to request that the Council do this, and also in light of an opinion from your City Attorney. City Manager: Could I suggest, Mr. Mayor, that you continue this hearing until the 26th. Mayor Thompson: We have heard quite a few individuals - persons having input. We could probably sit here from now until tomorrow and hear individual opinions very much similar to what we have heard already. All you have heard was the input for this public hearing, and with this it would indicate to you that there is some dissatisfaction with the presentation of your proposal. Paul Secord: Well I think most of the comments really fell on very few specific areas of concern, and I would be happy to respond to those in more detail on the 26th, if there is some desire for me to do so. But I don't think that, while we heard a number of comments, I think most of them all really fell. pretty much into one category. City Manager: May I respectfully suggest to you, Mayor Thompson, that the hearing should be continued if for no other reason the fact that we still have to have another hearing in order to allow the State to respond, which they will, and then additionally I would suggest that no matter whether ten spoke here tonight, or 100 spoke here tonight, if there is another 100 that wish to speak, that that is the purpose of these hearings, and that you ought to continue them as long as there is an individual who wants to be heard. And I say that respectfully to you and the Council, but this is important that you do just that. And then when you finally get to that point where you want to close your hearing, then you make an order directing Mr. Secord and the Planning Commission to consider certain specific, precise situations. You can spell them out with a broad brush, or be specific in all the individual things that you have heard. But at that point you must be specific when you return it back to the . . . either specific in terms of the individual preciseness, or the broad brush as it were. But that is what you must do. Mayor Thompson: We have been an hour and a half here now. I don't begrudge the time. Don't get me wrong, but I think that most of us can only absorb so much at one sitting in this type of thing. Bill Fisk: 560 Euclid: I noticed that there could have been a misunderstanding between what Mr. Davis says and what is printed in the paper. It says apparently there are some areas where map Page 31 changes the zoning from R -1 to R -3 and not vice - versa. And where the commercial areas are shrunk down ..(the balance of this gentleman's comment is unintelligible at this point). Irish Mitchell, 402 East 6th: I can understand very well the problem that Beland has. They had fifteen people, various citizens, that were on this committee. That is the entire purpose. A lot of people don't understand that. When I was working on the General Plan last summer, in 1980, we had as many as 27 and 28 people, and the only difference between the Beland 's advises, and the ones that I had, were the actual people that were there. None of the ones that were on this citizens committee were on my committee. None that were on my committee, were on this citizens committee. And a major point of difference lies in the zoning of the R -3. Under the plan that we have now, under No. 490, there are specifics named in there relative to what is required to have R -3 in those R -3 zones. And it is very stringent. The only problem that has ever come about is that the laws were never enforced. They were never observed. But it is a positive fact that if you have blighted area, which all of this is, most of this is blighted area, it is designated, and has been designated as a blight area for a period of ten to twelve years. People will not build a new home next to a blighted home. But they will build a duplex, or a triplex, or a fourplex alongside, and it upgrades. Then when one of those is built, they have the proper landscaping, and it is enforced, then a person who has a resi- dential lot, and then can probably build a residential lot. It builds the area back in. So I would suggest if you can hold and enforce your present 490 requirements as to open and recreational zone, as to parking, and as to garbage, that you can leave it the same way, and it will not bastardize the territory. It will take nothing away from the people who, in good faith, have invested in R -3 land in that area, and I know of dozens and dozens that have made the investment in the last two years. I was out trying to obtain property for a client today. It is even difficult to find good R -3 property that can be built on in that area. So it would not be anything that would cause any particular problems. Beland /Associates are blameless. I am not saying that to keep from getting another threatening letter, but I say they are blameless in this because this is put on basically by the citizens. His citizen group said one - my citizen's group said one thing else - but in essence they were all saying the same thing. So if you would just let that ride and think it over. I don't think it has to go back for more hearings. There have been more hearings on it now than you need. City Manager: You ought to have some pretty good leads here as to people who might want to sell. Mayor Thompson: We have been an hour and thirty -five minutes on this. We are going to adjourn this until our meeting of April 26. We will continue this hearing until April 26, at 8 :00 P.M., in these chambers. 16. City Manager Contract Renewal. This agenda item was taken off-calendar until information received. 17. Authorization for Mayor to Sign Paving Agreement between City of Beaumont and Beaumont - Cherry Valley Water District. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the Mayor to sign the paving agreement between the City of Beaumont and the Beaumont- Cherry Valley Water District. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Page 32 18. Authorization to Submit Plans for Third Street Sewer Project to Bid. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the City Manager to submit the plans for the Third Street Sewer Project to bid, including the time schedule as recommended by the City Manager in letter dated April 8, 1982. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 19. ORAL COMMUNICATION: There was no oral communication. There being no further business to come before the Council the meeting was adjourned to 6:30 P.M. on Monday, April 19, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, at 10:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, C,� City Cle Page 33 BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF MARCH 22, 1982 1. The Beaumont City Council met in a regular meeting at 7:35 P.M., on Monday, March 22, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor Thompson presiding. 2. The invocation was given by Reverand Herbert Moise. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Councilman Hammel. 4. On Roll Call the following Council Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 5. There being no additions, corrections or deletions, on Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of March 8, 1982 and Adjourned Meetina of March 16, 1982 were approved as submitted. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 6. There being no objections, the Minutes of Regular Planning Commission meting of March 2, 1982 were accepted as presented and ordered filed. 7. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, warrants as audited per Warrant List of March 22, 1982, in the amount of $88,311.90 and Payroll of March 19, 1982, in the amount of $25,841.50 were approved for payment as audited. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 8. ORDINANCE NC. 543 - SECOND READING - Declaring the Need for a Redeve- lopment Agency to Function in the City of Beaumont and Declaring the City Council to be the Redevelopment Agency for the City of Beaumont. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Ordinance No. 543 at its second reading by title only. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 9. ORDINANCE NO. 544 - SECOND READING - Regulating Encroachments and Excavations on City Streets. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Ordinance No. 544 at its second reading by title only. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 10. ORDINANCE NO. 545 - FIRST READING - Providing for the Abatement and Removal as Public Nuisances of Abandoned, Wrecked, Dismantled or Inoperative Vehicles from Private Property or Public Property. Motion by Councilman Shaw and second by Councilman Hammel to pass Ordinance No. 545 at its first reading was withdrawn by Councilmen Shaw and Hammel respectively. Page 1 On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont passes Ordinance No. 545 for its first reading by title only. AYES: Councilmen May, NOES: Mayor Thompson. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Shaw, Hammel and Lowry. 11. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -17 - Proclaiming May 1, 1982 as "Law Day USA ". On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -17 pro- claiming May 1, 1982 as "Law Day USA" by title only, with the stipula- tion that the typographical error of the word rededication be corrected. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. At this point, the Public Hearing noticed for 8:00 P.M., listed as Agenda Item No. 15, was heard. 15. PUBLIC HEARING - the Draft General Plan. The Mayor announced that the legal requirements of publication of notice have been met. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:00 P.M. Norman Davis, City Manager: Let me read this notice from the State Office of Planning and Research, then the original presentation will be by Gary Croft, the City's Planner, and Paul Secord, of Beland/ Associates, who performed the development of the General Plan, is here also to answer any questions at any stage of the hearing, but we will have Gary make the presentation. I just want to read into the record at this time the acknowledgment that came from the State of California Project Notification and Review System, Office of the Governor. Pro- ject: Beaumont General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. It has been given a number, and it points out that their review starts effective March 17, 1982, and that the document review period ends April 30, 1982. Which means that they may use all of that time if they so desire before they make a report, or ask for changes in the draft of the EIR, or they may give a report to the City of Beaumont prior to that deadline of April 30, 1982. In any event, the hearings have to continue until such time as the final date, or in advance of that date, if they reply earlier than that date, before the City Council can take - close the hearing and take any action upon the General Plan. So with that notice, I would ask Gary Croft to come up and present the General Plan to the City Council and to the public. Gary Croft, Chief Planner, City of Beaumont: On the 2nd of March the Planning Commission concluded its hearings and approved the General Plan as you see presented before you, and as you have contained in the documents which you previously received. The Planning Commission held two public hearings as is scheduled for yourselves, at which time the plan as recommended by the Citizens Advisory Committee was presented at the initial hearing, and discussion - presentation was made by the consultant, and discussion was held with various members of the public and the Citizens Advisory Committee making presentations. The second hearing, likewise, was held in which further comment was made. Basically the plan, as adopted by the Commission, is the same as presented by the committee with the exception of about a half a dozen changes. In particular, designations on the plan, but none of them were substantially changing the concept of the plan in its scope or in its text. The Commission, in fact, made comments at the hearings that they felt the policies and goals as outlined by the Committee were quite outstanding, and would be of considerable value in the development of the City. Let me outline basically the plan as you see it in terms of the categories. It would probably be easiest to go by the color code, since that is the Page 2 most visible. The first category which you see is the rural residen- tial category, basically designed for rural residential development on half acre lots, that is, essentially, two units to the acre or larger. You basically find that in the southern edges of the City and then stretching on to the hills to the south in the unincorporated area. The second category is the low density residential . . . Councilman Lowry: Would you mention the colors as you speak to it? Mr. Croft: That color is a light green. The second category is a golden color, and it is low density residential, one to five units to the acre, which is basically what we think of as standard single family, and the bulk of the existing City, as you see, is found in that category. One of the changes made at that time was to include the area just outside the City limits along Sunnyslope within that category as it is already somewhat developed to that density, and the existing larger acreage in that area could also fit into that. Another area where you find that category is up off of Brookside, the tract which is currently being considered for annexation. In addition, one of the changes made by the Commission was to add to that category the balance of the forty acre parcel from which that tract is cut. The other areas where you find that category are down around Rangel Park in the southwest section of the City where it is currently developed to that type of a density, and then along Maple just off of First, again where you find a small existing residential area. The next category is the medium density residential of five to eight units to the acre. Here you find the category along the north side of the freeway easterly of Maple going east to approximately Pennsylvania, and then in the same area to the north of Sixth Street approximately where Seventh Street would be found, then further east from approximately where the storm channel comes through just east of Xenia to almost Highland Springs, and then again in the mobile home park development up at 14th and Cherry, and the balance of that super block where you find the high school. The next category is the high density residential where the densities range eight to sixteen units to the acre, and basically that is found in two locations where we have existing high density apartments. One over along Cherry, the other north of the Bank of America on Beaumont Avenue. The next category is general commercial, and it includes all of our commercial type of development. The basic area is the area along Sixth Street from Highland Springs through this central portion of the town to approximately California, and then along Beaumont Avenue northerly to just north of 12th Street, then the area at 14th Street and Beaumont Avenue. One change - or two changes made by the Commission from the Citizen's plan was one to add - to change from the medium density resi- dential at the corner of 8th and Highland Springs to general commercial. That is that vacant lot across from the hospital. And then the other was to reduce the commercial that was along Beaumont Avenue, which as the Citizens Committee had shown it extended westerly to Euclid and easterly to Magnolia. They essentially reduced it to where the alley currently runs behind Beaumont Avenue, and then extended that north. The next category, which is a magenta, is the highway service commercial, and the orientation for this was the locations where the access was towards the freeways and towards the major highways running into the City. The areas designated for this use were around the Beaumont Avenue exit, both north and south of that, and then over along Highway 60, where Dowlings have their stand, as well as an area paralleling Highway 60 along Western Knolls, along Frontage Road on the north and then a comparable frontage road on the southerly portion. Likewise, over at San Timoteo Canyon, an area was designated as highway service commercial. The next category is the purple or violet color, which is the industrial category. The basic areas designated for that were the area south of the freeway northerly of First Street running from approximately Cali- fornia Avenue, just westerly of California Avenue, east to Highland Springs. Then, in addition, the area west of Elm, again south of the Page 3 freeway including the existing portion of the City where the old dump sites were located northerly of Fourth. In addition, an area between the railroad tracks and the freeway northerly of Highway 60 that tapers out. The next category in the darker green are public open spaces, and these are scattered throughout the City and basically designate existing uses. Everything from the series of parks running down Orange Street and including Noble Creek Park in the unincorporated area. The next category is a blue which designates public facilities including this building, the various school sites around the City and properties the water district uses for storage or for pumping. Also included, of course, are the sewage treatment plant of the City, the City's yard, the Southern California Gas Company facility. The next category is a lighter green, which is the open space reserve. Basically these are found in categories - one of the hillsides southerly of the City, and then along the areas which are subject to flooding along Noble Creek and San Timoteo Creek that you find to the northwest of the existing City. The last category on the list is this yellow category, which is a very significant change from the existing general plan, which was adopted in 1973, and that is a category designating for these large ownership acreages that we find scattered around the perimeter of the City, and some within the City, as a specific plan designation basically for residential, but allowing supporting commercial with a recommended density of one to five units to the acre. Basically what it amounts to is those areas which encompass forty acres or larger - in order to define their development and their long range program, would require that they come before the Commission and Council and do a specific plan document, which would outline in detail their proposed development over a period of time - which would allow both the developer and the City to view in some detail, well in advance of development, the type of development and the type of amenities which would come to the area. The Commission in their hearing and then in adopting the General Plan, recommended that the Council adopt the plan as presented, and as you would have following your hearings. I might point out, in the hearings, that any item that is presented to the Council, which was not speci- fically heard by the Commission, must be referred back to them for their recommendation. You do not hold another public hearing, but they simply consider the request as it has been made before the Council, and make a recommendation back. So, if there is a considerable amount of presentation which was not previously heard by the Commission then it does create the possibility of some delays in adoption. And, hopefully, what would be presented would be either similar to what has already been presented, and would not require undue delays of recon- sideration by the Planning Commission. Are there any questions? Irish Mitchell, 402 East Sixth Street, Beaumont: The only question that I have is along Beaumont Avenue going out - on the commercial property from downtown to 12th Street - between 12th and 6th. Now that is basically a half a block on each side isn't it? The only reason that I am mentioning that in the form of a question - that is exactly what we have at the present time, isn't that correct? There has been a great deal of conversation relative to going down there, especially with the parking requisites of commercial property, is the depth of those lots. You only have about 150 foot depth of those lots, and you are stifling a potential commercial in there unless you include it over to Edgar and over to Magnolia - you could abandon those alleys, then you would have good sensible commercial development with adequate parking without having a problem. I am just offering this as some- thing for you to think about, gentlemen, because none of this zoning will be changed until such time as there are zoning hearings, is that right? So I thought I would bring that up as a point. It is a good plan - I like it - it is very similar to one I saw very recently. City Manager: What Mr. Mitchell says, of course, is what the Citizens Committee recommended as Gary pointed out to you originally in the report. Nicholas Grimes, 387 Florence, Beaumont: What Irish brought up, I want to speak on that. I was prepared for something else, but you brought up a good point. I have some commercial property in Banning Page 4 A different town. 125 foot depth. I am trying at the present time (Tape changed. Mr. Grimes' comments continue as follows) . . . that is exactly what he says. I have been struggling with this for seven years. I have been over there eleven years, but I live in Beaumont, like I say. But on this alley thing, that is very valid, what he says, because you can't - a twenty -seven foot deep commercial is not even worth building, the only reason I am building it is because I already have the property. Otherwise, I would like to sell it. But that is a secondary thing. I have a question on the industrial. This area right here (pointing at the map). I am curious to know why we have industrial - or zoned industrial in what I would feel would be a good area of town to bring in traffic off the freeway. Banning exploits as much as they can the freeway. Why can't we do the same thing in Beaumont? Mayor Thompson: If I understand you correctly. Your question is why is that little bit of M zone down there on 6th Street. Mr. Grimes: Well, where he is pointing right there is north of the freeway - no I guess you could say east of the freeway also - why can't we go commercial - let's say get some commercial in there that would attract traffic off the freeway to spend their money in Beaumont for sales tax purposes, nothing else. Why have industrial there. Why can't we have all industrial south of the freeway. Mayor Thompson: Can you answer that question Gary? Gary Croft: When I reviewed the plan I neglected to point out that was one of the changes which the Commission made from the Citizens Advisory plan. That is the citizens had that designated as commercial, however, at the second hearing before the Planning Commission a number of the gentlemen that have machine shops in that area came in and pointed out that, in fact, the commercial that had been designated there for years had really never developed, and had gone down hill over the time, and that they had developed the area into an industrial area, and wanted to preserve their machine shops and the development which they had been doing in the area, basically west of California along 6th Street. Councilman Lowry: They have quite a bit invested, and some nice buildings in this area. Gary Croft: And they pointed this out at the hearing, and the Commission agreed with that concept, and therefore felt that ought to be changed to that designation. That would not preclude, however, commercial development related to the highway from going in - particularly on those parcels near the on and off ramps of 60 and I -10. Mayor Thompson: Does that answer your question. Mr. Grimes: No, not really, but I don't want to drag it on. To me it seems to me it is a waste - we are not drawing enough traffic off the freeway with industrial there. We should draw in - MacDonald Hamburger, that kind of stuff. There is a lot of money in that area. The restaurant row in Banning is that way. They make a lot of money that way. The second question. Is this only for zone change only? Mayor Thompson: Oh no. This is the entire planning concept for the Beaumont City Limits and its sphere of influence. Mr. Grimes: Okay. Second question. I am going to point something out here. This is the corner of Cherry and 14th Street if I am not mistaken. And this is the hospital area. I would like to see - I don't know if it is possible - can we somehow figure out a way to get a road across there - there are a lot of reasons, primarily the emergency vehicles from that part of town - which is the hospital, CHP, ambulance, and on the other side we have the high school, and do you know what that means. I was raised right there on 8th Street and I remember seeing ambulances and fire trucks and everything, which are on that side go racing down that road. One time I saw a little dog get killed. That could have been a little child. And Pennsylvania Avenue is worn out. Why can't we just go straight across for emergency vehicles - for that matter the general public, and we could save Pennsylvania from being worn out anymore - turn it into a collector street rather than a thoroughfare - put the thoroughfare from 14th diagonally. The secondary benefit would be, if you notice, we have a lot of rain - water fall off Page 5 I should say in the area of - is it Xenia and 6th. Okay, we can rec- tify this situation if we put this road diagonally across, because the rain that flows off that big field, if we can have a road going diagonally across, it would capture and shed some of that water over into the Highland Springs . . . that big concrete gutter where they have . . . okay, we would solve so many problems this way. The rain problem we have at Xenia and 6th could be solved - all the rains would be diverted to Highland Springs. Not to mention every one of us have to drive around that field - I was raised in this town. I don't know how much money I have spent driving around that field just because I can't go across. Not to mention emergency vehicles. Councilman Lowry: First off, this is not incorporated in this City. Mr. Grimes: Yes, I know that is why I asked if I should even bring it up. I didn't even know if the City could even figure out a way maybe the County could put something across there. Because for the emergency purposes - emergency vehicles - not to mention the rainwater. Councilman Lowry: That property is also an agricultural preserve. Mr. Grimes: Okay. Are we going to continue to let somebody who owns that property - and as we develop around it - he continues to sit there, and we have to drive around that. Wait until some little child gets hurt on 8th Street. Councilman Lowry: We have, at present, . . . maybe the City Manager should answer this. We have, at present, an annexation for that property into the City before LAFCO. City Manager: Gentlemen. The owners of this property have brought in a - - not a precise developmental plan, but an elementary developmental plan for their property, and it does show 14th Street going through to . . . well not exactly straight, but it gets there. They show on their plan . . they have got a loop to serve the whole of their property, and then 14th Street making a connection and also Cougar Way making a connection to that loop, which is going to feed Highland Springs by virtue . . . Mr. Grimes: Would that be considered a thoroughfare, or just a collector street. City Manager. Oh yes, it is a major . . . Mr. Grimes: I was just thinking of the emergency vehicles from the high school area. You know what I mean there. City Manager: It is a major arterial they have got projected on their plan. Mr. Grimes: That is all I have to say. Thank you. City Manager: A quick comment. On the first part of his comment on the industrial. As Gary has indicated, the area has grown into a light manufacturing use. For years there were commercial establishments on that side of town and virtually, by way of the reason of the freeway design, it killed that side of town, because there is no visibility of Beaumont on that side of town from the freeway, and that is what happened - it killed the commercial and, as a result, the manufacturing sprung up. I think it is a noble idea that he has, but I don't think that anybody can force the traveling public to come off at a point that they just don't seem to want to come off on. That is what has happened on that side of town. Gary Croft: I might make one additional comment. On the diagonal road which he proposed. That was discussed at the hearings related to the circulation element as being a very desirable thing to service exactly what has been discussed, and it basically was felt that they did not want to show that specifically on the map until such time as a specific plan were developed on the property. That a proper consideration be made for circulation, roughly paralleling that. As Mr. Davis has indi- cated, the preliminary conceptual plan for that property lends itself to that type of design. Page 6 Mr. Simoff, 1385 Michigan: All this area - from Cherry Avenue - 6th Street - and here is California - is all this R -1, R -2 or R -3. Gary Croft: Basically that would be R -1. If we were talking about zoning. We are talking about single family. Mr. Simoff: It is all R -1. From 6th Street up to 12th Street and a little more, it is commercial. It is R -1 on one side and on the other side. How did they support this commercial. There is only one house on one lot, with two people or three people. Without people this commercial will die. They cannot be supported. Why is this area ex- cluded - 14th to 12th to not be commercial. Because, in our theory, it is very noisy. There is big traffic and noise, and by being noisy cannot be residential. It must be commercial, or another use. But I don't see this from here to here being residential. There is so much traffic, a regular Los Angeles Freeway. Second. I think that is the territory of the County. You indicate industry. Very little is territory for apartments. We need rentals. If we intend to put industry or something else, they are not residential. We cannot grow this place without residential. There must be much more area included for apartments. My question is why have you excluded this one from commercial. That is my question. And why so little area for apart- ments. Gary Croft: If the Council would like that question answered, I would suggest that it would probably better to talk - to have Paul Secord answer it, since these were considerations that were given at the Citizens Advisory Committee of which he acted as consultant to them. Councilman Lowry: He missed all that area north of 14th, which is for apartments. I think he didn't realize that. Gary Croft: That is correct, the area of 14th to Cougar, from Beaumont easterly to Cherry, basically, is designated for apartment type deve- lopment - or higher density than