HomeMy Public PortalAbout1987BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
Minutes of
JANUARY 12, 1987
The Beaumont City Council met in a regular meeting at 7:38 P.M.,
on Monday, January 12, 1987, in the City Council Chambers, with
Mayor Partain presiding.
On Roll Call the following Council Members were present:
Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo and Mayor Partain.