single family. Paul Secord, City Planning Consultant from the firm of Beland /Associates, Project Manager for the Beaumont General Plan: My answer to that, and I will be speaking as a representative of the Citizens Committee which, over a period of about six months, held bi- monthly meetings, the culmi- nation of which is the plan that you see before you. The justification for not including commercial development any further north was made principally on the existing land uses in the area. Most of that area is completely developed now with single family type development. As is the bulk of the area shown for low density residential. The major developed portion of the City. There are rather extensive areas shown for multi - family development. Most of that is developed, and then there is a tremendous amount of undeveloped property, almost 160 acres, which is shown. Which, based on the economic projections and general feelings of demand, seem to be more than adequate to provide for whatever poten- tial there may be for multi - family development. Are there any specific questions or comments based on that. Mayor Thompson: I have a question. My question is - on your population projections in your plan - was what, 55,000. What was the time span that we were projecting on that. Paul Secord: We are talking about a twenty year plan essentially. Now, perhaps this is a good time to go into the population projection questioned, because I know there has been - I have heard some comments, and there has been some question about how those projections were arrived at. What the basis was for them. Mayor Thompson: Before you continue, may I finish my question. I had prefaced my question on the population. The area that you have there - what is it the orange - the higher density - that area, and one down on 8th Street in this area. Based on your population projections, do you feel that is an adequate size of an area for that? Paul Secord: Yes. Let me talk about the population projections just very quickly, because I know there has been some concern and comment about that. The number of approximately 50,000 is based on what the Page 7 maximum build -out would be under the General Plan designations as shown on that map. And that is the sole basis for that figure. There are also projections that were prepared as part of an economic analy- sis which past development trends as a basis for projection. Now whether those past trends will hold true over the next few years is questionable, and it is very difficult to measure them. There is really quite a spectrum. Then on the other side, if one was to take all of the various proposals for development - just concept plans that we have seen over the last several years for all of this potentially developable vacant property, you would end up with an ultimate population of well over 100,000 people. Which seems to be far in excess of what the area can support. The specific plan designation at a recommended density of five units per acre is a compromise between - on the one hand a very conservative almost no growth projection - and on the other hand, this very large projection. The actual figure is going to be based on economic conditions to a great extent on a national level, which are something that we can't really control as a part of the planning process. But there is certainly a potential for a tremendous amount of growth, and I think the plan does a good job of addressing that potential. So I hope that clarifies any questions that there might be relevant to that. City Manager. Could we clarify one thing that I know is of great interest to some of the people that own these sizeable properties. Gary and Paul have indicated the planned unit development areas are one to five units per acre. Where is that spelled out as regards to that limitation. Paul Secord: Under the specific plan designation. Let me talk about how the plan is constructed basically, and I will answer that speci- fically. In the community development portion of the General Plan, the plan is divided into six basic elements. There is a description of each of the various land use designations, and in that section it defines, under the specific plan requirements, the yellow area shown, it recommended a maximum density of five units per acre. Now the specific plan concept could involve densities which could range considerably lower than that, and conceivably they could be somewhat higher, depending on the specifics of the case, that is why it is mentioned as a recommended density at five per acre. There is a mini- mum area of forty acres that would be allowable under the specific plan, and that is spelled out in that portion of the plan text. Councilman Lowry: Why did you use one to five rather than one to six? One to six would allow 7,000 square foot lots in six to the acre. Five makes it about 8,000 square feet to the acre, and our ordinance says the lot has to be a minimum of 7,000 square feet. Are we going to have a conflict with that in the future. Paul Secord: I don't think so because the areas that are shown for low density now, under the one to five, are principally areas that are already developed. The areas - the yellow areas - the specific plan area, you could have development at a variety of different densities ranging up to apartment type densities, as long as the overall density for the area was within approximately five per acre. Say you could have clustering type developments of townhouses, two -story apartment type structures, as well as much lower density estate type residential uses. Councilman Lowry: In other words, any park area set aside would take care of some of that is what you are saying. Paul Secord: Absolutely. In addition, the plan also provides for ancillary commercial uses in those specific plan areas. Commercial which would be support for specific residential type developments would be allowable, and the acreage that would be taken up by that development would be part of the gross area as well. For example, I think the Deutsch proposal, which I saw for the first time this after - noon, actually has about fifteen acres of commercial development included in it, and that would be consistent with the specific plan policies. Councilman Lowry: New highways, streets and so forth - that area taken out, is that . . . Page 8 Paul Secord: No, it is a gross figure. It would include streets, highways, public facilities, schools, park, the whole . . Councilman Shaw: In your plan, what sort of coverage do you give the sewer system. Paul Secord: Well, of course, one of the major constraints on deve- lopment in the area has to do with the provision for infrastructure, and the specific plan concept initially required that more of the developer, at the outset, before a specific plan could be approved, and some of the things that have to be answered are - can the infra- structure be adequately provided for. That includes sewer, water, street systems, and the rest of it. As you know, the City is currently in the process of a sewer master plan, which speaks more directly to those questions. But you are right, that is a major concern and a potential constraint on development. City Manager: Paul, since you indicated that the number of unit per acre in the planned unit development zones there, or areas, is part of this plan, then what you are also saying is that the City Council has the right to make that final determination whether it shall be one to five, or one to eight or one to fifty, if that is what they desire. Is that correct? Paul Secord: I think the one to five, or the overall density of five per acre, is the basic guide. City Manager: I didn't ask you that. Do they have the right to make that decision or not? Or are you saying that what you reported to them now is frozen in here. Paul Secord: What I saying is that depending on the specifics of a plan submittal, they are locked in essentially to a density that is around five units per acre. I would say if you had . . . City Manager: Paul, you are not answering my question. It could be either yes or no I guess. Does the Council have the right before the adoption of this plan here - the total plan - to set a density of one to five, which is what you have evidently written into the plan at this time, or can they set it at one to four or one to eight, or any other density. Paul Secord: Oh yes, they can change the . yes. I was reading something into your comment that wasn't there. Yes. The answer is yes. Mayor Thompson: If this plan is adopted as presented, and this plan is normally good for how long - five years - ten years, with an annual upgrading. Paul Secord: There has to be an annual review of this plan, and there is provision in the plan itself for continual monitoring of the goal, objectives and basic land use, controls and policies. For example, if a specific plan was approved for a given area, that approval would be a modification of the plan, and would add to it. It would just create another level of detail. Ultimately the plan is basically designed for a period of twenty years. The plan was designed in such a way that it would be, on the one hand flexible enough to allow for potential development, and on the other hand provide enough control so that the City would be able to control the kind of development that was coming in. Be sensitive to that. It is really a very careful kind of balance, and I don't think there is any real direct answer to say - yes, this will last for twenty years, and then it is going to stop, because ultimately the factors that condition that are things that are outside the ability of the planner to control. Councilman Shaw. You just stated - controlled growth. Now suppose a contractor come into town and we said, well, we want this many units, would that be possible, or would we have to go along with the amount that he wanted to put in. Paul Secord: You have the ultimate say - and ultimately, there could be a General Plan amendment. Page 9 Councilman Shaw: Wasn't there some discussion that you cannot control a developer. Paul Secord: I am not sure I follow the point. Ultimately, the City Council has the final say and the final approval process. There is always the option for amending a plan, and the Council has that ability. The law says that can occur three times a year. Gary Croft: I think the question you are asking is really more dealing with the type of planning that I do on a day to day basis as opposed to the long range type planning that we are considering with the General Plan. Yes, the City adopts this as, in effect, a constitution defining the limits of any development proposal. And a developer that does not bring in a proposal which meets the limits of that constitution is, in effect, proposing a law which would be in violation of it, and any proposal would have to be consistent with that. The option that the developer has would then be to propose an amendment to a plan, which is what, I believe, Paul was going to begin to discuss. And that would allow him to create the type of development that he may be proposing, but neither the Commission nor the Council are obligated to accept that proposal. If they feel it is in the best interest of the City, then it would be desirable if they do accept it, but if they don't feel that - you are the elected officials - you do represent the people from the community, and you do have the right to say - no we don't want that development. Councilman Lowry: Mr. Secord, is this the proper time for me to dis- cuss what I think are possibly some omissions from the General Plan other than what we are discussing right now, or should that wait until a little later. Mayor Thompson: Maybe if we can get the public input first, then come back to the Council input, it might answer some questions, or it might bring out reasons why some of your questions are there. Paul Secord: It is my intention to be at all the hearings, so I will be available to answer any questions as they come up later on. Mayor Thompson: Is there any other person in the audience who would like to speak to the General Plan proposal, either they like it - don't like it - and why. Steve Pleasant, CM Engineering, San Bernardino, California: I thought I had better get up now. I thought we would have other testimony here. What I am basically representing is the property at the southeast corner of Brookside and Beaumont Avenue. I have two clients on the property. One has forty acres of residential, the other client, Mr. Roy Kulikov, who is here tonight with me, is proposing a mix of commercial, single family residential and multi - family residential. I would like to point out to the City Council, since most of the members were not here when we started the process some two and a half years ago, we were annexed into the City with the development plan where we were proposing commercial, residential, single family and multi- family. At that time we thought we would be getting the blessings of the City. We proceeded due process for the next two years through the Planning Department, Planning Commission, etc. We did not get to any hearings because we were held up by the general planning process. But we are here before you today, this evening, to request that we be recognized on your General Plan tonight. That you show the commercial that we have requested in the past. There has been some question as to the amount of commercial that should go in that area and what have you - concerns in the General Plan - talking with staff regarding the redevelopment of Sixth Street commercial area, and I would submit to you that our proposal, being in the area of two major highways, major routes I should say, Beaumont and Brookside, that it is a combination of commercial with retirement type development residential, that those uses go hand in hand. We need both in order for the project to fly. You have before you the color rendering indicating the proposal that we have been working on for the last couple of years. We invite your comments on this. This is our effort to provide what we feel is a nice looking development. And, of course, going to this specific planning process, and talking with staff, they felt - correct me if I am in error Page 10 on this Gary - the diagram that we have before you would be in suffi- cient detail to be considered a specific plan. In other words, streets, land uses, what have you, are indicated on the map. Again, I say, we have been through the process for quite some time, we feel we are in a good location, the property is a level site fairly free of flood hazards. It is in an essentially growing area of Beaumont. I wonder, Roy, do you have some comments? I respectfully request your questions, or what have you. Again, it has been a long time that we have been in the process. Mayor Thompson: I don't have one of you right now, but I do have one of Gary. Mr. Pleasant: If I may bring up one other point. The question we brought up regarding the residential density so far as the specific plan density put to you was - could your body approve a development with the density in excess of the five per acre overall - and I am not clear what the answer was. If, for example, our project coming in at - say the density was in the neighborhood of six, seven, maybe eight units to the acre, depending on what happens in the ultimate shakeout on the specific plan process, if it does come in at overall density of seven to the acre, are we still consistent with the intent of the General Plan. City Manager: Mr. Secord's answer on that, Mr. Pleasant, was that at present, within his recommendation, there is a one to five limitation in the planned unit development area. He did say, yes, the Council has the right to increase that or lower that figure. That was his answer. So I would suggest to you that if you have a desire to make something specific in terms of a request to the Council, that you should state that now. Councilman Lowry: Excuse me, Mr. Davis, didn't he also state that it was a gross area that was being considered, and the streets would be taken off, and any commercial would be taken off of the area. In other words, the one to five would be the gross area. Isn't that correct, Mr. Secord. Paul Secord: I don't know if I want to get into terminology as to what net and gross densities are tonight, but if you have a forty acre parcel, and you have two hundred units in that forty acre parcel, what is the density of that - is that five to the acre? Yes, it would be five to the acre. And I would consier that to be a gross density. That would include streets, open spaces, and whatever. Mr. Pleasant: If, by chance, the General Plan that you have before you tonight, does not allow the higher densities, I would request that the City Council indicate the property for a higher density than what they have shown now. As Gary pointed out, we are contiguous to the medium density area, and because the site is relatively flat, I would like to be able to have - privileged to bring before you a specific plan showing the kind of densities that we have there. Also, the kinds of commercial that we have - if we may, on the first building on the specific plan, in discussions with - we would like to at least be able to get this commercial area. If you don't wish to approve the whole area, we would like this part. With this we would have a spa, tennis courts, what have you - a couple of restaurants, offices, in a planned unit type development. Councilman Hammel: Are you talking homes or mobile homes. Mr. Pleasant: In this area. Mobile homes. Manufactured type of homes. And then in this area it would be garden homes. Councilman Lowry: Isn't there something in this General Plan though, that says Beaumont is going to be a divided street, and you will have to have a frontage street along there which you don't show. Mr. Pleasant: The plan that we have is not cast in concrete. We pre- pared this some three years ago at a time when the City of Beaumont was going through a considerable turmoil, and the reason why we would like to have a commercial at this point here is because on your General Plan you are indicating an access point coming - we realize we will have to change the plan to fit the City of Beaumont's latest thinking Page 11 on it - but as far as our discussions with staff, we felt there could be some controlled access point - or one or two along there, to save the trees. If that is not possible, then there would have to be other ways of providing circulation. But there would be at least one access - you have a break in the street right here. Councilman Lowry: If you are so interested in a beautiful development, then don't you feel that it would be correct to have an access road all along Beaumont Avenue like he mentioned. Mr. Pleasant: I have no objections to that. Councilman Lowry: The other thought thought. Mayor Thompson: We are getting into this point. My question of Gary was hearing, and the Planning Commission this particular thing considered, or whatever. I just had - and it is just a detail that is not required at that the Citizens Committee hearings on the General Plan, was thought about, or mentioned, or Gary Croft: At the Planning Commission I know it was. I believe you also made a presentation at the Citizens Advisory Committee. The concept was discussed, I am in error - they did not make a formal presentation - but the concept as Mr. Pleasant has indicated has been before the City for a number of years, initially when thEy annexed to the City, and, because of various changes in administration and Council over the past few years, and then the initiation of the General Plan process, the project has never gone to hearing because it was in conflict with the existing General Plan, and the proposal would need consideration in the General Plan, both as a specific plan as is out- lined. But the concern becomes the amount of commercial and the densities - the overall density on the project. Mayor Thompson: Basically, what I am getting at, Gary, is that is this proposal, or this concept, was it considered at the various input levels of this General Plan to such a point that the land use designation in that particular corner was determined because of the presentation, or because they didn't have a presentation. I am trying to find out if this item should be referred back for consideration. City Manager: Or in spite of the presentation. Mayor Thompson: I am trying to find out if this item should be referred back - this particular item - for consideration on the overall General Plan. Gary Croft: There was a formal presentation of this item at the Planning Commission, and their recommendation to follow the Citizens Committee plan constitutes their response to this particular plan. It is somewhat unique for it to be brought up relative to this, there may be a need for it to be referred back. I have heard the presentation and, certainly, Steve may want to modify it. As I see it, there would be no need to refer it back to the Commission. City Manager: I don't think it is clear though to the Council what you are really asking at this point, though, Mr. Pleasant. Are you capable of developing this project within the limits of one to five, or are you not. If not, what is it going to take in terms of modifica- tion of the planned unit development concept as presented in this proposal to make your plan possible. And I think that is what you had better make clear to this group here because, evidently, you made it clear to the Commission and they didn't change what is up here, and either you can live with this proposal here with your proposal, or you can't. I think you had better make that clear to the Council. Mr. Pleasant: We did make our presentation to the Commission, but there was not the discussion on the proposal as I thought there might be. That is why I am bringing it before you hoping for your consideration. Again, as I indicated earlier, the overall densities that we have laid up for you on our plan is something in the neighborhood of seven units to the acre. We have single family garden apartment units in the upper Page 12 right hand part of the project, and manufactured housing down in the middle. To the southern end near Cougar there is apartment type development. That is why, Mr. Davis, I had to question to you, under the present specific plan designation would seven or eight to the acre be consistent with the General Plan. City Manager: I told you, that out of this hearing it would not be, that is why I am saying to you, if that is what you want you had better make it clear to these gentlemen. Mr. Pleasant: That is what I am trying to indicate to your body tonight, if it is not, then we would respectfully request that it be shown on the General Plan at that density. Councilman Lowry: Are you in any way connected with Peacock Valley. Mr. Pleasant: No. Councilman Lowry: Gary, would you point out on the map just what this piece of property is. Oh, those four. Four pieces. Mr. Pleasant: Actually it is everything except the lower right hand corner. For convenience of discussion, we have prepared a layout showing how the streets would connect. Councilman Lowry: Isn't that the flood control channels going through there. Councilman Shaw: Are you anticipating a little park area. Mr. Pleasant: Yes, this is a two year process we are going through. At one time we thought, and it may still happen, that we could acquire the property. But we don't know if that will ever happen. But as far as trying to lay the design out and show the City how the street system would work, we laid in the streets and . . . Councilman Lowry: In other words, this quadrant down on the right lower corner, you do not have now. Mr. Pleasant: That is right. We may not have this area either. Councilman Shaw: What is that area that you just put your hand on. What is anticipated in that area. Mr. Pleasant: When we were annexed into the City, it was the hope that that would be commercial, but, again, we don't have control of the property so therefore we can't tell you that is what we want. We are primarily interested in this area. Councilman Shaw: If you were to acquire that piece of property, what would that go in - commercial. Mr. Pleasant: It would be a continuation of the higher density residen- tial apartment type units that we have adjacent to Cougar Avenue. It doesn't necessarily have to go to commercial. The same thing is true up here. If we develop this as commercial at this time. Again, we are talking about a ten year program. This does not happen overnight. But we need some assurances from the City of Beaumont. . . (Tape changed, discussion continues as follows) Speaker unidentified: . . .beginning of the Citizens Committee meeting stage, we discussed the basic development concept as shown on a map on that exhibit, and one of the key factors had to do with the amount of commercial development that was shown - potential development that was shown along Beaumont Avenue. There was a policy made, and eventually adopted as part of the plan that commercial development be limited to the extent that it provides support for new residential development. And there was a strong desire not to see extensive commercial development which would draw business away from the developed central business district area. The amount of commercial development shown on their approximately 35 acres, if you include the little blue area down on the bottom - if you include that entire strip, it seemed to be in excess of what would be appropriate. At the present time there is 87 acres of developed commercial property in Beaumont. That includes Page 13 recreational vehicle sales, the swap meet area, so, in fact, the actual amount of retail commercial development in the City is only about forty acres. So this would, essentially, double the amount of commercial development. Now, just based on one forty acre residential project, the amount of demand that would be supported by that would be a rather small amount of commercial development. In this case, because of the area's proximity to Cherry Valley, it is hard to say exactly what the figures would be, but I can conceivably see something from one to five acres of commercial development that would be sup- ported near the corner of Brookside Avenue and Beaumont. But that was the gist of the discussion that took place in the Citizens Committee, and also was presented before the Planning Commission. Mr. Pleasant: If I might say, the commercial that we are proposing as part of the overall specific plan showing the property as twenty - five acres, not thirty -five. Again, that is a ten year program, it is not something that is going to occur overnight. We could go with something less than that, of course. Something that would be supported - economically feasible. I am a little concerned, I don't know where the figure has come from, talking about forty acres of commercial in the downtown area that was developed. It seems like there is quite a bit more than that at the time. Mayor Thompson: You mean like a big furry cat. When you get through the fur, there is not much cat. Mr. Pleasant: Perhaps that is a good analogy, but Sixth Street is quite a long corridor, and it seems like there is considerably more than forty acres of commercial. Irish Mitchell, 402 East Sixth, Beaumont: I would like to pose one or two questions, or make an inquiry from the gentleman from Beland. As a point of information, have you by any chance, given an approximation of the tendency trend on five year increments, like to 1985, 1990, 1995 and 2000, of what the general feeling is of how the population will increase over those five year increments. Paul Secord: Yes. There is a very comprehensive economic study included as part of the master environmental assessment plan. The plan, in fact, has three major parts. The General Plan itself, which is the goals and policy statements, and then there is a master environ- mental assessment, which is essentially a cataloging of the existing information, and it takes data from a variety of sources, abstracts that information out, and it is referenced in there. As part of the environmental assessment, we had economist who did a very comprehensive economic feasiblity study, which includes projections on the types of increments that Mr. Mitchell has mentioned, based on past development trends. And there is a method for making those projections. In addi- tion, there was also a supplemental economic study which allowed for a continual monitoring of these kinds of projections based on the future development potential of the area, and as projects progressed those can be worked into a formula and projections arrived at based on that. It is a very difficult thing to make these kinds of projections in part because all they have to work with are what past development trends are. And those may, in fact, not reflect what the future may really hold. It is possible that if economic conditions continue to go as they are now, that we will see essentially no growth. Or very limited growth. It is also possible that if economic conditions become more favorable, we could see a tremendous amount of growth. So I think it is -those kinds of projections have to be taken in actual context. Irish Mitchell: The reason I asked the question. Some people have had the misconception that Beland had stated that by the year 2000, this would be populated over in the 40 and 50,OOOs, and I was sure that maybe some of these gentlemen did not realize, and would read those excerpts from yours showing basically a possibility of a twenty -five percent increase in the next twenty years fluctuating back and forth up to a thirty, back down to a fifteen. Those were the general projections that came out of Riverside County. I believe that some people have a misconception of what you had said, and I wanted to clarify that because you did not say it was going to be that heavy a population. Is that correct sir? Page 14 Paul Secord: I don't think anybody can say that. It would be nice to know exactly where we stand . . . Irish Mitchell: The inference was of a tremendous explosion, and most of the other trends indicate there isn't going be. Mayor Thompson: Is there anyone else that would like to address the proposal for the General Plan for the Beaumont area. City Manager: Mayor, I would like to take a moment to speak to that subdivision just south of Brookside. Gary, if you would point to it there. In the lower ten acres in the southwest quadrant of that forty acre parcel - let me say, the subdivision is developed to thirty -nine single family lots, approximately 7200 square feet each. Subsequently, the balance of those ten acre parcels has been sold off to different property owners, and the southwest quadrant - the southwest ten acres of that forty acres - has now been split into two one acre parcels - one two acre - or two and one -half acre parcel - and then the balance of that ten acres is in approximately six or little less than six acres. The parcel on the east side of the subdivision is about four point two acres. The parcel on the west side is six plus acres and then, of course, the southeast parcel is a ten acre parcel. Now, in talking annexation with the people of that area, they - it was indicated to them that because of the development that has now taken place - the two one acre parcels, the two acre parcel and so on - and the develop- ment to the north - north of Brookside, in the County area, are all one acre minimum - these people want to see the balance of that forty acres developed into very low density, or the two to the acre or greater size. It was indicated to them by me, on behalf of this City Council, that if they wanted to annex to the City, that I held forth to them that hope and that promise, as it were, that is what this City would do in terms of projecting what was to the north of them around the balance of their border in that subdivision. It was presented to the Planning Commission, the Commission choose to allow it to remain in the low density category, which is one to five. That is not what these people want to see. They want to come in to the City so they can preserve that type of develop- ment around them to one or two lots per acre, and I make a strong plea to you tonight, gentlemen , if you want to see annexation proceed, that you cooperate with these people and change that whole area there to show a density - low - not low, but a rural residential density on the balance of that area there - on that area where that forty acre parcel is. I do make that request of you, and it has been considered by the Commission. Mayor Thompson: That designation there is one to five at the present time. One other question. If that proposal is left as such, it does not preclude development on less than a one to five - or five to an acre. City Manager: It doesn't preclude it, but it assures that up to five acres - or up to five units per acre could be developed - and that is not what these people want to see. Gary Croft: I might make a comment. After many years of working with both General Plans, and planning in general with the County, our ex- perience has been that any time a range is placed on a map, the developer will make proposals to maximize their development. Which is only proper and reasonable. And, so, they always shoot for the upper end. Quite frankly, in most single family developments, once you put in streets, your yield is around four units to the acre, not five. It simply depends on what is already existing. But what you would probably see on those parcels would be proposals for around four units to the acre as opposed to two units to the acre, or one to the acre, as would be found in the rural residential category. City Manager: Well, that subdivision that exists there brought about four and one -half units to the acre. Mayor Thompson: Is there anyone else that would like to speak to this presentation, or this proposal? Did you have something that you wanted to bring up Bill? Page 15 Councilman Lowry: Yes, I spent about ten hours going through this thing, and I just scanned most of the tables, and I would like to talk with Mr. Secord about some things here. In the General Plan, first on the map here, isn't there a large high pressure gas line in Sixth Street. It isn't shown if there is. There is two natural gas pipelines shown. There is one in Sixth Street as I understand it, isn't there. Paul Secord: I think there are three major natural gas transmission lines - thirty inch pipelines, and they are shown on the map there. Councilman Lowry: This is a petroleum pipeline down here. Paul Secord: It is the same thing. Councilman Lowry: I understood - I was told at one time that there was a high pressure gas line in Sixth Street, and I think on your MEA plan you do show, in part of Sixth Street, a six inch gas line. Paul Secord: Yes, there are some six inch lines. That line is basically a service line, and isn't as extensive, or wouldn't warrant the kind of concern that the other three major lines. Those three lines are thirty inch transcontinental transmission lines. Councilman Hammel: Isn't that six inch gas line on Sixth Street being replaced or contemplated. Paul Secord: I don't know. The information that is shown in the MEA represents data that we received from the Southern California Gas. Co. about a month and one -half ago. That was actually one of the last exhibits prepared, so, I feel, that it is quite up- to- date. I am not aware of any major proposals or changes to it, other than the fairly recent upgrading of their existing facility. Councilman Lowry: Well, one reason I bring it up - you make a recom- mendation on the storm drainage solution for Xenia Avenue, one of the solutions to be carrying it under Sixth Street, and underneath the railroad, and so on and so forth - and I thought that information probably should be shown on this plan so that anyone, in the future, contemplating going ahead with that would be aware that there is a six inch high pressure gas line. That is a pretty good sized gas line. Paul Secord: That is correct. It is a large line and it certainly is going to have an major effect on any kind of crossing that are going to be involved there. I think that the specifics for that, and I will check to make sure it is, - is it shown on that . . . Councilman Lowry: It is shown on your MEA map . . . Paul Secord: Okay, that is the real major exhibit. There would be no problem in including it on the large map, if you wanted it. Councilman Lowry: Well this is a larger scale map, it is easier to see, easier to read and everything else. Now, on other noise hazards - I'm on Page 11 -5, under noise hazards, it completely eliminates - forgot aircraft and helicopters, and this corridor through here is probably one of the highest traffic corridors in the United States for aircraft. And I have seen helicopters come by at 300 feet elevation, and, I tell you, they make a lot of noise. Maybe something should be mentioned that something should be done about making them fly higher - at a higher altitude - when they pass over through this pass. Paul Secord: If there are helicopters coming through at 300 feet, they are in clear violation of the aviation restrictions, because they shouldn't be doing that. Unfortunately, the City has a difficulty in enforcing restrictions relative to that, but those are the kind of comments that I think can come out and be expressed in the MEA. One thing I would like to comment on, I don't think it came out. The MEA portion of it, which has all the substantive information, the specific location of the gas lines, and giving you indications of where those are, that report can be changed administratively and as things like this come up, as more information . . . this is the first time that I Page 16 have been aware of this problem. It didn't come up in any of the citizens meetings. Councilman Lowry: Now, some of the other things, relative to aircraft, there is the danger of falling aircraft. We have had two crashes in this pass just during this past winter. Both of them during snowstorms, in fact, I saw the one fellow going over, I was over on Wilson, near Sunset, and the snowstorm was blowing very strongly at the time, and here went a plane across,and I said to my wife now there is a crazy guy - that is the kind that get themselves killed, and he did. He fell down here in Cherry Valley. He couldn't possibly have seen any- thing with that snow on his windshield. The thing I am thinking about is we mention that because, if we have a crash here, that is one of the things we want to prepare for in our hazard preparation. Paul Secord: Yes, those kinds of comments are very valid. Now in terms of actual crash hazards, zones, and the things that are designa- ted by FAA and the military, those maps were reviewed in the intial phase of the preparation of the report, and there weren't any designated areas - or any planning lines that we could draw on the map relative to that problem. It is certainly appropriate, however, for those kinds of comments to be included in the MEA, and for . . . Councilman Lowry: They are restricted in this pass to a very narrow corridor through here. And they are back and forth - particularly private aircraft. And then the commercial aircraft - they are going by too, but they are up there 20,000 feet usually when they are passing here, but they could still have a crash coming through here. Now the other thing - dust - high winds - hazards. I would like to add number four. I think you had three listings, and that would be fires during high winds. If you get fires going in residence. It doesn't have to be an area of brush and so forth to be hazardous. If you get a home on fire during a high wind, you can have a problem, because it can jump from one to the other, and this is an area of high winds through here. Paul Secord: Yes. I think we did identify that in the . . . I think the specifics of disaster preparedness and the ability of the City to enact ordinances and respond to those kinds of very real, and very major concerns, are something that can be done in the specific kinds of ordinances which implement the plan itself, mostly the disaster preparedness plan, which, I think, addresses the high wind problems specifically. If there was the desire to include some specific language in the plan text itself, that would be appropriate as well. Councilman Lowry: In the implementation of the policies, on 3 -5, you mention using the parks during a catastrophe. What would the thinking be - that you just take the people out in the park. Would there be some provision for shelter, tents, or something, that could be im- plemented. Paul Secord: Once again, the specifics of how those concerns would be addressed were something from the disaster preparedness plan. The reason that these kinds of specific items were not brought out in the plan - in the text itself - was because we felt that the City had a disaster preparedness plan which addressed them, and since there was - at the time we were preparing these goals and policy statements, that plan was being reviewed and updated - that those factors had already been adequately addressed, and that the plan really didn't need to do anything more than mention the disaster preparedness plan, and mention the fact that these things were a concern, but nothing more specific was really required. Councilman Lowry: There is one additional question that I have here. When you say future commercial development is expected to be a pri- mary function of residential development - you said that this area would not support a major commercial development such as a May Company. Paul Secord: The economic analysis that were prepared, even assuming a maximum development potential based on the land use designations expressed in the plan, that even at that kind of development, there didn't seem to be enough demand to support a regional type of shopping center, and there was documentation in the plan to support that. Page 17 Councilman Lowry: Does that include all of Cherry Valley and all the potential that we were talking about here. Paul Secord: For the purposes of the economic study, the entire Pass market area was considered, and that includes Banning, Beaumont, Cherry Valley and portions of Calimesa. Councilman Lowry: How much population do they figure it takes to support a major shopping center like that? Paul Secord: Well, I think we are talking pretty close to 100,000 people before you can really make a major development like that viable, especially in this area. Because a lot of people travel outside of the area to do their shopping. I think for the purposes of the fore- seeable future, there didn't seem to be even based on rather extensive development, enough demand to support that. The specifics of it were in the economic study, and I have to refer back to that. That was prepared by a contractor to us, the Nattleson Company. They did that research for us. Councilman Lowry: There is one other thing I would like to bring out. That is, you mentioned that Cherry Valley was not included in this General Plan because the County recently made a General Plan which included Cherry Valley. Wouldn't it be nice if we were given a copy of the County General Plan to supplement this to see what they plan for Cherry Valley, since it is in our sphere of influence. Paul Secord: The proposals for Cherry Valley represent essentially a status quo kind of situation, and there were no real major changes over the existing land use and land use densities considered for that area. They want to stay rural. The decision to restrict this planning effort south of Brookside was made right at the very beginning of the plan program. In part through recommendation of the County. Councilman Lowry: I forget. Do your tables show though the population of Cherry Valley added to the population of this entire district here in your figures. Paul Secord: I think there are figures which relate to the economic support of the area that mention the entire population of the area. There is one other thing that is building on that - there is an im- portant piece of data which we had hoped to include in the MEA, which is missing, and that is the results of the 1980 census. I have been making a tremendous effort to get those, and with any luck, next week I should have them. Why it has taken two years to get that, I don't know. The census data for the entire area will be included and amended to the final document. I am just sorry we couldn't include it here. I don't think it will be measurably different from the 78 data presented in the report, however. City Manager: Mr.Mayor, I would like to ask Paul to make one brief comment. Gary did bring out the fact that the commercial along Beaumont Avenue had been reduced in scope there - in size of the area - by the Commission. Paul, would you comment to the Council the thinking of your staff and the Citizens Committee on the original proposal. Paul Secord: Well I have to respond to the thinking that the Citizens Committee made initially. There was a considerable amount of discussion relative to how much commercial development was really appropriate for that area, and what the ultimate width should be. And the committee was, in the beginning, really split on whether the amount of designated commercial should go all the way over to the block, or whether it should just stop in the alley. There were comments made on both sides. One having to do with land use capability concerns, the other having to do with having really potentially developable sites. The results of that discussion in the Citizens Committee was that it was felt most appropriate to include the larger area, having it go all the way over to the block - to develop sites which were really large enough to provide fairly significant amount of parking, and for relatively large commercial development. When that came up before the Planning Commission, the other side of the ballots tipped the other way, and there was more concern expressed relative to the land use capability concerns, es- pecially since there is already an extensive amount of residential Page 18 development on Beaumont Avenue now, facing Beaumont Avenue, as well as all of the area on the other side of course, is all residential development, so the ballots tipped the other way. That was the change. I think the discussion and comments to that were fairly completely expressed in the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting. Councilman Lowry: I have got another "X" here. Housing program. 8 -23. Action to support housing availability and production. Action l.a, l.b, l.c, l.d, l.e. In each one of them you say the funding source is the City General Fund. I would hope that you would find a better way of financing some of these things, because I think our City General Fund is stretched pretty thin. Paul Secord: I agree with you, and I wish there was, and there, to a certain extent, used to be. The housing element of the plan is the one section of it that deviates in the basic format, and the reason its different in format, in overall format, is because the State has a mandated guideline - it says you will do it this way. You will follow this basic format of this outline. And that is why it is different, and that is why it has this action policy broken out like that. They essentially say, that, for the General Plan to be complete, it has to consider each one of those points, and that is why they are there. The amount of funding that is available for many of those policies is, as you expressed, very limited. There is no other answer to it until the political climite changes, or more monies are avail- able from other sources, I think the ability to implement them is very seriously constricted. Mayor Thompson: Is there anything else. Okay, we have had quite a bit of input from the public, from the people that formulated and brought the proposal to this point, and another public hearing is required. In fact it has already been noticed for April 12 at 8:00 P.M., in these chambers. If there is no one else that has anything they would like to input on this proposal, then we will adjourn this public hearing until April 12, at 8:00 P.M., in these chambers. The Public Hearing was adjourned until April 12, 1982, at 8:00 P.M., at 9:37 P.M. 12. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -18 - In Support of Proposition 9 (Peripheral Canal Project). On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -18, supporting Proposition 9, also known as the Peripheral Canal Project, by title only. AYES: Councilmen May, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: Councilman Shaw. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 13. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -19 - Opposing AB 2660 and Reaffirming the Present Makeup of the Membership of the Governing Board of the South Coast Air Quality Management District as One that is Answerable to the Con- stituency it Serves. 14. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -20 - Requesting the Water Service Agencies of the San Gorgonio Pass to Initiate Action with the San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency to Import Water from the State Water Project to the San Gorgonio Pass. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -19 and Resolution No. 1982 -20 by title only. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Page 19 16. Authorization for Mayor to Sign Purchase Agreement for the Purchase of Property from Albert and Barbara Haskell. ( Continued from March 8, 1982 pending receipt of appraisal). On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the Mayor to sign the Purchase Agreement for the Purchase of Property from Albert and Barbara Haskell. for the recommended appraisal valuation of $90,000.00. AYES: Councilmen May, NOES: Councilman Shaw. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 17. Request for Budget Transfer to Purchase Police Walkie - Talkie Units. (Continued from March 8, 1982). On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the purchase of walkie- talkie units as recommended by the City Manager in his report of March 5, 1982. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 18. Codification of Beaumont Ordinaaces. On Motion by Councilman. Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the City Manager to negotiate an agreement with Book Publishing Company for the purpose of codifying the City's ordinances. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 19. Authorization for City Attorney to Attend City Attorney's Department Spring Meeting Sponsored by League of California Cities. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the City Attorney to Attend the City Attorney's Department Spring Meeting sponsored by the League of California Cities, with the City paying the registration from the City Attorney's budget. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 20. Goals and Objectives for the City of Beaumont. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the Goals and Objectives of the City of Beaumont as outlined. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 21. Information Report: Draft Copy of State Controller's Audit Report. Accepted for Filing. 22. Submittal of Financial Report for Period Ending February 28, 1981 for Filing Pursuant to Government Code. Accepted for Filing. Page 20 23. ORAL COMMUNICATION: a. J. Floyd Briggs re Public Nuisance and Health Hazard at Greyhound Bus Station. (Continued from March 8, 1982). It was noted that neither Mr. Briggs nor Mr. Kovach were in the audience. Mayor Thompson asked if there was anyone in the audience representing either party and received no response. Documents concerning this complaint were referred to the Adminis- trative staff for implementation. b. Mrs. Patricia Renna addressed the Council stating she wanted them to know what a terrific job the police department was doing in responding to loitering and similar complaints on the occasions they have called. c. Mr. Jerry Kates addressed the Council asking if it was still feasi- ble to contract the sanitation services rather than doing it inhouse, and was advised by the Mayor that the contract has six years to run before the City can consider a change. The City Council adjourned to an Executive Session re Personnel at 10:20 P.M. The City Council reconvened to Regular Session at 10:50 P.M. Let the record show no action was taken in Executive Session. There being no further business to come before the Council the meeting was adjourned at 10:52 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Deputy City Clerk PF Page 21 BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF ADJOURNED MEETING OF MARCH 16, 1982 (Adjourned from March 8, 1982) 1. The Beaumont City Council met in an adjourned meeting at 9:15 A.M., on Tuesday, March 16, 1982, in the City Manager's Conference Room, with Mayor Thompson presiding. 2. On Roll Call the following Council Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. Councilman Lowry was absent from 9:15 A.M. until 11:30 A.M., after which time he was present and participated in the discussion. 3. Discussion of Goals and Objectives for the City of Beaumont for 1982 -83. Following an outline compiled from recommendations submitted by members of the City Council, Department Heads and the City Manager, a general discussion was held regarding the goals and objectives for the City of Beaumont. The meeting was adjourned for lunch at 12:10 P.M. and reconvened at 1:40 P.M. The discussion concerning the goals and objectives of the City continued in the afternoon. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 4:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Deputy City Clerk BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 1982 1. The Beaumont City Council met in a regular Monday, March 8, 1982, in the City Council Thompson presiding. 2. The invocation was given by Reverand Harry 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was 1, 4. On roll call the following Council Members Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. meeting at 7:34 P.M., on Chambers, with Mayor Lansman. ad by Councilman Hammel. were present: May, Shaw, 5. There being no additions, corrections or deletions, the Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of February 22, 1982 and Adjourned Meeting of February 23, 1982 were ordered filed as presented. 6. There being no objections, the Minutes of Regular Planning Commission meeting of February 16, 1982 were accepted as presented and ordered filed. 7. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, warrants as audited per Warrant List of March 8, 1982, in the amount of $299,849.52 and Payroll of March 5, 1982, in the amount of $24,945.03, were approved for payment as audited. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 8. PROCLAMATION - Declaring the Week of April 11 -17, 1982, as "Sales to Fight Arthritis Week ". On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont declares the week of April 11 -17, 1982 as "Sales to Fight Arthritis Week ". AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 9. PROCLAMATION - Congratulating Soroptimist International of Beaumont on the Establishment of the Soroptimist House of Hope. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont congratula-'es Soroptimist International of Beaumont on the Establishment of the Soroptimist House of Hope. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 10. ORDINANCE NO. 543 - SECOND READING. Declaring the Need for a Redevelopment Agency to Function in the City of Beaumont and Declaring the City Council to be the Redevelopment Agency for the City of Beaumont. This ordinance was continued until the regular meeting of March 22, 1982 due to the fact the newspaper did not get the notice of consideration of adoption published, thereby not meeting the legal requirements. 11. ORDINANCE NO. 544 - FIRST READING - Regulating Encroachments and Excavations on City Streets. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont passes Ordinance No. 544 for its first reading by title only. Page 1 12. 13. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -14 - Requesting Support of the Legislature of the State of California for Reallocation of Air Pollution Funds. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -14 by title only. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. PUBLIC HEARING - Review of Planning Commission Decision Regarding Approval of Tentative Tract No. 18341 and Variance 1001, Turner -Fagot Construction. Location: SE of 14th Street and Maple Avenue. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:03 P.M. Mayor Thompson: In accordance with the legal requirements of public hearing, the legal notice has to be published in a newspaper of general circulation at least ten days prior to the opening of the hearing. We have an exhibit showing that this requirement has been met as of February 25. As a public hearing, we will try to conduct it in an orderly manner, and I believe this item was pulled from the Planning Commission agenda by a member of the Council, so under those circumstances we will allow the Council Member to lead off the Public Hearing, and we will not interrupt until such time as you are recognized to speak. Councilman Lowry: The proponents should go first shouldn't they? Mayor Thompson: In this instance, I think, since the item was pulled by the Council, that the Council should lay out to the public as to why they pulled it, and what the question is. Then we can go from there. I believe, Mr. Lowry, you were the one that started the process, so do you want to lead off. Councilman Lowry: Will the City Manager please read the letter to you from the Chief of Police, subject Tract No. 18341, Variance 1001, Maple Avenue. City Manager: This letter reads from the Chief, upon the request of the City Council, I made an on -site inspection of this particular tract, and propose that Maple Avenue be continued northbound to 14th Street. The purpose of this suggestion is to insure timely response of the Police Department to calls for service, to make patrols of the residential area more feasible. It is currently suggested that the two cul -de -sac areas makes proper police patrol difficult, and the area only accessible by only one way in time of an emergency. Signed, Robert Bridges, Chief of Police. Councilman Lowry: Next I would like to ask the Fire Chief of our Fire Department if he would please come forward and make his recom- mendations. Bob Martines, Battalion Chief, 1550 East Sixth Street, Beaumont: Of course, all public service agencies, police and fire, will recommend that you always have two sources of ingress and egress. That is the ultimate. However, our system does allow for cul -de -sac, but our recommendation would be for cul -de -sacs not to exceed 600 or 650 feet, in some cases they could be a little bit longer than that, with proper street widths and turning radius - so if it met those requirements it would be o.k. But the ultimate way would be to have two ways, and we always recommend that first, but there are other ways to handle it too. Councilman Lowry: But, your recommendation, also, you say is maximum of 600 -650 feet to the end of the cul -de -sac. Page 2 Chief Martines: That is what the County recommends. I am not familiar yet with the City regulations as far as your road department and planning commission and things like this. But the County Fire Depart- ment and the State of California recommends those things that I just mentioned to you. Councilman Lowry: Gary, do you know, do we have anything in our ordinance on the depth of cul -de -sacs. Gary Croft, Chief Planner, City of Beaumont: Our ordinance only addresses the use of cul -de -sacs, not the actual length, and we attempt to follow the County standards where appropriate. Councilman Shaw: Does that meet the radius requirements in that particular area? Gary Croft: Yes, the design of the cul -de -sac does meet the radius requirements. Councilman Lowry: I have a prepared statement here which I will read. To begin with, let me say that I have absolutely no animosity for Mr. Fagot or Mr. Turner. I am acting purely as I see my duty as a Councilman representing 7,000 people in Beaumont. I also have no adversions to cul -de -sacs per se. They are landlocked conditions where they serve a purpose. But this is not one of them. There is a mere 140 feet of extra paved street required in this subdivision to eliminate what I fear could be a future disaster. We all know how hard the winds blow for several days at a time in Beaumont. Up to eighty miles an hour on occasion. Both from the East and from the West. If it were not for the winds I would not be nearly so concerned. My fears that if a house gets on fire during one of these wind storms, particu- larly with a house near Orange Street and the fire begins jumping from one house to another, then the residents will be trapped by this cul- de -sac with little help available from the Fire Department. Fences will be built around the lots and actually the Planning Commission is requiring that a three foot high block wall be built along the back lot line of Lot No. 10. My fear is not a remote possibility. Every year we lose many homes in similar wind driven fires in California. In 1947 when I built a home in Alta Dena, my neighbor across the street was Fire Captain Slim White, who was in charge of the LA County Fire Station in Alta Dena. He told me that several years before during a wind storm in Alta Dena, a house caught fire and when the firemen arrived they could not keep ahead of the fire. They lost a thousand feet of hose, which burnt up before they could get a drop of water through it. Sixty houses burned up, and there were some fatali- ties. You have heard the recommendations of the Fire Chief and the Police Chief, expert witnesses, which is now public record. I intend to make a motion requiring this subdivision application be changed to provide a through street to 14th Street. But before I do I want to say that if my motion does not carry, this cul -de -sac becomes a reality, my conscience will be clear, should a fire disaster ever occur. Now, therefore, I make a motion that the . . . Mayor Thompson: This is a Public Hearing and a motion is out of order. Councilman Lowry: Okay, I will save it until later. But that is the statement to that point. Councilman Shaw: Mr. Fagot, there is only one objection that I have in that cul -de -sac right there, and I think I stated to you - I have made two surveys myself, and I feel that that street would be an unnecessary burden on your part, and when people eventually buy the homes it would cost them more money. Primarily what I am concerned about is another fire hydrant on the northeast corner of Donna Drive, because there are two, and I think if we get the other one there we would have ample hydrants in there. Mr. Martines, do you know the hydrant pressure on that particular line in there. Chief Martines: Yes, it is about 956 gallons per minute, and 80 psi. Councilman Shaw. Okay, so a third - I believe we should have a third hydrant in here. Bernard Fagot: Mr. Shaw we are perfectly willing to put in a third hydrant - that is going to make three hydrants - 1 could be off a few Page 3 feet - but about 300 feet, and I know that the County Ordinance re- quires one fire hydrant every 300 feet, so that should suffice. The only thing I want to say, and then I am going to let our engineers . . . Mayor Thompson: Bernie, could you hold that until the next part, until rebuttal time. Councilman Shaw: Bernie, the only I require the third hydrant is due to the fact that we don't have the gpm's, you know, below a thousand gallons per minute - and grant we have the seond hydrant, but as I say, when you stretch up to that portion you have got six or seven or eight lengths, your friction loss will reduce that pressure . . . Councilman Lowry: Mr. Mayor, I forgot one thing I would like to add if I may, and that is the Fire Chief mentioned a recommendation of 600 -650 feet. This cul -de -sac, from Orange, if you take from the right -of -way of Orange Street down the center of the line to the end of this is 800 feet. If you take from the curb line, it is 810 feet. I wanted to bring that back out. It does exceed the County recommended length of a cul -de -sac. Councilman Shaw: This is why I want another hydrant - it reduces friction. Councilman Lowry: That is not what they are speaking of - they are speaking the entire length of the cul -de -sac, from beginning to end. Steve Quinn, 1495 14th Street, Beaumont: I am the property owner of the street that you are calling Maple Street. That happens to be on my deed. And it is not Maple Street. I own the property you are referring to as Maple Street that you are going to continue on to 14th Street. The easterly 105 feet of the westerly 380 feet, northerly 140 feet of lot 2 in Block 195. That is my property. You cannot continue without buying my property. Councilman Hammel: Would you be good enough to give us the history why this street has become your property. Mr. Quinn: Because of the fact that a man named Mr. Bud Watkins took it to Courtin 1977 and proved that it is property, and which the Bank of Redlands, the Telephone Employees Credit Union, they happen to own a second and first trust deeds on this property. Councilman Hammel: Then how did the curbs and gutters ever get in there. Mr. Quinn: I have no idea. A man named Mr. Armstrong built the home, and that is how he designed it. But this is my property you gentlemen are talking about. Councilman Lowry: It isn't your property at all. We haven't even mentioned your property sir. Maple Avenue is shown here and all I said . . . Mr. Quinn: You said you were going to continue to 14th Street, and here is my trust deed. Councilman Lowry: I didn't say it was going to be over your property. I didn't tell the developer how to put it through. Mr. Quinn: I rest my case. Mayor Thompson: The basic question here has been . . . .(tape changed). disagreement among the council members as to the need for the street. Councilman Lowry spearheaded the contention that a through street named Maple Avenue should be an integral part of this development, and he has so stated his reasons from a safety factor - ingress and egress to the property owners that may purchase this property in the future. Is there anything else you would like to add, Bill? Councilman Lowry: Not until there is time to make a motion. Mayor Thompson: Is there anyone else on the Council that would like to be an advocate of this particular. . . Page 4 City Attorney: Mr. Mayor, I think rather than ask people if they are advocates, they are sitting here as judges, and you don't.advocate either for or against. You listen to the testimony presented, and do that which you think that under the law is the proper thing to do, let's don't act like advocates. Mayor Thompson: In this instance, Mr. Dougherty, the Council itself, on a split vote, pulled this and brought it back for a public hearing, so, therefore, the Council is not - what do I want to say - is not impartial to this particular thing, because they brought it back. City Attorney: Well, I know they may bring it up for a hearing, but I still don't want the Council to act like they are advocates. They are judges up here. Actually, I think the problems should be pre- sented - the ones that are asking for the subdivision present it, and the opposition, then any comments that are brought out, but I want you fellows to act as judges, not advocates for one side or the other. Councilman Lowry: It was a majority of the Council that brought it back. I don't think that that necessarily means that there is a division in the Council. Mayor Thompson: Is there anything else that you would like to bring up. I believe the conditions of approval for Tract Map 18341 are part of our packets. This was done after adequate public notice, public hearings, everything. This is what came out of it. Gary Croft: Yes. In addition to the regular public meetings, we held what would be considered a land division committe meeting with the developers, where staff and the engineer discussed various alter- natives, and worked out solutions to some of the problems that were presented with the tract. Councilman Lowry: You might mention that they have been given a variance in frontage on the lots as part of this deal. In other words, the Planning Commission has worked very extensively to save them every inch of land that they could up to now. Gary Croft: Yes there was a variance granted because the lots do not meet the adequate minimum requirements, 70 foot in width, and they also are excessively deep beyond, I believe, it is 150 foot depth that our ordinance permits. There were a couple of reasons for requesting and granting a variance. One is the odd shape and size of the lots. To lessen the depths of the lots would simply require an excessive right -of -way for the street, which would be really a burden on the City as opposed to an advantage in terms of upkeep of the street, and so on. The other reason for granting the narrowness of the lot was the size of the lots were all very large exceeding, the deep ones, were exceeding, as I recall 9,000 square feet, which was considerably above the 7,000 minimum which we have. In addition, there were many of the surrounding lots on the block also were 60 foot lots, or slightly above, did not meet the standard 70 feet, and in view of that, a variance was granted. Mayor Thompson: We will have some of the others now - Mr. Fagot, Mr. Turner, on this. Do you want to present your reasons as to why the street shouldn't go through. Bernie Fagot, 9477 Avenida Miravella, Cherry Valley: Your honor and members of the Council, I don't know really how to start. As you know we were at your study session tonight. We worked with your staff and your engineer, and a plan was agreed on. Then we go to the Planning Commission and we get a 5 -0 vote. Then all of a sudden we are in trouble with the Council. I don't really quite understand what we are even doing here, to tell you the truth. I understand Mr. Lowry wants to put the street through. We wanted to put a street through a year and a half ago, and as far as .. one comment I would like to make before I forget, your Chief of Police says that they couldn't respond to it, what did he letter say - something about they would have trouble responding? The only thing that kind of makes me wonder is - well let me ask this question - how long has your Chief been with the police here. Three years maybe. Well I wonder, it kind of makes me wonder. He didn't have anything to say about a small subdivision we put in on Beaumont Avenue. If he didn't like a Page 5 cul -de -sac, why he didn't he come to your review board. Mr. Davis formed a review board that developers go before, before they ever get to the Planning Commission, to iron out their problems. Why wasn't he there. And why wasn't he at the Planning Commission? Another thing that makes me wonder, is how does -- you know I drive down into the nice areas in Redlands and see cul -de -sacs all over the place. I wonder how those police departments respond to cul -de- sacs. Cul -de -sacs - they are legal in the State of California. Mayor Thompson: Bernie, may I interrupt just a moment. Could you give us a reason why that street can't go through, or shouldn't go through, or you don't want to put it through. Mr. Fagot: Why it can't go through? Well, the man that was here says he owns the property that Mr. Lowry suggested that we take it through. Now, I don't think you can just take part of his property and pay him for that. I would assume you got to buy the whole thing. Mayor Thompson: What I am getting at, Bernie, is Mr. Lowry says that the cul -de -sac, by eliminating the cul -de -sac and opening up to 14th Street, it will promote safety . . . Mr. Fagot: I don't know how it is going to promote safety, because I will tell you what, right across the street from there, and I mean if that is where he would want it to go through, is a driveway coming out of the Calvery Baptist Church. On many Saturdays, and every Sunday, it is a traffic jam. He wants to take a street out right across the street from the Calvery Baptist Church - I know I've seen at least 75 cars in there on Sundays. I don't know, like I say, I don't understand why we are here. I really don't. To me it doesn't make any sense. If a developer can't work out his problems before he gets to the Planning Commission, and if a developer doesn't have the approval of the staff when he goes to the Planning Commission, he is sunk. Ninety -nine times out of a hundred, the Planning Commission is going to kill him. I know, I have went through that before. So this time, we work out a plan that the Planning Commission approves 5 -0, and the staff recommends it, and we are still in trouble. You know, how .. it is pretty discouraging - if you are going to do this to every developer that tries to do something in Beaumont, I feel sorry for them. That is about all I have to say. Councilman Lowry: Mr. Fagot. I wanted to answer you. Mayor Thompson: Just a minute Bill. Before you answer, there is someone else that wants to talk on this I am sure. Councilman Lowry: Aren't we in the middle of discussion with Mr. Fagot at this time. Can't I reply. He asked why the police chief found fault . . . Mayor Thompson: I tried to have the other side not reply to you at the time and made them come back. Paul Turner, 39423 Tokay Street: The primary reason the street - to go straight through there like it was said before - that property is privately owned. Now to bring that street straight through there as you have drawn lines and so on, that man that owns that property that you have drawn the lines through, if he tried to get into his driveway there is a space of five feet from the front of his garage to where the sidewalk would be, and then the curb, leaving . . . and my car is 19'7" long, leaving the whole tailend of the car laying clear out in the street, while he gets out of his car and opens his garage, and to go in, which would be an absolute traffic hazard. On the other side of the street there is a house which we own. You bring it straight through there you have to cut off a portion of the house. That would mean that that house - it is part slab floor, it is part wooden floor. It was suggested by Mr. Lowry that that house could be picked up and moved. I don't know how many years ago you were saying that a house could be moved for $3,000.00. Councilman Lowry: I did it. Councilman Shaw: Is that on a foundation. Mr. Turner: Part of it is, and part of it isn't. Part of it is on slab and part of it is on foundation. Well, to take that house that Page 6 generates a certain amount, and I might add, taxes to the City, gen- erates a certain amount of income to help pay the mortgage, to tear that house up, to turn it around, to move it around, to adding this additional cost, and losing the lot - adding this cost to the remainder of the lots - to say nothing of Lot 10 on the other sub- division, which would cut that so small that it would be unusable, there would be an odd piece of ground there - I'll step over here and show you - when you bring this street right through here, this leaves you a portion of ground from this line to here which is of absolute no value. A piece of ground about 40' wide in back and about 16 to 18 feet wide in the front. This lot would be destroyed. This house would be destroyed. All of this cost, plus the lot line adjust- ment, plus the moving of all of this sewer and all of these facilities that were in here, to move those over, to get them in the street, and all of that adding all of this cost to the remainder of what few lots is left would be absolutely, economically, not feasible. We could not accept this kind of expense and add it to these pieces of property, and still come out. Everybody knows as to the tremendous cost of building today. The cost of property. All the off -site improvements, to say nothing of the cost of our engineer. All of these costs, added together, would not make this an economical situation, and we do have to try - at least that is what we try to do - to make a profit. And with this tremendous cost, and besides that no more cherry trees along there - we couldn't raise cherries . . . Councilman Shaw: Mr. Turner, what do you estimate Councilman Lowry: Mr. Mayor if I can't talk, how come Mr. Shaw can talk at this time. Councilman Shaw: I am asking a question. You are entitled to ask a question aren't you? Councilman Lowry: No, he told me I wasn't. Mayor Thompson: Economics, really, from the standpoint of the Planning Commission, is not a primary consideration. Land use is a primary consideration of the Planning Department, Planning Commission. Now, while economics are important from a developer's standpoint, it is not a primary consideration from this body's standpoint. Basically, what we are supposed to be doing is looking at land use, highest and best use of land. Mr. Turner: All right, I will do my best to answer it on land use. It doesn't seem like to me to run a street through there, to - if not destroy - to badly bend this man's home there. To destroy Lot No. 10. To destroy one house, and god only knows it is hard enough to get a house built and paid for in this town anyway. Your ruining one, destroying another, and destroying a lot. Now to me this is not intelligent land use. You are ruining three sites to get a street through there that, in my thinking, and in other people's thinking, is not necessary. Now it is a known fact through the law enforcement agencies throughout the United States, it is an absolute known fact that there is less crime, there is less accidents, there is less traffic hazards on a cul -de -sac then any other position, any other place in any City. Due to the fact that, true enough, a cul -de -sac only has one way out, but it - whether it is a psycological thing, or what it is, there is much less crime committed on a cul -de -sac than on a through street because they can get out both ways, but as far as your land use - you will destroy three pieces of property. I submit to you gentlemen this is not intelligent thinking. Mayor Thompson: Gary, you are the planner for the City. Is what Mr. Turner just said basically correct from a land use standpoint. Gary Croft: From a land use standpoint - as to the crime portion I have heard that, but I don't have any documentation of that. I can't swear to that. As to accidents, I have read studies that do indicate that is true. But from the land use, it would in fact ruin Lot - depending on where the street were to go through - it would either take out the house in the proposed Lot 10, if it were to be placed where it was originally intended where the curb and gutter and so forth are on Mr. Quinn's property, it would seriously require an alter- ation to Lot 10 of the prior subdivision which was put in. It would seriously jeopardize that lot as far as being viable. It may simply Page 7 require a complete realignment of those lots in order to have viable building sites. It does create serious problems, and this is one of the reasons staff recommended this alternative in the first place. Ken Fagot, 435 Cherry Court, Beaumont: I am one of the owners of the company, and you know it appears to me - I live in a cul -de -sac street myself and, evidently, from what I am hearing, I am living in a fire hazard. I don't really believe that. I am living in such a thing. I believe I am quite accessible as far as the fire department is concerned. Our cul -de -sac is designed in the same type of a manner. It meets the standards of the City and the County. And I also feel, which was brought up earlier, we did go in front of the Planning Department of the City, and I feel that they are behind our development so far as the layout of it is. And I would also like to say it is the most feasible way of doing it as far as benefit to the City and benefit to the developer. It was the best land use, and I feel that this street going through would be a detriment to us, and also a detriment to the City. If anything else, it is going to be a shortcut through there, that is all it is going to be, a shortcut. Here we have got Orange Avenue, which is quite sufficient to carry traffic, and also have Palm Avenue, which is also quite sufficient to carry traffic around that area. I don't see anyway, any reason why it should, in any way, shape or form. The fire department has been here and stated it is quite adequate in the way of size for fire protection, and going out that way, like Mr. Croft pointed out, it cuts into lots of a previous tract which has been approved by the City, so you are not only talking about going through one piece of property, you are talking about two or three pieces of property. You are talking about moving a house ninety degrees, which seems un- believable to me. You are also talking about buying property from this single family residence shown on the map. Mr. Croft . . . Councilman Lowry: Sir, you know I withdrew that recommendation at the study session, and we talked about this. Mr. Fagot: That is all I have to say. Mayor Thompson: Jack did you have something to say. Jack Kessner, 38595 Florence Street: I have been a policeman for a number of years, and several years ago when the FBI Bulletin, which is a magazine published by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, it showed - statistics showed that the safest place to live so far as crime was concerned is on a deadend street or a cul -de -sac. The reason that was given was that thieves aren't all that dumb, or burglars, they want two exits themselves, and when you have a cul -de- sac you only have one exit for them leave from. The same entrance that the police would have. I have lived on a deadend street for twenty years, and we have had no crime other than a gasoline theft that I know of, on a three block long deadend street. I believe, personally, after twenty -eight years in law enforcement, ex -Chief of Police Bob Bruce is sitting here, I am sure he could tell you the same thing, it is the safest street to live on in any community, a cul -de -sac or deadend street. Thank you. Mayor Thompson: We can go on and on with this . . . Councilman Lowry: May I answer them now. Mayor Thompson: I missed a hand back here in back. Mary Helen Thomas, 640 Donna Drive: My husband and I invested almost $90,000 in our home there, and we don't want the street through because it would be just another shortcut for motorcycles and hot - rodders. We love the cul -de -sac idea, and that was why we bought the house. So please don't take our cul -de -sac away. We like it. Mayor Thompson: One more, and then we are going to go to Bill. John Moore, 1112 Chestnut: Gentlemen, I would just like to say I have a piece of property over on Euclid, between 12th and 13th. Any of you that are familiar with when that street was put through, as basically a semi - sub - standard street rather than bringing a cul -de -sac in from 13th down, they opened it up between 12th and 13th all the way on Euclid. You created four sub - standard lots on Page 8 the west side. Utilization of the property would have been much wiser to bring a cul -de -sac in on 13th, and not bothered to carry Euclid through. As far as utilization of the property, that would have been the best use, certainly much better, more beautiful lots than were created by putting Euclid through. I think you are going to do exactly the same thing if you put this street through. I think you are going to create a sub - standard situation with about a five foot setback or less on the existing home and garage there, it is going to look miserable just as it does on the west side of 12th and Euclid. I just don't think it is a sensible use of the property. I think you would be making the same mistake that was made, and I don't think I was on the Council when it was made, at least I hope I wasn't because it was bad utilization of the property. Irish Mitchell: The entire development started on this in September of 1979. There was a hearing in January of 1980 and it was thoroughly gone over. Another hearing in February of 1980 where they had changed the map on two different occasions. There was another item that came up in March. Two meetings in March, and there was one more meeting in April. Councilman Lowry: Excuse me, you are talking about the prior sub- division. Irish Mitchell: I am talking about the concept. I am speaking of the concept of the area. Then on the 27th all the engineering was cleared, and on the 27th there was a public hearing in these very chambers and everything was gone over. Fire hazard, the police protection, the future development, and they were developing the west side, and it was agreed among all people that they would continue and allow that cul -de -sac to be built around instead of going through with the street, for the developer to develop in the future, and so we had a thirty foot street they allowed - they were going to put another thirty feet in, it was voted on unanimously. It was voted on yes by Mr. Lowry, it was voted on yes by Mr. Hammel, it was voted on yes by Mr. Shaw, voted on yes by Mayor Peterson, who were the only four who were on the Council. Councilman Lowry: You are mistaken, I was not on the Council at that time. Irish Mitchell: In 1981 sir . . . Mayor Thompson: Gentlemen, don't argue the point. Irish Mitchell: I will not argue the point. But this was thoroughly hashed out and gone over and Ross Nammar was the City Manager at the meeting of the 27th, and this was all hashed out. You were here when Mr. Nammar was here . . . Councilman Lowry: It was not hashed out. It was found that we could not act. Mayor Thompson: Gentlemen. We will have no more interchange at this time. Irish Mitchell: I just want to be on record that that was decided by a majority of the Council that this concept would be completed the way the engineer and the Fagot- Turners had it. Councilman Lowry: First I will reply to Mr. Mitchell. I was on the Council and I was against that cul -de -sac at that time when we discussed it, and as you will notice the cul -de -sac shows the curbing coming on out ready to go on to the 14th Street. We found that the Planning Commission had approved this, and a former Council before I was on the Council had approved the Planning Commission's minutes. Therefore, by State Law we could not call this back to the Council for review. We did not vote on it Mr. Mitchell. Now, as far as cul -de -sacs, as I stated, I have no aversion to cul -de- sacs... but I do this one because there are only 140 feet from an intersecting street, and as far as the crime is concerned, this has a weakness which the police chief and I discussed that a burglar can park his motorcycle out here on 14th Street, slip through these lots and come in here and commit a burglary, and when a call is made they come in from Orange Street, and he runs through the lot, gets on his motorcycle and is long gone. Or a bicycle, at nighttime. You Page 9 bet. I did, at the study session, mention the possibility that perhaps we could go straight through here and by imminent domain take that paved area street and carry it through, but in the dis- cussion and talk with the attorney it was found that it would probably take two years, and I said forget it. I withdrew that suggestion. I am not suggesting how they do it, I am just suggesting that it can, and in my opinion, should be done. Mayor Thompson: We have heard both sides, and had a rebuttal. Is there any other member of the Council who would like to add to this. Councilman Hammel: I just would like to say this. Inasmuch, and this is the way I feel, inasmuch as we have staff which we hired, our City Manager or this Council, we put a Planning Commission out there, and I hate to say it, I may not approve this plan, but I tell you this much, if these people approved this, I hope that in the future they look at the plan twice before they approve another one. I have no complaints as far as this is going the way it is because even Mr. Baldi, who is here tonight, he had to make certain changes, and I feel that if the Planning Commission makes a decision, I hope that in the future you look at your master plan, what we plan for the future, and we go from there. Otherwise, what is the use of us having a Planning Commission. Also, our City staff, our Planner, look at these things twice before you make a decision so that this does not come up again before the City Council that we have something to contend with like this. Mayor Thompson: Anything else from the Council. Okay, we will close the Public Hearing at 8:50 P.M. and entertain a motion at this time from Councilman Lowry. Councilman Lowry: Well as I said, I stated my fears and my conscience is clear no matter how this goes. Motion by Councilman Lowry that Tentative Tract Map No. 18341 be revised to eliminate the cul -de -sac, and a paved ingress and egress to 14th Street be constructed instead; also that the City Manager, staff and City Council work together with the developers to achieve this to the mutual benefit to all concerned. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts Tentative Tract Map 18341 and Variance 1001 as approved by the Planning Commission, subject to those conditions set by the Planning Commission and the Building Department, with the exception that one extra fire hydrant be added on the northeast corner of Donna. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. NOES: Councilman Lowry. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 14. Authorization for Mayor to Sign Contract with Envista, a Division of Willdan Associates, for Technical and Professional Community Improvement Program Consulting Services. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the Contract with Envista, a Division of Willdan Associates, for Technical and Professional Community Improvement Program Consulting Services, in the amount of $45,000.00, with the conditions stated therein; and further author- izes the Mayor to sign said contract. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 15. Appointment to Fill Planning Commission Vacancy. (Continued from February 22, 1982). On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May,. the City Council of the City of Beaumont appoints Emeline Schuelke to the Page 10 Planning Commission to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of D. E. "Doc" Barker. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 16. Authorization for Mayor to Sign Purchase Agreement for the Purchase of Property from Albert and Barbara Haskell. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council authorizes the City Manager to obtain an appraisal of this property, the cost of which is not to exceed $1,000.00, and report the results of this appraisal back at the next Council meeting. AYES: Councilman May, NOES: Councilman Shaw. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 17. Request by Ray Joslin for Reimbursement of Costs in Opening Plugged Sewer. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes reimbursement to Ray Joslin for his costs in opening the plugged sewer in the amount of $150.00, to be drawn from the sewer funds. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 18. Request from Police Chief for Reclassification of Position. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the request of the Chief of Police to reclassify the position of Supervising Clerk - Dispatcher to the position of Supervising Station Officer as recommended by the POST Management Survey Team and the City Manager. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 19. Request for Budget Transfer to Purchase Police Walkie- Talkie Units. This agenda item was continued until the next regular meeting of March 22, 1982, pending receipt of information from Bob Martines. 20. Authorization to Purchase Tranquilizer Guns and Supplies for Animal Control Officer. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the purchase of tranquili- zer guns and supplies for the Animal Control Officer as recommended. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 21. Authorization to Purchase 1982 Editions of the Building Codes. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the purchase of the 1982 Editions of the Building Codes. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Page 11 22. Set Date for Public Hearing Request for Hearing to Appeal Planning Commission Decision on Parcel Map No. 18367 - Best View Land Company. Location: Between 2nd and 3rd on Beaumont Avenue. The date of April 12, 1982, at 8:00 P.M., was set for the Public Hearing of Appeal of Planning Commission Decision on Parcel Map No. 18367. 23. Nomination of Representative for Possible Appointment to Southern California Hazardous Wastes Committee. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont names Councilman Fred Shaw as the Council's representative for appointment to the Southern California Hazardous Wastes Committee. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 24. Status Report - Wastewater Treatment Plant Modification Project. This report was received and filed by the Council. 25. PERC Communication regarding Meyers - Milias -Brown Act - .Employee Negotiations. On Motion by Mayor Thompson, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council adjourned to Executive Session regarding personnel at 9:30 P.M. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont reconvened to regular session at 10:00 P.M. It was announced that no action was taken in Executive Session. 26. ORAL COMMUNICATION: a. J. Floyd Briggs re Public Nuisance and Health Hazard at Greyhound Bus Station. Mr. Floyd Briggs addressed the Council, stating his complaint about Joe Kovach, manager of the Greyhound Bus Station, storing hog feed in the alley right at the back door of Mr. Briggs' business estab- lishment creating an odor, fly trap and a general nuisance. Mr. Joe Kovach addressed the City Council responding to Mr. Briggs' complaint. This agenda item was continued for further discussion at the next regular Council meeting of March 22, 1982, pending research by the City Manager of ordinances pertaining to this situation. 27. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -15 - Consenting and Authorizing Submittal of Annexation Application of Uninhabited Territory (Beaumont Annexation No. 28) . On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -15. The City Clerk read the resolution in its entirety. APES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Page 12 28. _RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -16 - To Determine the Amount of Property Tax Revenue to be Exchanged Between the County of Riverside, and the City of Beaumont relating to Annexation No. 28 to the City of Beaumont. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -16 by title only. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. There being no further business to come before the Council, this meeting was adjourned until Tuesday, March 16, 1982, at 9:00 A.M., in the City Manager's Conference Room, at 10:22 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, 1 ®r- - �i Page 13 BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 22, 1982 1. The Beaumont City Council met in a regular meeting at 7:36 P.M., on Monday, February 22, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor Thompson presiding. 2. The invocation was given by Reverand Gerry Chaddick. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Councilman Shaw. Prior to proceeding with the agenda, the new City Clerk, Mrs. Edna J. Burkett, was introduced to the audience and to members of the Council. 4. On Roll Call the following Council Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 5. There being no additions, corrections or deletions, the Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of February 8, 1982 were ordered filed as presented. 6.. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont deleted Item No. 4, TR 18341 and Variance 1001 from the Planning Commission Minutes for Review by the City Council, and sets the date of March 22, 1982 for Public Hearing of this matter. AYES: Councilmen May, NOES: Mayor Thompson. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Shaw, Hammel and Lowry. There being no objections, the balance of the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of February 2, 1982 were accepted as presented and ordered filed. 7. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, warrants as audited per Warrant List of February 22, 1982, in the amount of $112,670.23 and Payroll of February 19, 1982, in the amount of $24,355.24, were approved for payment as audited. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 8. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -10 - Supporting Senate Constitutional Amendment 7. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -10 supporting Senate Constitutional Amendment 7. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 9. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -11 - Approving the Annexation to the City of Beaumont of Certain Uninhabited Territory Without Notice or Hearing Hereinafter Designated as Annexation No. 25 and Further Designated as LAFCO No. 81 -46 -3. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -11 approving the annexation to the City of Beaumont of Annexation No. 25, LAFCO No. 81 -46 -3. The resolution was read in its entirety by the City Clerk. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 10. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -12 - Commending Senator Robert Presley for His Support of Local Government in the 1981 Session of the Legislature. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -12 commending Senator Robert Presley for his support of local government in the 1981 Session of the Legislature. The resolution was read in its entirety by the City Clerk. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 11. Appointment to Fill Vacancy on Planning Commission. This agenda item was continued until the next regular meeting of March 8, 1982. 12. Highland Springs Sewer Service Agreement. (Continued from February 8, 1982). On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the Sewer Service Agreement between Highland Spring Park Ltd, a California Limited Partnership by Ramos Jensen Company, General Partner and the City of Beaumont with the provision that the corrections discussed at study session be incorporated into the agreement. The City Manager read the corrections into the record. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 13. Curb and Gutter at Xenia Avenue Cul -de -Sac (Jack Nottingham). Continued from February 8, 1982). On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont directs that the curb and gutter non - conformance at Xenia Avenue Cul -de -Sac be left with the City administration for correction. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 14. Request from Beaumont Senior Citizens Center Advisory Commission for Establishment of a $200.00 Petty Cash Fund for the Senior Center. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont files this request for further study by the Council and the Finance Director. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 15. Decision Pending. Appeal filed by Joe Kirklin of Planning Commission Decision. Motion by Councilman Lowry and second by Councilman Hammel to uphold the appeal and citing specific zoning for the parcels was withdrawn by Councilman Lowry and Councilman Hammel respectively. This agenda item was continued until an adjourned meeting of February 23, 1982. Page 2 16. 17. no 19. f31m 21. Authorization for Senior Center to Submit Title III -B Application for Equipment; and Authorization for City Manager to Execute Application and Ensuing Contract. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the Senior Center to submit Title III -B Application for Equipment; and further authorizes the City Manager to Execute the Application and Ensuing Contract on behalf of the City of Beaumont. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Petition for Annexation of Cherry Highlands Estates Subdivision to the City of Beaumont. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the City Manager to pro- cess the annexation as proposed. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Report on Applications for CATV Franchise in City of Beaumont. On Motion by Mayor Thompson, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont directs that the time for submitting supplementary applications for the Cable Television system in the City of Beaumont shall be extended to March 19, 1982. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Transfer of Police Department Budget Funds for Purchase of Vacuum Cleaner. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the transfer of $105.00 from Account 040 -034, and $45.00 from 040 -037, Reserve for Contingencies, to Account 040 -082, Equipment, for the purchase of a vacuum cleaner. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Request from Beaumont Little League for Funding for Baseball Equipment. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont denies the request of the Beaumont Little League for funding for baseball equipment. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Authorization for Mayor to Execute Termination of Grant Administrative Services Agreement by Mutual Consent of the Parties, between City of Beaumont and County of Riverside. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont terminates the Grant Administrative Services Agreement between the City of Beaumont and County of Riverside, and authorizes the Mayor to sign said termination of agreement. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. Page 3 22. WIP 24. 25. 26. 27. Request to Institute Condemnation Proceedings Against Flamingo Motel, 1307 East Sixth Street. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont instructs the City staff to take the actions necessary to achieve removal of these structures as recommended by the City Manager, according to Ordinance 434. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Submittal of Financial Report for Period Ending January 31, 1982 for Filing Pursuant to Government Code. This financial report was accepted for filing. Agreement for Performance of Services Relating to Dogs and Other Domestic Animals. (Continued from January 25, 1982). On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont directs that the Agreement for Performance of Services Relating to Dogs and Other Domestic Animals with the City of Banning be cancelled effective March 1, 1982. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. ORAL COMMUNICATION: a. Mr. A. C. Nejedly, 2041 Elsinore Road, Riverside, California, addressed the Council concerning the issue of a waiver of the school impaction fee for developments for senior citizens. Response to Luiga Renna's Allegations. The City Manager read his report responding to the allegations made by Mr. Renna in a letter to the Record - Gazette. Mr. Irish Mitchell addressed the Council regarding this agenda item, stating the distance had been measured by a former City Engineer and there was room to park the motorcycles in front of the building legally. Mrs. Donna Hayes, of Yamaha of Beaumont, addressed the Council asking the City tell them exactly what they have to do to be legal, obtain a permit, or whatever else is needed. There was additional discussion from Mr. Jim Hayes and Mrs. Pat Renna which is, for the most part, unintelligible on the tape. The City Manager was directed by the Council to research the present encroachment procedures and report to the Council. The City Manager was further directed to draw up a workable ordinance pertaining to abandoned or dismantled automobile abatement. Decision on Allocation of 1980 -81 Carryover Balance. (Continued from February 8, 1982). The agenda item was continued to the adjourned meeting of February 23. Application to Community Development for Use of 9th Year Entitlement Funds. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the City Manager to make an application to Community Development for 9th Year Entitlement Funds as recommended by the City Manager in letter dated February 22, 1982. Page 4 AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. The meeting was adjourned until 3:00 P.M., on Tuesday, February 23, 1982, in the City Manager's Conference Room, at 10:27 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, CITY CLE K Page 5 BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF ADJOURNED MEETING OF FEBRUARY 23, 1982 (Adjourned from February 22, 1982) 1. The Beaumont City Council met in an Adjourned Meeting at 3:07 P.M., on Tuesday, February 23, 1982, in the City Manager's Conference Room, with Mayor Thompson presiding. 2. The Pledge of Allegiance was dispensed with since this is a continuaticn- of the meeting of February 22, 1982. 3. On Roll Call the following Council Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 4. Set Date for Public Hearing: TR 18341 and Variance 1001 - Turner -Fagot Construction. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont rescinds their previous motion setting the date for this public hearing on March 22, 1982, and moves to set the date of this public hearing for March 8, 1982 at 8:00 P.M. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 5. Discussion of Goals and Objectives for the City of Beaumont for 1982 -83. After a general discussion among the Council, City Manager and Department Heads, it was decided that each person present would compile a written list of goals and objectives to be submitted for review at a meeting set for March 16, 1982 at 9:00 A.M. 6. Discussion on Formation of Community Improvement Agency. Ordinance No. 543. FIRST READING. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont passes Ordinance No. 543 Declaring the Need for a Redevelopment Agency to function in the City of Beaumont and declaring the City Council to be the Redevelopment Agency for the City of Beaumont at its first reading by title only. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 7. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -13 - Authorizing the Department of General Services of the State of California to Purchase Certain Items. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -13 authorizing the Department of General Services of the State of California to Purchase Certain Items. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 8. Decision Pending: Appeal filed by Joe Kirklin of Planning Commission Decision. Change of Zone No. 1007. (Agenda Item No. 15 of February 22 agenda carried over). On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont directs that this appeal be returned to the Planning Commission on Change of Zone No. 1007, the area below First Street, for consideration of commercial zoning. Page 1 AYES: Councilmen May, Hammel and Lowry. NOES: Councilman Shaw and Mayor Thompson. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 9. Decision on Allocation of 1980 -81 Carryover Balance. (Agenda Item No. 27 of February 22 agenda carried over). On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont allocates $100,000 of the 1980 -81 carryover balance for the purchase of land, and further authorizes the City Manager to enter into negotiations with the landowner. AYES: Councilmen Hammel, NOES: Councilmen May and ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Lowry and Mayor Thompson. Shaw. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont allocates $50,000 of the 1980 -81 carryover balance for the purchase of a fire truck. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont allocates $65,000 for community development formation activities. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont allocates the remaining balance of the 1980 -81 carryover funds, approximately $100,000, to a building fund. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 5:21 P.M. Respectfully submitted, .- CITY CL41ZK Page 2 BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 1982 1. The Beaumont City Council met in a regular meeting at 7:37 P.M., on Monday, February 8, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor Thompson presiding. 2. The invocation was given by Reverand Paul Lucas. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Councilman Lowry. 4. On Roll Call the following Council Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 5. There being no additions, deletions or corrections, the Minutes of Special Council Meeting of January 21, 1982 and Regular Council Meeting of January 25, 1982 were ordered filed as presented. 6. There being no objections, the Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of January 19, 1982 were accepted as presented and ordered filed. 7. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, warrants as audited per Warrant List of February 8, 1982, in the amount of $174,961.39 and Payroll of February 5, 1982, in the amount of $25,965.24 were approved for payment as audited. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 8. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -5 - Opposing the Application of Southern California Gas Company for Authority by an Ex Parte Order to Increase the Conservation Cost Adjustment (CCA) Component in its Effective Rates in order to Continue its Demonstration Solar Financing Program as Set Forth in Application No. 82- 01 -27. a 10. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -5 by title only. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -6 - Honoring the Years of Dedication by Don McLaughlin to His City. The Deputy City Clerk read the resolution in its entirety. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -6 honoring the years of dedication by Don McLaughlin to his City. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -7 - Providing for a Sub - Surface Sewage Disposal Review Fee. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -7. AYES: Councilmen May, NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. Paqe 1 11. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -8 - Pertaining to Ordinance 369, Prescribing Speed Limits on Beaumont Avenue Between 13th and 14th Streets and from the City Limits South to 14th Street. The resolution was read in its entirety by the Deputy City Clerk. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -8. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 12. Request from Cherry Festival Association for No -Fee Permit for Cherry Festival Carnival. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont grants the Cherry Festival Association a no -fee permit for the Cherry Festival and carnival with the provision the City is named as an additional insured, with this proof of insurance delivered to the City a minimum of two weeks prior to the date of the festival, with the coverage being a minimum of $1,000,000. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 13. Vacancy in City Clerk Office. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont appoints Ms. Edna J. Burkett, of 1444 Michigan, as City Clerk for the unexpired term of office. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 14. This agenda item was held until the end of the agenda. 15. Inland Disposal, Inc. Request for Fee Increase. Motion by Councilman Hammel and second by Councilman Shaw to grant the 10% increase per contract for a period of six months, subject to re- view at the end of six months was withdrawn by Councilmen Hammel and Shaw respectively. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont grants a ten per cent per contract increase for residential and commercial plus 20 cents per contract for the Riverside County dump fee, with the provision that in two months Inland Disposal, Inc. bring to the Council meeting exactly what the costs are for the dump fee. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 16. Highland Springs Village Sewer Service Agreement. (Continued from January 25, 1982). This agenda item was continued until the next regular Council meeting of February 22, 1982. 17. Curb and Gutter at Xenia Avenue Cul -de -Sac. (Continued from 1- 25 -82). This agenda item was continued until the next regular Council meeting of February 22, 1982 pending receipt of the report from the State Contractor's License Board. Page 2 19. aim 21. 22. Decision Pending. Appeal filed by Joseph Kirklin of Planning Commission Decision - Change of zone Request Beaumont Avenue and First Street. The Mayor announced that no decision has been made at this date, and continued this agenda item until the next regular Council meeting of February 22, 1982. Request from A. C. Nejedly for Waiver of Developer's Fee (School Impact Fee) for Senior Citizen projects. Mr. A. C. Nejedly, 2041 Elsinore Road, Riverside, California, addressed the Council explaining his request, specifically that since no im- paction of the schools will occur from senior citizen projects, he feels, in all fairness, the school impaction fee should be waived for all senior citizen projects. Mr. Paul Harper, 25609 North Road, Twin Peaks, California, representing John C. Heers, Inc., who are also developing property in the Beaumont area, addressed the Council in support of Mr. Nejedly's request. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont refers the issue of the school impaction fee to the Planning Commission to consider the impact of a waiver of fee to Senior Citizen projects, along with their other considerations of fees for school development. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Authorization to Purchase Minibus from Microbus Corporation. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the purchase of the minibus from Microbus Corporation in the amount of $21,518.00 plus applicable tax, thereby capitalizing on the RTA bid purchase. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Authorization for Disposal of Old Tires. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the disposal of surplus used tires as proposed in Vehicle Maintenance & Transportation Superintendent's letter of February 4, 1982. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Decision on Allocation of 1980 -81 Carryover Balance. The following recommendations were made for use of the funds: Councilman Shaw: (1) New fire equipment - pumper and 50' aerial; (2) Street improvements, specifically 12th, 10th and Michigan, and improvement of alleys. Councilman May: (1) Purchasing the vacant land, but nctbuilding the City Hall at this time; (2) Fire Equipment, specifically the snorkel. Councilman Lowry: Concurs with Councilman May's recommendations. Councilman Hammel: Invest in piece of property adjacent to the City Hall for the future, to be used for parking at the present time. Mayor Thompson: (1) Purchase land at Orange Street and Sixth Street for future use, and specifically for parking at this time in order to adhere to the City's own regulations; (2) Codification of City's Ordinances; (3) Fire equipment to service south and west of the City; Page 3 (4) Improvements for Pistol range to upgrade to acceptable standards; (5) Rehabilitation of present building for city office use - more efficient use of space. Robert Martines, Battlion Chief, Riverside County Fire Department: (1) 1968 International must be replaced. Suggested apparatus would be 50 foot aerial platform mounted on a pumper, called a telesquirt, and would provide what is needed including doubling as an engine; (2) Repair of structural defect at Maple Street station. The summary of recommendations, and expenditure of funds is as follows: (1) Purchase property at $100,000. (2) Establish fire equipment account at $50,000. (3) Rehabilitate existing city office building at $60,000. (4) Upgrade police reserve pistol range at $5,000. 23. ORAL COMMUNICATION: There was no oral communication. 24. RESOLUTION 1982 -9 - Indicating Support for the Banning - Beaumont San Gorgonio Pass Area Rehabilitation Program. The resolution was read in its entirety by the Mayor. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolution No. 1982 -9 indicating support for the Banning - Beaumont San Gorgonio Pass Area Rehabilitation Program. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilman Lowry. ABSTAIN: None. (Councilman Lowry left the Council Chambers at 10:28 P.M. and returned at 10:33 P.M.) Mr. A. C. Nejedly requested to address the Council stating they would have no objection to contributing funds towards the fire truck facility or paramedics that the senior citizens could use in the west end of town, and would like to work something along that line, rather than pay the school district fee. Secondly, he asked the Council to put a moratorium on Tract No. 14124 until the school impaction fee has been resolved. At the present time they have been notified they have until March 18, 1982 under the present rules, and he does not feel an agreement can be reached regarding the fee before that time. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, D UTY CITY CLERK Page 4 BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF JANUARY 25, 1982 1. The Beaumont City Council met in a regular meeting at 7:40 P.M., on Monday, January 25, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor Thompson presiding. 2. The invocation was given by Reverand Bruce Cooper. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Councilman May. 4. On Roll Call the following Council Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 5. There being no additions, deletions or corrections, the Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of January 11, 1982 were ordered filed as presented. 6. There being no objections, the Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of January 5, 1982 were accepted as presented and ordered filed. 7. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, warrants as audited per Warrant List of January 25, 1982, in the amount of $73,170.42 and Payroll of January 22, 1982, in the amount of $24,587.41 were approved for payment as audited. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 8. ORDINANCE NO. 542 - Repealing Ordinance No. 478 and Providing for the Playing of Bingo Pursuant to Section 19 of Article IV of the State Constitution and Section 326.5 of the Penal Code. SECOND READING. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont passes Ordinance No. 542 at its second reading by title only, repealing Ordinance No. 478 and Providing for the playing of Bingo pursuant to Section 19 of Article IV of the State Constitution and Section 326.5 of the Penal Code. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 11. (Out of Sequence). Agreement for Performance of Services Relating to Dogs and Other Domestic Animals. The City Manager informed the Council that a Cherry Valley contractor had called and volunteered his services, as well as material he had left from a job, to upgrade the Beaumont animal shelter, and was in the process of doing this upgrading. Dr. Randhawa, of the Abby Animal Clinic, addressed the Council stating the comments made regarding tick infestation on the site of the animal shelter were totally incorrect from his professional point of view, and he did not feel there would be a problem if the facility is utilized. Dr. Randhawa also restated his offer to volunteer his services to put the animals to sleep, so long as the City paid for the serum and dis- posal of the animals. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, this agenda item was continued until the regular meeting of February 8, 1982. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Page 1 9. PUBLIC HEARING - 8:00 P.M. Appeal filed by Joseph Kirklin of Planning Commission Decision denying Change of Zone Request - Beaumont Avenue at First Street. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:00 P.M. At the request of Mayor Thompson, Mr. Gary Croft, Chief Planner for the City of Beaumont gave the background concerning this Change of Zone Request and subsequent appeal. Mr. Croft: Briefly, the background starts with Mr. Schooley, who approached us during the summer to request the change of zone on his parcel, which is the southerly most parcel of the group of six parcels that were heard in this zone change. At the time he indicated he wanted a commercial use on the property, and in reviewing the general plan and the zoning, it was indicated to him that commercial use would not be likely, since there was no general plan designation for commercial in that portion of the City; and that it would be possible to consider an industrial use, since there was an industrial designation somewhat to the north of that parcel. However, that the intervening parcels between his parcel and those parcels which were currently designated industrial would have to be included in that zone change. Some time in late September then, Mr. Kirklin, on behalf of Mr. Schooley and Mr. Shuler, filed an application for a zone change on three parcels. In taking that to the Commission, it was recognized that these parcels were not contiguous either to the existing designated general plan industrial area, or to existing in- dustrial zoning and thus would constitute unreasonable extension of the general plan, and also spot zoning. As a result, the Planning Commission added three additional parcels, which were currently under industrial type uses - one being the Gas Company, Southern California Gas Company. . . Mr. Schooley's parcel, which was the most southerly of the six parcels involved were those (pointing to a map). The Gas Company, which has their major facility on this parcel, was added by the Planning Commission, as was this parcel, which was 84 Lumber, and this parcel, which is owned by Buckeye Gas, which is a bottle gas company. At the hearing, the staff recommendation included those parcels out- lined in yellow, to be included with the general plan, and the industrial zoning, including these three, which were added by the Commission, and this parcel of Mr. Shulers. The staff recommendation was not to include Mr. Schooley's or Mr. Shuler's, as it was still considered to be unreasonable extension of the general plan, and of the zoning designation. The Commission, following the hearing, made a recommendation and passed that only those two parcels, which were shown in blue - that is the parcels northerly of First Street, which included 84 Lumber and the Buckeye Gas Products Company, be included in their recommendation for the change of zone. Following this, then, Mr. Kirklin filed an appeal with the Council to cover the appeal of the denial then on these parcels to the south, which he represented. Mayor Thompson: He represents the three parcels - 1, 2 and 3? Mr. Croft: Yes. These two of Mr. Shuler's and this one of Mr. Schooley's. The final portion of the report, and is that the staff recommendation then is to recommend a denial of the appeal, and approval of the change of zone as was recommended by the Planning Commission from the existing R -A zoning to M -1 zoning based on the following findings: 1. The proposed zoning is consistent with the logical extension of the existing general plan industrial category. 2. The proposed zoning would be consistent with surrounding zoning. 3. The proposed zoning would be consistent with existing deve- lopment. 4. Further extension of the industrial general plan category and industrial zoning would not be consistent with the three findings noted above. Page 2 Mayor Thompson: Does the Council have any questions for now? I think I will reserve my questions for later. Councilman Hammel: I would like to ask you if this is proper - how are these properties included in future plans for the master plan, as far as the zoning is concerned? Mr. Croft: The proposed general plan, which is all but completed by the Citizens Advisory Committee, essentially draws a line at First Street for the industrial, that is northerly of First Street would be industrial, with the exception of those houses over along Maple, which are currently occupied as residential use. And then southerly of First Street, continuing on outside the City in future annexation areas would be reserved for residential - agriculture. Councilman Lowry: May I ask a question. Isn't it quite common, if you have an industrial area, to interpose a commercial area between that and residen- tial areas? If possible? Mr. Croft: It is done on occasion. It depends on the type of industrial. Frequently very light industrial park type development with the electronics industry and their associated offices and design and engineering actually fit better into residential areas then do commercial development, which usually has high traffic and a lot of daily going and coming. So it really depends on the type of industrial as to whether or not it is appropriate next to residential. Councilman Lowry: You said design and what other one is light industrial you called . . . design I consider more or less commercial. Mr. Croft: In the area that is typical in California you might think of would be the area up around San Jose, which is often called the silicon valley, where they have an awful lot of industrial development which is primarily involved with electronics. In that type of development quite normally it fits in much better with residential uses then commercial uses, simply because they have only one daily going and coming to work normally, and there is very little noise involved, or other obnoxious type of activities. Councilman Lowry: Manufacturing noise is what you are saying. It is mostly wiring operation, and so forth. Councilman Shaw: Do you want to spell out to the public item four - further extension of the industrial general plan category and industrial zoning would not be consistent with the three findings noted above - you want to explain that a little bit. Mr. Croft: Basically the existing general plan as adopted, and existing zoning, has the industrial area ending somewhere in the neighborhood of Second Street. Which is approximately at this location (pointing at map). Northerly of that we currently find industrial zoning and the industrial category existing adopted general plan of the City. The proposed general plan proposes to extend that further south to First Street in terms of industrial uses. Frequently, the general plan as a matter of logical exten- sion, since it isn't like zoning in that it doesn't draw hard, fast boundaries, there can be some flexibility in the boundaries between different categories. But the extension of that category from this point down into here seems a bit excessive in terms of the distance. We are talking about a quarter of a mile. Mayor Thompson: I want to reserve any more questions until later. We will hear from the appellant. Joseph Kirklin, representing Mr. Schooley and Mr. Shuler: The main thing, Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council, is that we felt after the hearing that we had not gotten a fair and unbiased hearing concerning the zoning. To begin with, when we applied for it, we contacted Mr. Croft and asked him about the zoning, and for his recommendation and information. He recommended that these parcels be re- zoned, and that they be put together if we were going to put in manufacturing zoning. This is one of the reasons we applied for the other parcel. I contacted Mr. Shuler to find out if he wanted to go with this, and he did. When we came to the zoning hearing, we really did not get a fair hearing that we feel with the Planning Commission because Gene Thompson completely controlled the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission was never given, I feel, a chance Page 3 to make the consideration on their own. He held the whole evening and made his own statement after Mr. Croft had suggested that the zoning be denied. Now, when we first made the approach on this . . when we first approached the City to ask them about the zoning, we were going to ask for these two parcels and this one to be zoned (pointing at the map) manufacturing. That is all we requested. When we came back to Mr. Croft and suggested this, he suggested that we go back and put this parcel, this parcel and this parcel in with those to make it consecutive parcels, so that they would be manu- facturing. We thought this would be a good idea because sooner or later Beaumont Avenue is either going to go commercial or manufacturing, because nobody is going to build homes on either side of this street where we have got a lumber company, we have already got a gas company, we've got what used to be Cal - Floral, we have got the Yates Company, all this is going to go down Beaumont Avenue. We are not interested in extending any farther, and I am sure that if they are approached later on to have it extended any farther it is probably going to be refused. But we thought that since Beaumont Avenue was the entrance to the City, most of the manufacturing is where you come into the entrance to the City. So we approached Mr. Croft with this idea. Mr. Croft made these suggestions for these parcels himself, and we should face the truth as to the fact why these two parcels were put in there. This parcel here, when 84 Lumber Company built, and of course this City Council wasn't sitting, and the Planning Commission wasn't sitting. We had a different one, this was given a permit to build. . . . . . .. . . . and in doing so for the City to cover its tracks, it had to rezone this parcel here to cover 84 Lumber Company zoning. So this was brought in to make it contiguous with the other parcels. What is this zoning here . . . . . . o.k. . . . . . . . . (statements unintelligible on tape). Will you tell me what sense it makes in putting this little parcel in here residential - agricultural to manufacturing and not going ahead and carry it on through to the City Limits, which would be the normal thing to do. We had this same problem if you remember on Beaumont Avenue between 12th and 14th Streets. They carried commercial up to 12th Street years ago, and they never did carry it clear to 14th Street, which really it should have been commercial all through that area, because it was the main street going through town. Anyway, I won't take a lot of your time with this explanation, but we approached Mr. Croft - he suggested this and even three days before the time of the hearing, I talked with Mr. Croft and he still said that he could see no problem. He thought this should go through. This as a surprise the night we had the hearing, he was the first one to get up to make a recommenda- tion that these parcels be excluded from the zoning. Now I still feel that this should be zoned contiguous with the rest of it here. Otherwise it doesn't make sense that these two little pieces would be picked out by theirselves, and the rest of it left residential - agricultural, and then residential - agricultural down below these pieces. There has to be better reasoning to it than that. But Mr. Schooley, this gentlemen here, is the one who requested the zoning, and I would appreciate it if I could turn the comment over to Mr. Schooley and let him explain what his situation is to you. Mr. Ray Schooley, owner of the property described by Mr. Kirklin: What I would like to ask Gary, because this is the second time that I have had a situation like this where Gary has more or less assured me or my representatives that he was supporting a particular zone that I had requested on property. The other one being at the corner of 14th and Beaumont Avenue, and pulled the rug out from under me, so to speak, at the hearing. And, in spite of the comment that Gene Thompson made at the Planning Commission hearing on this, that Ray Schooley is a speculator, and I don't think we should change zoning to support his wishes - which, incidentally, I think probably re- quires a little bit of reprimanding. I would like to think that to invest in a half a million dollars in real estate in this town, that I command a little more respect - and the comments that Mr. Gene Thompson made, and also Gary to the extent that a lot of time and a lot of fees are spent - put up front - in this case about $350.00 - the previous one about the same - and you know you do a lot of research on this - and you talk to your engineers - and your planners and consultants, before you make these types of investments, based upon the direction of growth, and what is going on in the area, and you come back and you consult somebody like Gary, and he kind of felt, indicates, that yeah that is very logical, right up to the zero hour. And, in this particular case, I didn't even show up at the Planning Commission meeting because I was assured that it was going to be Page 4 recommended based upon what we had discussed, so it is the second time that I have been shocked to find out at the meeting that some- thing has been reversed around - and I guess my question to Gary is how does one abruptly change his mind overnight - or in a matter of three days? I don't know, I have been in this business since I was nineteen years old . . . . (tape ends, conversation begins on next tape as follows) . . . . 84 Lumber, a high traffic street such as Beaumont Avenue, I've got the gas company to the rear of me, I have a chicken ranch on the other side of me. I really can't see estate homes along there, or even residential zoning. I initially talked in terms of commercial facilities that would possibly take on a nursery, possibly somebody that does a little bit of light assembly or manufacturing and having a sales office on the front on Beaumont Avenue. Gary talked me into, or basically suggested that we can't go the commercial, but M -1 allows it, so let's go that way. So here I am caught in a dilemma, if you can appreciate what I am saying, I relied on a suggestion, spent $350.00, and a lot of time, maybe I wouldn't have even closed the escrow on this deal way back when if I was informed that - hey, it is not possible. Another situation that wasn't brought up either - at least the way I understand it - we are soon going to have an overpass, and it is going to wipe out a lot of your commercial, and when that takes place, the next logical, as you come off this ramp, for commercial, or the type of things I described - maybe a little convenience shopping strip in there or what have you, is my piece of property and Mr. Shuler's piece of property. I am here to find out where do we go from here. Mr. Kirklin: I think you should understand too, that Mr. Schooley was responsible for 84 Lumber Company being put in here. He has come in and spent time and quite a bit of money in the City of Beaumont. He owns 17 acres on 14th Street where we were trying to get a Von's Market in here, and we almost had it to that point, but there was so much confusion over the zoning, it was cancelled out. So he spent a lot of money here, he has invested a lot of money in the City of Beaumont, he wants the town to go, and he wants to make money naturally, but if the town doesn't go, he is not going to make any money. So he wants the best thing for the City too. So I think we should consider the fact that what is best for the City - not for me - not for Mr. Schooley - or not for the people who own homes in the area down there that are a half mile away - we should consider the fact what is the best thing for the City of Beaumont for a change, and see if that wouldn't help out in helping everybody in the City. Mr. Schooley has put a lot of time and a lot of effort in here because he felt like the City was worthwhile. And I think this should be taken into consideration because this - the way this is re- zoned, these two spots that were re -zoned - there has to be a reason for it. You don't just re -zone two spots and cut the other three or four out unless there is a very good specific reason. I think this should be investigated by the City Council. Mr. Schooley: I would like to wind up what I have to say, of course with the right to rebut afterward, if necessary, that if there is some confusion as to the M -1 and the commercial, which, again, I was put in this position by being more or less - it being recommended by Gary to go for the M -1 - if perhaps the neighbors, or people that live around there think that M -1 means that you are going to come in there with a cement manufacturing plant, or be a welding steel, and things like that, that is not the intent at all. The intent was to be what I think belongs there, but under the label of M -1 because M -1 allows commercial uses. If that is the case of the problem here, which Gary rather indicated it might be, I would say that if you do for any reason denying me the M -1, I respectfully request that you approve the commercial, because that is the intent here. I am caught between a rock and a hard place here. Councilman Lowry: In other words that was your first request? Mr. Schooley: Why certainly. We skated around it because there wasn't a provision for it based upon the recommendation. Then I come back and get chopped down. So it is confusing. Mayor Thompson: You have rebuttal time after opponents, I guess. Councilman Hammel: I hope I understand this right. If you would get the M -1 or the commercial, it would comprise all of this property together, right? This entire section would be re- zoned. Paae 5 Mr. Kirklin: Would be re -zoned to M -1 . . . . this parcel here that is outlined already has the existing transmission line for the gas company on it, so it actually should be manufacturing. . . . Councilman Lowry: Or commercial, they have a business office there. Mr. Kirklin: Right, they have a business office there, so it should be commercial or manufacturing already. Otherwise, you really do have a spot zone there. But if you take this as a whole . . . City Manager: It is not a spot zone, it is an illegal use, but . . . Mr. Kirklin: Well, an illegal use, I beg your pardon . . (Unintelligible city limits on Beaumont Avenue is this whole thing here which is what we were attempting to do in the first place, and which was suggested by Mr. Croft. And this is what we worked up, so Mr. Shuler had these two parcels, the gas company had this one, and Mr. Schooley has this parcel. It is not going to encroach on anybody that has homes on there - it is not going to encroach on anybody who has chickens down there - it is not going to encroach on anything really. Because you have Cal - Floral over here, you have Yates up here, you have a welding shop over by the railroad track, you have another big welding shop sitting over just behind the gas company, which is contiguous to it, so this would all be going into the same thing that you have already started . . . instead of changing because nobody is going to come in here and pay $18,000 to $20,000 for that property and cut it up and put homes on it. It is going to sit there vacant, and it is not going to do the City any good, it is not going to do the tax structure any good, it is not going to do anybody any good sitting there dormant. Now Mr. Shuler can't possible be a speculator. He has owned this property, and his father owned it before, but he felt this would be the best use for it within the City itself, and I do too. Councilman Lowry: Excuse me, would Mr. Shuler go for commercial instead of M -1 on his property also. Mr. Kirklin: Yes, this is what we were starting for in the beginning. It was changed at the planner's suggestion. Councilman Shaw: Either /or I guess. Councilman Hammel: I have one more question to you - to both of you. Any type of development you might have in commercial, how much would Beaumont Avenue be affected by it by traffic. This is what I am very much concerned about because we have enough traffic as it is now there. Mr. Kirklin: Well, the way that it is set up with the openings here, you have got plenty of protection coming down off the hill with Mr. Schooley's property. You have plenty of view on coming out on Beaumont Avenue from his property, and also on Mr. Shuler's property. Mr. Shuler's property has access on First Street, so it would be coming off on First Street instead of Beaumont Avenue. Mr. Schooley's would be the only one that would be coming out on Beaumont Avenue. Councilman Lowry: That would be controlled by the plot plan approval anyway. Mr. Schooley: They would have us, undoubtedly, as we go to get a building permit, widen the street and improve it. Also, when they do the overpass with the State Highway Department, there is a plan in there to do that anyway - to widen the access as it comes in, so there is no question whatsoever that that is the most logical zoning for that strip along there. City Manager: Mayor Thompson, may I ask Gary a question just for elimination purposes here. Gary, would it be true that any development on any of those properties fronting Beaumont Avenue would be con- trolled by Cal -Trans in terms of the street itself - openings, etc. Mr. Croft: That is correct. It is a State Highway and they would require the improvements and control access . . . Page 6 City Manager: It wouldn't be a City decision. Whatever is going to be allowed is going to be . . . the input is going to come from Cal -Trans when and if the properties were ever developed, no matter what the purpose. Mayor Thompson: Any other questions for Mr. Schooley or Mr. Kirklin? Councilman May: Well my question was concerning the traffic down there, I know it is a bottleneck. Mayor Thompson: Well, we always have problems with traffic no matter what kind of development comes in any where. Councilman Hammel: But Norm answered this question just now - with Cal -Trans . . . Councilman Lowry: We don't have control of it. Mr. Schooley: If anything, development will help cure some of your traffic problems because the streets are grossly inadequate, and in order to get a building permit you have to bring them up to present specs, which helps everybody at the developer's expense. Mayor Thompson: Are there any other questions at this time. We will probably reserve some questions until we hear the other side, and we reserve the right to come back to ask our questions. May we have the ones that, I guess you would say they are opposed to the appeal. Dennis Duranso, 10 California Avenue: I would be opposed to this zoning change for personal reasons because I happen to reside directly behind that property. My property abuts the lower portion there, and I really didn't move to this City to be surrounded by industrial complexes. I think that is the concensus of the citizens committee that is forming the General Plan that they would like that area to remain a green belt area - a buffer zone for the City, and that would be my feeling also. It would . . . I would start to worry about whether my property would start then to be . . . I don't know what the terminology would be - if that is all industrial then my property doesn't have the same use as that property - what is the terminology I am looking for here . . City Manager: Non - conforming. Councilman Lowry: Would you object to commercial as well as . . . Mr. Duranso: Yes I would. . . . then my property is not conforming to the property next to mine - and then mine has to be re -zoned or whatever. But my main concern is that myself and my family didn't move into that area of the town to be surrounded by industrial or commercial or whatever. We like our way of life out there, and . . Councilman Lowry: What is the size of your property sir. Mr. Duranso: I have four acres. Councilman Lowry: What is the size of yours Mr. Schooley? Mr. Schooley: Six acres. Mayor Thompson: Is there anyone else who would like to speak to this portion of it? Bill Killough: My name Street, and I am totally most of the City Council to build a new house. I considerable investment, or an M zoning. is Bill Killough. I reside at 649 East First opposed to a C zone or an M zone. I think know me. I am in the process of attempting have met all of the City requirements at a and I am not in favor of commercialization Councilman Lowry: Where is your property located, sir, on that map? Mr. Croft: His is the second property to the East of Mr. Shuler's property. Mr. Killough: Yes, east of Beaumont Avenue and south of First Street. Page 7 Councilman Hammel: And how much land have you got. Mr. Killough: 11.43 acres. Mr. Croft: He has just completed a parcel map to allow for construction. Mr. Killough: I have just completed subdivision and, as I said, have met all the City's requirements attempting to live in a country atmosphere, and commercialization would totally destroy this. From both the pollution standpoint, traffic congestion, you name it, we would have it. Basically, this is my feeling on this. My wife and I both are opposed, I am sure that the neighbors are opposed to it. As I say, I sure most of you know, because I have appealed here - I appealed the Board - different various decisions. I am sure I am known to you. Councilman May: Would you be opposed to electronic or real clean manufacturing out there - or light manufacture like electronics, no smoke . . . Mr. Killough: Sure, because you would end up - you put manufacturing in you increase your traffic flow, and I am abutting directly on to First Street you increase your traffic on that. You increase your noise pollution - your traffic pollution - your likelihood of more crime - you bring more people into it, so . . . Councilman Lowry: You already heard Gary Croft say that everything north of First Street is going to be manufacturing according to the general plan. Mr. Killough: I have no quarrel with this. I say that the City of Beaumont needs manufacturing. Councilman Lowry: Yes, but it is right across from your property . Mr. Croft: His home happens to be across from the residential area along Maple, which will, on the proposed general plan, be reserved for residential. Where his existing home and the home is is going to . . . Councilman Lowry: You mean he is around the corner and down on Maple down some distance . . Mr. Croft: He is on First Street approximately to the southwest corner of Maple. Councilman Lowry: How far east is manufacturing going to go on the general plan. Mr. Croft: The general plan will include the existing industrial development along First Street to the back of Orange. Councilman Lowry: Only one block, I see. Mr. Croft: And then it will cut out an area for residential. Councilman Lowry: Maple is the next block over then. Mr. Croft: That is correct. That is if it is adopted by the Council. Councilman Shaw: What is the total acreage in that area. Do you have any idea. Mr. Croft: In the proposal. Approximately 16 acres if I recall right. I don't have the staff report, but I believe it is about 16 acres. Councilman Lowry: Mr. Shuler's property east of Beaumont, how close is that to Orange Street - where it ends? Is that a half a block about? Mr. Killough: One five acre parcel in between myself and Mr. Shuler's property. Mr. Croft: It is between 250 and 300 feet. I believe the blocks are Page 8 about 260 or 270 feet in length east /west. It is essentially the distance from one end of this building to the other end of this building. Mayor Thompson: Does anybody have a question from Bill? Mr. Killough: One other thing - I don't want to keep repeating myself, to show you my determination take care of my project I had, as I say I have done everything that the City required, at a considerable investment through all the paperwork and all those other things, so I would hate to see my investment obliterated by commercialization by an M zoning. Thank you. Bob Young, 39 California Street: I am a resident now on the south side, and we are south of First Street over on California. Now that does seem a little bit far removed from your project, however, as a member of the Citizens Action Committee, we chose to keep the green belt in an R -A zone south of first street to prevent any encroachment of the business and the commercial, manufacturing areas in there. Obviously we can't have Southern California Gas move - but we would if we could. The reason for this is that, as my brother -in -law, Mr. Duranso attempted to come up with, in Section 490, the building code I believe, in the zoning it cites in the commercial, manufacturing one and manufacturing two zones that inharmonious land use would constitute taking over either R -A or whatever other zones might be in there. Our fear is, and it could very possibly happen, that the parcel immediately east, oh I'm sorry, west of the Southern California Gas Company right now at some time could be shown, or could be proven to be inharmonious land use to R -A, which means now that it is turned into commercial for manufacturing. The next parcel on, and it just keeps growing - the next thing you know those people on the south side of First Street are going to be aced right out of the property that they own now. Unidentified: That is strictly speculation. Mr. Young: That's what we are asking not have continued what are you going are asking is - we the line. So make of First Street - true, but the wording is there. What we are saying, is that it not be allowed to continue. It should up to those two little blue areas, but it is there, to do - level thom? This is our point. All we have got to make a division there - somewhere along it First Street. If it is in on the north side so be it - City Manager: Mr Young, could I ask you to address the Council, and then we won't have this interplay with the audience. Mr. Young: Well this is the same thing that we went through in another issue, and I am sure you are all aware of what I am speaking of. And it is the same thing - keep it on the north side of First Street. That is all we are asking, and leave the R -A zone alone on the south side of First. This is what the citizen action committee has done - this is another area they are interested in, in keeping it just that way. Councilman Shaw: How big a parcel do you have. Mr. Young: I have three acres on the west side of California. As I say, I seem to be a little bit removed from this project, but my reason for being here is also kind of a spokesperson for the people who live on the south side of First Street. There are a few of us down there, and we moved there - we built there - we established our homes there for the country atmosphere and the rural type living. Mayor Thompson: Question. I think I may have missed something. You were talking about Ordinance 490 and inharmonious land use. I think I missed something. Give me an example of what we are talking about. You said something about to the west of Southern California Gas . . . Mr. Young: Yes. That now is . . . Mayor Thompson: Excuse me sir - from the boundary of Southern Page 9 California Gas Company to California would be the next north /south street wouldn't it? How far are we talking approximately? Mr. Croft: Around 250 to 300 feet. Mayor Thompson: Say 300 feet? Mr. Young: I don't know the gentleman who owns that piece of property, but if he were to want to develop it, it is in an R -A zone now. Councilman Lowry: Excuse me. I would like -I would like to ask Gary Croft a question about this too. I asked how far west of Beaumont Avenue was the M -1 zone in the general plan. How far east - wait a minute, I said east - how far west now beyond 84 Lumber and Buckeye is the proposed M -1 zone to extend north of First Street. Mr. Croft: It would continue along First Street to what was Walnut Avenue, which would include the project being built by the Baldis. That would be about 250 -300 feet west of California. This would all be on the north side. Councilman Lowry: In other words, just north of your property now on First Street you have M -1 zoning? Mr. Young: Yes, and we didn't like it then either. Mr. Croft: You may recall Mr. Young showed up at the hearing in oppo- sition. Mr. Young: I am getting to be a familiar face, and I don't like to make the business community think that I am against business, that is not the truth at all, but I am sure that none of you, if you lived in an area that you had chosen to build your house, or your home, would like to have it turned over to commercial, or to manufacturing. This is all I am saying. I understand these gentlemen have more than a right to pursue a business venture, but we are here at this hearing just to make our views known. This is what we would like to do - this is the way we would like to keep it. I am glad that we have hearings like this where we can come out and at least give you our thoughts on it, rather than just sit back. We are interested in Beaumont. That is why I settled here. And I am interested in the business community, several of my friends in the audience tonight are in the business community, and I would really like to see it prosper. I am not interested in the Orange County spread. I am not interested in seeing Beaumont at 50,000 people plus. We owe something to the community that is here today, not ones that we are liable to attract by the year 2000. Let us get our sewer plant - let us get our water plant - let us get our police protection - fire protection up to adequate size for the people that we have here now. Get those situations taken care of then let us talk about expanding. The other point I would like to bring up is that the traffic out on Beaumont Avenue now, just with the community as it is now, I don't know how many of you have reason to go down that way on the weekends, but it is rough. It is rough getting out there. Cal -Trans would have a picnic with any in -roads into it or exits out of it. Councilman Lowry: Well they would govern that, and they would widen the street. Mr. Young: They would have to do something. There is too much traffic on there now that is uncontrolled, and as Mr. Killough alluded to also on First Street. That is going to be a problem. Councilman Lowry: There will probably be additional streets in a property of this size which would be constructed as this develops I would assume. Mr. Young: But this is some of the feelings of the people from down in that area, while they may not be affected by it immediately, this is some of the concern that they are showing. We have already had one roundabout with the Baldi Bros. that went through. We are not too very happy about it, but hopefully we can become peaceful neighbors. But this is about as far as we would like to see it go. If you take Page 10 a minute to check that Ordinance 490, it is in the first paragraph of the M -1 and the M -2 zone. Right in there it talks about inharmonious land uses. And there is no mistaking what that means. O.K., the chicken ranches are down there. If the business community or if the commercial community were allowed to expand, those people would be the first people to be affected. Because nobody is going to build a motel complex or a shopping center, or even a commercial center down there and have to worry about the flies, and perhaps the smell. It is there, let's face it. You can't deny it. I live within spiting distance of one of them, but I knew them when I moved there. And I would really hate to think that I would have the gumption to walk over to my neighbor and say, hey, you know I have a nice house over here - I want you out of here. That is ridiculous. This is really the way I feel about this proposed re- zoning. Thank you very much. Mr. Croft: I might make a comment on the poultry. That is in the unincorporated area of the County, and not in the City. The County several years ago passed an ordinance requiring that all poultry go into poultry zoning, or be abandoned after twenty years. That will be coming up around 1991 as I recall. Of this date they have not re -zoned to poultry zoning, and there is little probability being adjacent to the City that that would occur. Jim Cunningham, 11 South Palm: I have eighteen acres south of First Street. I am opposed to any M -1 zoning any further south than First Street. Mayor Thompson: Do we have any other persons here that wishes to oppose the granting of the appeal. Any other comments for the opponents? Any other comments from the opponents on this hearing? Joe, do you have a final closing statement for the proponent? Mr. Kirklin: There are just two things I would like to make a remark on. First of all, the gentleman that got up here and talked about building the new home up there, I am sure that nobody, including myself, wants to see his investment go down the tubes. But if you will look on the map, not this thing here, but you can see realistically is, but if you go out and look at the area you will see he is quite aways away from there - he has got quite a bit of greenbelt in between him and this area - this particular area - both of them. Mr. Cunningham is right across the street from Mr. Schooley, but he has built up on Palm Avenue, which is quite some distance away. I am sure he will have animals or something in that property that goes down to Beaumont Avenue. But I think it all boils down to one thing. Are we going to be interested in the individual, whether it is Mr. Schooley, Mr. Cunningham or the other gentleman, Mr. Young - or are we going to be interested in the City of Beaumont. Whichever way you vote, vote for the best thing for Beaumont. I don't want you to vote for Mr. Schooley - I don't want you want to vote for me, or these individuals that came up here. Vote for what is best for Beaumont, because Beaumont has got to grow, it can't stay at a standstill - it can't stay a small town, as much as we would like for it to be. I have been here twenty -five years in the real estate business. I love Beaumont just as much as anybody does. I have my business here, and I stay here in Beaumont, even though I live in Hemet I kept my office here in Beaumont because I like the Beaumont area, and I want to see it advance, but I think it is going to have to advance - I don't think it can stand still, and wish that we could all have the perfect setup - it is just an impossible thing to do. So whatever is best for Beaumont that is what I want. I am sure that is what Mr. Schooley wants too. Mayor Thompson: Thank you Joe. Mr. Schooley do you have a rebuttal to any of the things brought up by the opponents? Mr. Schooley: Well it seems that the issue here would be if you approved commercial that I had requested that before obtaining any permits to do anything there, you still have the latitude of creating some sort of a buffer at the rear of my property, and the gentleman . . . .(unintelligble . . . excuse me what is your name? How long have you lived on your property. Unidentified: Three years. Mr. Schooley: Well, three years ago I started coming to this town Page 11 about three years ago. The point shortly, that I am trying to make is the gas company was there, the chicken ranch was there, neither of them provided any buffer for this gentleman's property. I am proposing that in order to do what I would like to do, that prior to any con- struction there, that I would have to dedicate a certain portion of my property at the rear as a buffer, with trees, or whatever it takes to help soften the transition. I know those chickens are there, I know the gas company is there. What are my alternatives. If I don't go and do something planned, that is property planned, and offer some sort of a buffer - guarantee if I was to go out there and decide to feed cattle out there, or raise poultry out there, or some sort of venture like that - which I don't know if you call manufacturing or not - guarantee you that I would have the same arguement, or very, very similar. It is just human nature that if you are there first, and you think you have found utopia, you don't want to see somebody else come in and change it. I have been fighting these arguments for twenty years - twenty years from now we will be arguing the same thing. The proper thing to do is plan it in the right fashion and create buffers and things that soften the transition, which kind of gets a little bit of both worlds in there. I am not trying to come in there and jam something down somebody's throat. Thank you. Mayor Thompson: We have heard from both sides, and the rebuttal from the appellant. There are a few questions that I would like to ask, and this is of Gary. On the map there on the wall, the big map, can you show us approximately where First Street is on the big map. Mr. Croft: First Street is in this position. Mayor Thompson: Now the property in question, parcels in question, constitute what portion of the present grain area. Is that where we are looking? Mr. Croft: It constitutes these two parcels, which are occupied by Buckeye Gas and 84 Lumber. These two parcels of Mr. Shulers, this one of Southern California Gas Company, and this one of Mr. Schooleys. Mayor Thompson: And this goes right to the City limits? Mr. Croft: Right to the City limits, correct. The poultry in question is located in this position. Mayor Thompson: Does anyone else have a question? I have another question. One of the opponents indicated that he was a member of the citizens advisory committee for the general plan update. O.K. I think you mentioned a minute ago that the general plan for all practical purposes was completed except for acceptance, or submission for acceptance. Is that correct? Mr. Croft: Yes. The next meeting will be - If I am correct - will be a joint meeting with the Planning Commission as a workshop related to the final draft of that general plan. And then, beginning on the 16th of February, there will be hearings before the Planning Commission on the general plan. So the citizens advisory committee has, in essence, completed their work. Mayor Thompson: Preliminary recommendation for the general plan update concerning that area is what? Mr. Croft: Northerly of First Street and east of what is Walnut, that is where these parcels - these here - that is for these parcels through here - would be for industrial, with the exception of the area around Maple, which is currently developed to residential use. All the rest of that would be as a residential - agricultural use. Approximately two units to the acre maximum. Mayor Thompson: That is in the preliminary recommendation. It has not been adopted yet. Mr. Croft: It has to go through hearings with the Commission. Mayor Thompson: But that is the preliminary recommendation. Let me pose a "what if" situation. What if the appeal was upheld, and just remember this is a "what if ". I am just asking for information. What Page 12 if the appeal was upheld - what would this do to the recommendation of the general plan and citizens committee for general plan. Mr. Croft: It wouldn't change their recommendation. What it would require would be consideration during the Planning Commission hearings of amending that proposed general plan, and review at that time, both at the Commission and at the City Council. Ultimately, the zoning would have to be consistent with the general plan. Should the general plan hearings result in upholding that - the appeal - then the general plan would need to be modified from its current draft. If it were denied, then there would be a consistency zoning hearing, and the zoninq would be returned to R -A. Mayor Thompson: Remember, I said "what if ". It was just an information question. I have one other question. Somewhere along here we were talking about - I think Mr. Schooley mentioned it - the overpass will wipe out basically existing commercial. The overpass on Beaumont Avenue. How would this affect the present, or the proposed, M -1 or M zone from the existing commercial. Can you give me an idea on that? Mr. Croft: M zone is designed primarily for manufacturing and by our current ordinance also allows commercial uses. If the ordinance were to be changed and exclude commercial uses, then it would not affect commercial uses at all. That is up to the amendments of the land use ordinance that are being proposed. In terms of the overpass, should it be built, and, incidentally, it is no longer on the recommended list of projects by Cal - Trans. It fell off the bottom again. If it were to go through it would eliminate the use of commercial at the intersection of Third and Beaumont Avenue, as that would be at a point where there would either be a large embankment or, at the least, a bridge without access to Beaumont Avenue. It would, as their drawings propose, take out some of the commercial at Fourth Street - not all of it however, and Fourth Street would continue to have access to Beaumont Avenue. It would only take out those businesses which were immediatley adjacent to Beaumont Avenue at Fourth Street. The service station, the Shell station. Colony Kitchen would remain, as would the land - most of the land where the service station is located would be available for use, however it would not have direct access to Beaumont Avenue. Councilman May: One other question, if that bridge did go in there and widen it out, there is some residential property down there that would have to be purchased by the State, or somebody, to make a wider road through there. Because it is very narrow right in through there where, I think, there are two or three houses that are sitting there in close to the road now. Mr. Croft: I believe the houses are gone - but it would necessitate purchasing up to about seventy feet on either side of the existing Beaumont right -of -way, and any development that would be going in currently would be taking that into account, as it is coming through the planning and engineering in their review. Councilman Shaw: How does that railroad in there - that siding - come into the picture in that area? Doesn't that enter into the picture somewhere. Mr. Croft: The siding? Not directly in reference to Beaumont Avenue. It is really off to the side. It causes a wider right -of -way through there, but doesn't directly affect the development along Beaumont Avenue. Mayor Thompson: Are there any other questions from Gary? We are getting ready to close the public hearing. There is one more thing I have, and again it is part of the notes, and on number two it says - how does Planning Department reverse its opinion so abruptly. I don't remember the exact context in which that was put out. Mr. Croft: That was the comment I was going to make was relative to that. As I outlined in my staff report to you, I had made no decision on this project, as I indicated, I initially talked with Mr. Schooley Page 13 relative to a commercial project, and indicated to him that was not consistent with the general plan, and that the only general plan cate- gory in the area that would allow non - residential development was the industrial category somewhat to the north, and that in order to consider his property we would have to consider extending the general plan and including all those parcels intervening between his and the existing designated general plan and industrially zoned area. And that is why they followed through with the type of application that they made. I made no indication that I either supported or objected to that. But that was the only possibility of considering that parcel. As far as Mr. Kiik linscomment relative to changing my opinion, as I indicated, I did not write the staff report until after 5:00 on the night it was due - there was no other staff around, and that was when I made the decision. It is not normal that I make a decision until, as Mr. Schooley indicates, I had gathered all the facts, and I did not have all the facts until I was ready to write the staff report. That was when the decision was made. I actually considered a half a dozen different alternatives including the entire parcel or recommending denial on the entire parcel - or approve on the entire parcel or any individual number of parcels. The Southern California Gas Company, incidentally, although it is normally considered a non - conforming use, is an institutional use, and by our ordinance, and most ordinances in the State, are permitted as non - conforming uses as a public use, the same as schools, churches, hospitals, and other types of public entities. The telephone company is another use. And these are allowed in resi- dential as well as commercial and industrial areas. Mayor Thompson: On a public hearing the normal procedure is to hear both sides of the appeal, have staff bring in their side of it, and then the routine procedure is to close the public hearing and render a decision within a prescribed time as outlined in the ordinance that governs the appeal, which is 490. Primarily the reason for that is to give the Council or Planning Commission a chance to review the tape and evidence that has been presented both for and against, and to com- pare this evidence - testimony - whatever you call it - to the require- ments of the ordinance on which the appeal is based. If we have no objections from the Council, we can close the public hearing at this time and render the decision within the prescribed period of time - which, I think, is forty days. However, I don't remember a Council ever taking that long to -- once we get the testimony. So does any Council Member have a question to Gary? Councilman Hammel: Gary, I would like to ask you, don't you feel what is the use of this City spending big money for a general plan, and then not comply by it. In other words, you are trying to build something, you are trying to shape it, trying to form it, trying to put this package together - why should we have spent thousands of dollars for a general plan, if we don't want to go by it. City Manager: Well I know you have asked that question of Gary, but I would suggest you have no general plan - you are in the formative stage, and until you, the Council, make that decision, you don't have a general plan. You, the Council, are really charged with the final analysis with making that decision - so, that is all part of the process. Mr. Croft: The existing general plan is the one that was adopted in 1973, which, in effect, shows the industrial area coming into the City somewhere between Second and Third Streets, but the proposed one - it is essential, in fact, it is required under State law that any decision which is rendered relative to planning be consistent with the general plan as it is adopted. Mayor Thompson: Are there any other questions. Then the appeal hearing for Joseph Kirklin on Zone Change 1007 will be closed, and the Council will render a decision within the prescribed period per Ordinance 490. The Public Hearing was closed at 9:13 P.M. At this point in time, the Council allowed Mr. John Mealy, of the County of Riverside Community Development, to address the Council before going to the next public hearing. Mr. Mealy addressed the Council regarding the rehabilitation program that the County is sponsoring with the City and with the City of Banning also, called the Banning- Beaumont Pass Rehabilitation Program which will make rehabilitation loans to people on a deferred loan basis, up Paqe 14 to $5,000.00 to allow low income and very low income families to make necessary repairs to their homes. The loans to be paid back when the family sells the house, or if the family should otherwise move out of the house, rent the house out to somebody else. The purpose of the program is to enable people to repair their houses, make them decent, safe and sanitary, to fix up any code violations, otherwise make the houses livable. Mr. Mealy then described the background of the program including funding to the Council, and answered questions from the Council. He then asked for a resolution from the Council endorsing the program. The City Manager was directed to bring a resolution to the next Council meeting. 10. PUBLIC HEARING - 8:00 P.M. - Appeal filed by James L. Hayes of Planning Commission Avenue. Decision Reapproving Original Site Plan for 680 Beaumont The Public Hearing was opened at 9:21 P.M. Gary Croft: This particular project has really a long historical back - qround prior to the applicant's involvement with the parcel. Initially in 1961 Jack Birch proposed to build a commercial center at the south- east corner of Beaumont Avenue and Seventh Street. At that time he requested, by means of variance, permission through the Planning Commission to reduce the parking area below the 50o standard, which was then in the ordinance. A minor deviation was allowed at that time, and he later then came back in 1965 with an amended plot plan to add a small addition on to the back of the building at the southerly end. This request was approved, providing that he maintain the parking as he outlined in his plot plan, and a loading zone at the south end of the property. Sometime later Mr. Birch sold the property and Mr. and Mrs. Wohl purchased it. Eventually, Mr. Hayes, who is the apellant, became one of the leasees in the building. With the permission of Mrs. Wohl, because of his expanding business, he was quickly outgrowing his existing facility, and needed some additional space to use. The Wohls then granted him the opportunity of enclosing a portion of the what was the loading area in the previous plot plan. Incidentally, neither Mr. Hayes or the Wohls were aware of this prior plot plan, as apparently the Building Department was also not aware of it. Initially, a fence was erected. He wanted to cover the area to protect some of the things that he was storing there. He went to the Building Department and obtained a building permit for a patio roof to be placed inside the enclosed fence. The Building Department was not aware of the plot plan requirement and went ahead and issued the permit. Subsequently Mr. Hayes then enclosed the area under the patio roof. It was at this time, or following this, then, that the Building Department was made aware of this enclosure without a proper permit and sent Mr. Hayes a letter. He then came into the Planning Department and discussed it with the Building and Planning Department, and we indicated that if he were to retain the structure that he had put up, there was only one option in terms of getting approval - and that would be to go to a new plot plan approval for the structure behind the building, after which time, if it were approved, then building permits would be issued to correct any errors or deficiencies. He then, a couple of days later, applied for plot plan 1008, which was scheduled then for hearing on the 17th of November. However, prior to that hearing, oral communication was brought before your Council relative to the problem of the development of that site. And, as a result, the planning staff was asked to give a report back to your Council. That date was scheduled for November 23, which was approximately one week after the scheduled hearing of the Planning Commission. Planning then recommended to the Planning Commission that they continue the item until after the City Council disposed of the oral communication and, as a result, that was staff recommendation to the Commission. Mr. Hayes was not present then at the hearing before the Planning Commission, however, the Commission decided to go ahead and act on the basis of the information which it had, and therefore made a recommendation to deny Mr. Hayes' application. No one was there to either speak in favor or against the project, and as a result of that action he is appealing the plot plan before you, the Council. It has a rather involved and confused history, not the least of which were the two simultaneous actions before two separate bodies, and the differences between the recommendation of the staff and the action taken by the Commission. The staff recommends that Mr. Page 15 Hayes be given an opportunity to formally present his request, and that it be given at a new hearing before the Planning Commission, due to the irregularities in notification of Mr. Hayes, which prevented him from being there to appear in his own behalf at the Planning Commission. City Manager: Gary, isn't this a little irregular asking the Council to send it back to the Commission where it has already been heard, even though it wasn't heard in terms of Mr. Hayes being able to appear, they held a hearing, they closed a hearing and made a decision. Now he has appealed that decision evidently. Why recommend it go back to the Commission. Why not just hold the hearing, and if the Council . upholds the Commission's decision, then it is upheld, or the Council can grant whatever Mr. Hayes is requesting. I really fail to see why it is being recommended back to the Commission. Mr. Croft: The reason staff is recommending that is because of the irregularities in notification. City Manager: I recognize that. Even though there were irregularities, Commission did hold a hearing - rightly or wrongly - and, after all, the Council is the final determiner, and why not hold the hearing. I just wonder if this is really a legitimate recommendation actually. Mr. Croft: It would be proper to hold this before the Council. City Manager: I know it is proper to hold it here I just wonder if it is really proper to send it back to the Commission, because you could get yourself into a danger here, anytime you might not like a Commission decision, you send it back to them in the hope that, in effect, it could look like you are forcing them to take contrary action in order to come back to the Council and, in effect, you would have something you could understand. I would think there would be a real danger here that you start sending things back to the Commission, once they had held a hearing. City Attorney: I think there is a lot of merit to that because just sending it back - why it sounds like disapproval, in other words you are up here on appeal. I think Council ought to determine this issue while it is here now, rather than send it back. I think that the Council should determine this matter while it is here - right now. There is an appeal pending, and I think it has got to be disposed of. Mayor Thompson: Somewhere along the line you did make reference to the fact that the Building Department was not aware of something. They weren't aware of the plot plan or the development that has been there. Mr. Croft: They weren't aware of really of two things. One they weren't aware of prior actions relative to the parking and loading zone at the rear of the building. That is the prior plot plan approvals. And, two, by their interpretation of the ordinance, they didn't believe that this constituted the need for a plot plan approval. They held it was simply covering a parking place. Mayor Thompson: Who made this determination. Mr. Croft: This was the Building Department. The position of the Building Department was that putting up a patio roof was simply covering an existing parking place in a parking area, which would be permitted if someone has a parking lot and wanted to cover it, make it covered parking, they would be permissible. That was the position they were taking in granting that building permit. City Attorney: Gary, what is the legal affect of approving the appeal. What is going to happen. Mr. Croft: If the appeal is upheld by the Council, then the structure as it exists would be allowed to remain providing that it paid the permit then to enclose the patio roof. Councilman Lowry: But how does that conflict with the required parking, are we in to a . . . Mr. Croft: The parking - that would become a variance to the parking standard. The parking, as it exists today, is not up to the standard which we currently require. Paqe 16 City Manager: It isn't up to the standard that was originally required. Mayor Thompson: Under 282, Ordinance 282, under which this building and plot plan was approved, this was the requirement - 500 of the area of the site. Mr. Croft: The actual Commission granted a minor variance to the 50% rule, but it retained the same number of spaces that would have been able to be developed under the 50% rule, actually the design of the parking area could be modified considerably because it shows three tiers of spaces - the 1965 plan - of which the most easterly, that is spaces one through seven actually extend out into the alley. Some three or four feet. If it were redesigned, all the spaces could be accommo- dated on the existing parking area, but it would require a different design of the parking lot to do that. Councilman Lowry: Isn't it a fact that the parking area is much more than adequate at the present for the present uses. You never see that parking lot loaded up and full of cars to my knowledge. Mr. Croft: The existing uses in the building have unique hours in relationship to each other. And, as a result, normally speaking, that is true. In fact the only time the parking lot is full is late at night when only one of the businesses is open. And that is the one - the restaurant to the north. Most of the businesses - two of the businesses do not have access to the parking lot directly from the building in terms of their customers, so, as a result, for the most part, the customers use the street for parking. The others do have access, but the hours of the businesses are quite unique. Mayor Thompson: Thank you Gary, we will get back to you in a little bit as the City representative. Mr. Hayes, your letter of appeal is very eloquent, and in reading it I realize you have a problem. Just to set the record straight, I happen to be on the Planning Commission from 1960 to 1973, at which time I happened to be in on the original development of this particular piece of property, and it was developed in accordance the requirements of Ordinance 282, which has since been repealed. At that time the parking requirements, as indicated, were 50% of the site. I was also there in 1965 when Mr. Birch came back for a modification, and, at the time, it was a reasonable request. Basically, you are appealing the decision of the Planning Commission which says that the structure which has now been built there is illegal. Basically, that is what you are saying? Do you have any basis, other than personal feeling, that the Planning Commission has erred in this sense. Mr. James Hayes: I think it has really been, it was kind of wrong. The way it was handled Planning Commission - or not on my part - whe to come in and asked them to erect a fence up from Mr. and Mrs. Wohl to do this, and I told he needed to go ahead and put the fence up. from the start, I think maybe. Not on the a I got Allen Fence Co. there - I had permission them to go get whatever Mayor Thompson: Where was the fence placed - well - in accordance with this. Mr. Hayes: It comes in the southwest corner. No, southeast corner of the building. At that time Allen Fence Co. came out, I had two or three estimates at the time - Allen Fence Co., they came in and put the fence in - I said do whatever you - you get a permit - whatever you need - I need a fence up out here and I had the permission and all from the landlord - and there was trash drums there at the time. Big trash containers - two of them. They were taking up the parking space. In fact I moved one of the trash cans back so I could put my motor home in there - we stayed in it most of the time trying to get the business started, but Allen Fence Co. went ahead and proceeded - they said as long we go six feet tall we don't need a permit. I said you have already checked it out. They said no problem, they checked it all out. So we got the fence up and people kept climbing over the fence at night. Then they cut all the stringers around at night, and I said, well, we have to do something else, maybe I will put a cover over this thing. So, I went in and got a permit to put a cover within the fence, I guess eight foot tall, so we got that put in. Then people kept cutting the fence, and kept climbing over the fence at nights. Nothing was in there except a couple of motorcycles, but still and all who like to climb a fence I suppose, and that is when I decided well I should go Page 17 ahead and put the tin on the sides. I hired a guy to put the tin inside the fill it in so that people couldn't see from the outside what was really inside that would excite them and make them want to climb the fence, and I thought it was a pretty nice structure. To me, I hadn't done anything wrong. But, right now, I have being trying to buy - this is a little irregularity here - but I am trying to buy a building, and I just got shot down on it. I found out it was tied up pretty tight, there on Sixth Street here, and after about three weeks of trying to buy the building I found out it was quite a lengthy deal, but I am still trying to buy another location at this time. I think we have got plenty of parking spaces. I don't think nobody really climbing the walls to get in there myself, or the corner bar or anybody else really. Councilman Hammel: Why didn't you put a policedog in the enclosure. Mr. Hayes: I should have sir. I really should have. I have had my problems there. I have overcome most of them. Mr. Davis, here, Chief Bridges - they are all aware of the problems that I have had, but I have overcome them all, and they have left me alone the last few weeks. I've really had a lot of problems. They have kind of stayed away from me a little bit now, so I feel better. But if I can ask the City to bear with me, I am trying, and I have expanded faster than normal, I guess because when you put a lot into something, you get a lot out of it occasionally. But, we are trying. Councilman Hammel: Let me ask you - You personally, how much business you feel is being done at the restaurant next door to you. Mayor Thompson: I don't think that really has a bearing on this appeal. Councilman Hammel: I just want to compare this with the parking area, because they are not parking the cars on Beaumont Avenue. Mayor Thompson: May I interject a question before he answers that. What are your hours of business. Mr. Hayes: From about 8:30 in the morning until about 6:00. We try to get out of there by 6:00. Sometimes we can't get out right on the money - but usually 6:00. Mayor Thompson: This is consistent with the business hours in the other businesses in that building. Mr. Hayes: They usually go in about - they start in about 6:00 or 7:00 in the morning. They are usually there when I get there. There are one or two cars there usually, but I think their business - we knock off on Friday nights, we get out of there at 6:00. We usually try to get out of there before then because they get a little rowdy I guess, but no problem. We are closed Saturday afternoon, we close at 5:00, and that is when their business usually starts. Sunday we are closed - Sunday and Monday we are normally closed. Mayor Thompson: I think what Mr. Hammel was getting at - the sharing of the parking lot. Do all the businesses there have parking require- ments in the same time frame. I think that is what you were trying to find out. Mr. Hayes: I don't think so. Little Louie's next door. You can't get access to his building there in the back because there - that door is pretty well bolted up in the back. It was - I don't know what the deal is now. Most of the time it is from the front. So just myself, really, and the bar, is the only ones who have got access to the back. I think Little Louie keeps most of his junk and stuff next door there in the back. I don't know - in the back room there. City Manager: How many of your customers utilize the parking lot. What percentage. Mr. Hayes: I would say about 45 to 50 %, or something. Councilman Lowry: You don't have a business that has a high volume at any given time usually, though, do you? Mr. Hayes: No sir. Page 18 Councilman Lowry: What do you have - two or three customers at a time. About the maximum. Mr. Hayes: Right. Actually, I have never had over three parking places out in the back at one given time. It is really hard to say, really. Councilman Hammel: I have come by there, let us say at 8:30 or 9:00, and have seen quite a few cars on the parking lot in the back. Would you say, these are customers at that particular time for the bar or from you. Mr. Hayes: From the bar sir. Mayor Thompson: Do you have anything else on this gentlemen. The letter was quite adequate really on what you have just said. It pretty well goes right down the line. You've added a few things. Mr. Hayes: I do want to stay in Beaumont. I do want to buy a building and we are looking now and going forth. I would like to make this the area to live in. City Manager: Mayor Thompson, could I ask him a question. First, I kind of ask him a question, but ask Gary one really as a prelude to it. Gary, is it possible that this approval, if the Council desires to give it, could be a conditional approval say for a year or eighteen months, or whatever, and if that is the case then would this satisfy your basic request, Mr. Hayes, since you indicate you are really looking for someplace. Is that possible. Mr. Croft: Yes, we can condition it as to time, also it can be condi- tioned upon his moving to another location that it be removed. Both these conditions could be placed on the project. City Manager: Now that you have heard that Mr. Hayes, what is your reaction. Mr. Hayes: Fantastic. I think it is fantastic. My lease is a year and a half left, of course I have an option for three years, but I hope that I will have it out of there regardless, before then. A year or a year and a half, or whenever I.move - that is fine. Right now we do need it - I mean there is no getting around it. Mayor Thompson: Is there anything else you want to ask Jim. Do I have any other proponents that want to speak on behalf of the apellant. I will ask then if there is anyone in the audience, then you will have the chance to rebut the testimony. Any opponent to the request, or appeal by Mr. Hayes. Pat Renna, 987 E. 14th: I kind of wrote this, saying, I would like to tell you sarcastically that you should let everything remain as it is at 680 Beaumont Avenue, since it is obvious Yamaha has a special deal with the Police and Building Departments regarding the front of his business. He should be given the same special consideration re- garding the rear. Why change past City practice in regard to the enforcement of Ordinances and laws. To do so would astonish far to many citizens. And Mr. Hayes was deliberately trying to sidestep ordinances when he applied for a permit to build a carport on his area he had already fenced in. Fencing in and erecting a shed on the parking area shared by four businesses showed no consideration for the other tenants. The Planning and Building Departments were very much in error also. This was called to Mr. Ray Smith's attention prior to the shed being built, and sitting back there and listening to the little bit he had to say about'when the fence went up — when the fence went up and it was just a short time later, I mean, no even a couple of weeks, the carpot went up, and as soon as the carport went up, it was like just a spontaneous thing - there wasn't time for people to be climbing over it. Or maybe there was, possibly, but there is quite a bit of police patrol back there because of the bar. Mr. Hammel was asking questions about the hours. We, at one time opened at 11:00 and stayed open until 2:00 in the morning. But, since we have moved around the corner and we had that opportunity to buy that property over there, we have been more or less phasing out our hours and everything, and we are down to 4:00 to 11:00, and we were considering closing, and we have had the opportunity now that we are going to close the business entirely in time. So I don't know what would go in there, or how they will be concerned with the parking, or whatever. When we were in full force there, we were Page 19 busy, and we had a lot of traffic from the bar that would come -- because the bar's main entrance is on 7th, but the majority of the customers used that back parking lot entrance, and we had a lot going back and forth, but then Louie isn't there - he is over at the other restaurant. We had a problem with people that were pretty well drunk just walking in, and our waitresses and the help that we had at the time not knowing how to deal with it. Councilman Hammel: They don't serve any food in the bar? Mrs. Renna: We did when my husband was there . . . Councilman Hammel: No I mean the bar. Mrs. Renna: The bar itself doesn't serve food. We used to carry pizzas in there, and hamburgers, or whatever they ordered, we had a system set up between the two places, and phones and everything, but when my husband moved over to the other place full time, we discontinued all that. Mayor Thompson: Do you have any rebuttal, Jim. Gary, I have some questions to ask. (Tape is changed - next tape picks up at following point) Mr. Croft: . . . would have been the off - loading for the pharmacy, which was located in that building. Councilman Lowry: I see, at that time it was a pharmacy. Mr. Croft: As I recall, it was also a bakery - I am new to town, and I am not familiar with it - but it was a bakery and a restaurant as I recall. Mayor Thompson: The opponents have been heard. The rebuttal has been heard - now we are just taking some of the testimony and having it clarified by Mr. Croft. For your answer - yes - there have been times when I have needed a loading zone at my place. But I don't have one designated per se. What I was getting at here is, when this plot plan was modified in 1961, the loading zone was placed in this parti- cular area - right? And from your knowledge it has never been moved, this is the official place it is supposed to be? Mr. Croft: I have found no other plot plans after considerable research. Mayor Thompson: In other words, the loading zone here was placed here, and it did not infringe upon the basic parking requirements. Mr. Croft: That is correct. Mayor Thompson: Now the building that they have there now is a building per se, right? It is not a loading zone, because the loading zone is a covered area. Mr. Croft: It could be - but it would have to be large enough to accommodate large delivery trucks. Mayor Thompson: In other words, put a truck inside? Mr. Croft: Yes. Normally you would have to have twelve or fifteen foot overhead door to allow to load inside a building. That could accommodate a loading zone. Those are usually rather rare. Mayor Thompson: What are the normal requirements on a dedicated parking area as for utilization other than parking or loading zone. Mr. Croft: I am sorry, I don't understand. Mayor Thompson: Let me go at it another way. If you have a dedicated parking lot, that is approved plot plan, parking stripes. What is the normal procedure for utilization of that. Simply transit traffic, or is it permanent traffic, or is it . . . . Mr. Croft: It is considered normally transit - but it is also permanent that is, for the use of the employees of the building, and in that respect it would be considered permanent during the hours of the Page 20 businesses. Employees would be allowed to park there full time. Mayor Thompson: You didn't quite answer my question, but that is close enough. What I am basically getting at, Gary, is that once a parking area is established and approved, it is to be used for parking. Am I correct under 490? Mr. Croft: That is correct. Mayor Thompson: Once the loading zone is established and approved, it is to be used as a loading zone according to 490. Mr. Croft: Yes. Mayor Thompson: In essence here, what we have is something that does not comply with the requirements of 490. Mr. Croft: That would be correct. Mayor Thompson: I have no more questions at this time. City Manager; It would also be correct wouldn't it Mr. Mayor, to assume though that there is nothing in 490 that can force anybody to use any parking lot. Mayor Thompson: This is true. But once you designated it as permanent off - street parking, you cannot arbitrarily infringe upon that particu- lar use by another use. Councilman Lowry: Unless there is a variance granted. Mayor Thompson: . . . procedures are followed. Am I basically correct on that? Mr. Croft: Yes. Basically, the ordinance sets out certain standards, and the only way that can be amended would either be to change the ordinance or grant a variance to the standard. City Manager: Are you telling Council then, that they have no alterna- tive here tonight? Mr. Croft: Basically, it would be true. City Manager: Well, basically, or is it true. Mr. Croft: The parking layout could be redesigned to accommodate the same number of parking places, and still allow for additional use at that end of the parking lot. The question is whether we are preserving the total square feet of the parking area or the number of parking places, and if we are preserving the number of parking places, yes it could be redesigned - which, in effect, would be a new plot plan . . . Mayor Thompson: Let me ask a question. If you do that, then this supercedes the original requirements under which this was developed. Maybe I should ask the attorney that. Mr. Dougherty, if they - we are talking about redesigning the parking area - would this action super - cede the original action under which this property was developed. Mr. Dougherty: I don't know about supercede, but I think what you are getting at is some action whereby the applicant or the appellant here filed with the Planning Commission to redesign so that it complies with the ordinance, is that what you are suggesting. Mayor Thompson: Well, that is what I am getting at. I am not sure whether or not I am getting it or not. According to our present ordinance, the required parking spaces are what, 40? Approximately 23 on here. Councilman Lowry: But that encroached on the alley supposedly, so you couldn't get that many in there. Mr. Croft: Twenty -four is what is currently shown, but seven of those spaces currently project into the alley approximately three or four feet. With redesign, all twenty -four of those spaces could be re- accommodated on the private property of the parking, with modification of the south end. Page 21 City Attorney: How could you redesign it and get all those added spaces, twenty -four. Mr. Croft: By doing vertical parking, and changing the circulation pattern. Councilman Lowry: Would that obviate the structure he has then, in order to do that. In other words, would you have to remove that. You can do that and have this structure in place also. Mr. Croft: Yes. What the problem is, when you do angle parking, you lose a lot of ground in the corners, and that is where you would be picking up your extra space, and it also requires greater depth, but by redesigning it you could pick up that extra space. Mayor Thompson: Down on the bottom line - the thing that has been developed there is a structure, right? Basically it encroaches upon the parking or loading zone area? And it is not part of the original approved plot plan. Mr. Croft: That is correct. Mayor Thompson: I have no more questions. Does anybody else have questions. Councilman May: The structure is 17 x 27. Mr. Croft: Yes, that is correct. The exhibit that Mr. Hayes submitted with his plot plan is attached to the staff report further back in your packet. Councilman Shaw: Is that still in existence? Mr. Croft: Yes, it still is in existence. Councilman Shaw: According to correspondence here of October 13, 1981 it was supposed to be removed. Mayor Thompson: He is appealing that Planning Commission decision. Mr. Croft: In abatement procedure like this, the normal procedure is to not require a structure to be removed until they have exhausted their remedies. And the one remedy that was open to him was to apply through the planning process permission to have that structure there, that is the option which he has exercised. City Attorney: Gary, if the Council should decide to overrule the appeal, and, in other words, follow the action taken by the Planning Commission, that will require that he take the sidings down, and not use it for their place of business. Isn't that the net result. Mr. Croft: Yes. What would be required then would be to follow the letter from the Building Director, which would require the removal of the enclosure, and, as he says, remove the sides of the carport and return it to its intended use, that is to a parking area. Mayor Thompson: Do you have any other questions. City Attorney: You were suggesting the possibility of granting a condi- tional use for a period of a year and a half. Mr. Croft: Yes, that would be an option. City Attorney: That is permissible under the ordinance? Mr. Croft: Yes. In other words, we can condition the site plan approval by Commission or Council action. That could be a condition that could be set on it. Mayor Thompson: Thank you very much Gary. Mr. Hayes, as you probably heard in the previous public hearing, the Council may close the public hearing, or they may continue it if they find it necessary, however, once the public hearing is closed, under Ordinance 490 we have the option to render a decision in a prescribed period, which I believe is forty days. Under those conditions, we have complied with Ordinance Page 22 490, we have duly noticed the public hearing, we have held the public hearing, we have received testimony on the appeal, and we received testimony from those opposing the appeal, and we have asked - questioned the Planning Department. I think we have covered the subject in public very thoroughly, not it is up to each one of us to make a decision. Under those circumstances we will close the public hearing, and we will render a decision in writing within the prescribed period under Ordinance No. 490. The Public Hearing was closed at 10:05 P.M. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont grants a modification of conditions to the appellant to permit him to continue in his business until the appellant can relocate, since there does not seem to be a hardship caused by the modification of conditions, as follows: 1. The requirement for a loading zone be eliminated since it is not required for the conditions. 2. The structure, as exists, be permitted to stand for eighteen months with the understanding that it will be removed at the end of eighteen months or prior to that time if the appellant should move to another location. 3. That the parking lot be marked out for the original twenty -four spaces as required on the original Ordinance No. 282. 4. The appellant shall take out the proper permits for enclosing the structure. AYES: Councilmen NOES: Councilman ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Lowry, Hammel and May. Shaw and Mayor Thompson. 12. Curb and Gutter at Xenia Avenue Cul -de -Sac (Jack Nottingham). (Continued from January 11, 1982). The report from the State Contractor's License Board has not been received, therefore this agenda item is continued until February 8, 1982. 13. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -2 - In opposition to the Application of Southern California Gas Company and Pacific Lighting Gas Supply Company for Authority to Increase Rates Charged for Gas Service Based on Test Year 1983; to Include an Attrition Allowance for 1984; to Include in Rates a Reward for Conservation Achievements; and to Include in Rate Base as Plant Held for Future Use the Expenditures Associated with Major Gas Supply Project, being Application No. 61081. 14. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -3 - In opposition to the Application of Southern California Edison Company for Authority to Increase its Rates Charged by it for Electric Service, being Application No. 61138 (NOI #60). 15. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -4 - In opposition to the Application No. 61067 filed by the Southern California Edison Company for Authority to Increase Rates to Cover the 1982 Incremental Expense of Edison Residential Conservation Service (RCS) Program through its Conservation Low Management Adjustment Clause (CLMAC), Effecting Service Rendered Throughout the Service Territory Upon and AFter April 1, 1982, as set forth in Said Application, Resulting in an Annualized Increase in Retail Revenue beginning April 1, 1982 of 7.7 million dollars over Existing Rate Levels and in Accordance with said Application. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Resolutions No. 1982 -2, Resolution No. 1982 -3 and Resolution No. 1982 -4 by title only. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Page 23 MAP 17. I" Highland Springs Village Sewer Service Agreement. (Continued from January 11, 1982). Mr. John Canty, of J. F. Davidson Co., representing Highland Springs Village Phase II, explained the proposed new sewer service agreement and answered questions from the Council. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont continues this agenda item until the regular meeting of February 8, 1982 in order to give the City Attorney time to make the changes in the proposed agreement as requested. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, a Minute Order shall be prepared instructing the City Manager to hire a sur- veyor to search the land records in the Riverside County Hall of Records to determine the location of the eighty acres ± in the Highland Springs Mobile Home Park which the Monarch Land and Deve- lopment Company did not own on March 6, 1973 when the service agreement between the City of Beaumont and Monarch Land Company was signed; the surveyor to then make a layover set of plans showing what property in Highland Springs Mobile Home Park is included in this eighty ± acres, all for updated information for the City Council of Beaumont; also to make a dated listing of all land transactions between Monarch Land and Development Company and WestPark Corporation of lands in the Highland Springs Mobile Home Park. AYES: Councilman May, Hammel, Lowry. NOES: Councilman Shaw and Mayor Thompson. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. It was determined this particular action is to be brought back before the Council at their regular meeting of February 8, 1982 to approve funding if necessary after the information requested in the motion has been provided to Councilman Lowry by Mr. Canty. Request of Police Chief to Join the California Police Chief's Asso- ciation. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont establishes a policy concerning Association memberships by Department Heads as recommended by the City Manager in report dated January 22, 1982. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Request from Police Chief for Supervisory Clerk /Dispatcher Salary Range Change. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the request for the Super- visory Clerk /Dispatcher salary be set at Range 214, and cutting the number of authorized clerk /dispatchers from five to four. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Page 24 19. Request for Elimination of the Position of Detective and Creating the Position of Senior Officer (Corporal). On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves the City Manager's recommendation to delete the position of Detective and create the position of Senior Officer (Corporal) on Range 272, as delineated in his report dated January 22, 1982. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 20. Request from Beaumont Reserve Police Officers for Additional Funding. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves Items 1 through 5 of the City Manager's recommendation in his report dated January 22, 1982. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 21. Submittal of Financial Report for Period Ending December 31, 1981 for Filing Pursuant to Government Code. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the financial report for period ending December 31, 1982 for filing. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 22. ORAL COMMUNICATION: a) Mr. A. C. Dysart, 1266 Highland Home Road, Banning, addressed the Council regarding the recent dust storm created by the land he is farming, and answered questions from the Council calling to their attention that he is governed by County Ordinance as to how his field can be farmed. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, i DEPUTY CITY CLERK Page 25 BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF JANUARY 11, 1982 1. The Beaumont City Council met in a regular meeting at 7:35 P.M., on Monday, January 11, 1982, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor Thompson presiding. 2. The invocation was given by Reverand Donald Sullivan. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Councilman May. 4. On Roll Call the following Council Members were present: May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. 5. There being no additions, deletions or corrections, the Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of December 28, 1981 were ordered filed as presented. 6. There being no objections, the Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of December 15, 1981 were accepted as presented and ordered filed. 7. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the Warrant: as audited per Warrant List of January 11, 1982, in the amount of $268,514.66 and Payroll of January 8, 1982, in the amount of $24,557.99, were approved for payment as audited. WN go 10. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. ORDINANCE NO. 541 - Repealing Ordinance 164 and Ordinance 245. SECOND READING. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont adopts Ordinance No. 541 repealing Ordinances No. 164 and 245, at its second reading by title only. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. ORDINANCE NO. 542 - Repealing Ordinance No. 478 and Providing for the Playing of Bingo Pursuant to Section 19 of Article IV of the State Constitution and Section 326.5 of the Penal Code. FIRST READING. On I-lotion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman May, Ordinance No. 542 passes its first reading by title only. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. RESOLUTION NO. 1982 -1 - Opposing Senate Bill 314, Dills, Compulsory and Binding Arbitration for Firefighters. The resolution was read in its entirety by the Deputy City Clerk. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont approves Resolution No. 1982 -1 opposing Senate Bill 314 (Dills) Compulsory and Binding Arbitration for Firefighters. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Page 1 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Request from San Gorgonio Pass Artists for fee - exempt Business License. Ms. Lee Johnson, President of San Gorgonio Pass Artists, addressed the Council concerning their request. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont denies the request of San Gorgonio Pass Artists for a fee - exempt Business License. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Authorization for Presentation of Plaques for Service to City. On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont authorizes the presentation of a plaque to people who have served on various boards, commissions and volunteer organizations in recognition of the service they have provided to the City upon recommendation of the City Manager and Department Heads. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Recommendation for Council Concurrence with Recommendation of Chief Martines Regarding Quick Attack Vehicle for Station 66, Beaumont City. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont concurs with the recommendations of Chief Martines, in letter dated July 16, 1981, Items 1 through 4 inclusive; and further declares the 1954 GMC as surplus and directs the Purchasing Office to sell this vehicle as recommended in Item 5; deleting the recommendation in Item 5 concerning the 1937 American La France which has been disposed of by previous action. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Curb and Gutter at Xenia Avenue Cul -de -Sac (Jack Nottingham). (Continued from December 14, 1981). This agenda item was continued until the next regular meeting of January 25, 1982 pending receipt of a report from the State Contractor's License Board. Application by Southern California Gas Company for Increase in Rate. Application by Southern California Edison Company for Increase in Rate. Agenda Items 15 and 16 were consolidated and heard together. Motion by Councilman Shaw and second by Councilman Hammel to deny request for increase in rates were withdrawn by Councilmen Shaw and Hammel respectively. The City Attorney was directed to prepare a Resolution opposing the rate increases requested by Southern California Gas Company and Southern California Edison Company for adoption by the City Council at their next regular meeting. This agenda item was continued until the next regular meeting of January 25, 1982. Highland Springs Village Sewer Service Agreement. This agenda item was continued until the next regular meeting of January 25, 1982. Parry 9 no 19. aim 21. 22. ev Determination of Business License for Activities Conducted Through Parks and Recreation and YMCA. (Continued from December 14, 1981). On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont directs that any and all activities conducted through Parks and Recreation and the YMCA conducted for profit to the individual shall be charged a business license. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Agreement for Performance of Services Relating to Dogs and Other Domestic Animals. (Continued from December 14, 1981). This agenda item was continued until the regular meeting of January 25, 1982. Decision on Recommendation of Participation in Benefit Assessment District for Flood Control Protection. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont supports participation in the Benefit Assessment District for Flood Control Protection, and further supports the concept of a sub -zone basis. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Acceptance of Resignation of City Clerk Lois Miller. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Hammel, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the resignation of City Clerk Lois Miller with regret. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Appointment of New Planning Commissioner to Fill Vacancy Created by Resignation of D. E. Barker. On Motion by Councilman Hammel, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont accepts the resignation of Planning Commissioner D. E. Barker with regret. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Mayor Thompson addressed the audience asking anyone who would like to submit a name for consideration for appointment as Planning Commissioner, to submit this name to the City Manager's office. ORAL COMMUNICATION: a) A letter from the Beaumont Police Reserves was presented to the Council requesting an increase in their monthly allocation. This request was continued until a special financial review meeting is held. b) Mayor Thompson stated a Special Meeting should be called to discuss the financial picture, tentatively Thursday, January 21, 1982. c) Mr. Jim Melvin addressed the Council concerning the recent dust storm created by the field owned by Deutsch Company and leased by Al Dysart, citing Penal Code Sections 370 and 373.a as a means of taking action. He requested the Council's cooperation in directing the Police Department to make the necessary report. Page 3 On Motion by Councilman Lowry, seconded by Councilman Shaw, the City Council of the City of Beaumont directs the Police Department to prepare a report delineating the severity of the dust problem created by the Deutsch Company /Dysart property as it affected the people of Beaumont, and in particular the High School, the Valley Mobile Home Park and the Cherrywood Senior Citizen Apartments for submittal to the District Attorney's office. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. On Motion by Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Lowry, the City Council of the City of Beaumont directs that a copy of the Police Department report concerning the dust problem be forwarded to Supervisor Kay Cineceros with a request for her follow -up in the enforcement of existing County ordinances. AYES: Councilmen May, Shaw, Hammel, Lowry and Mayor Thompson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:03 P.M. Respectfully submitted, DEPUTY CITY CLERK, City of Beaumont Page 4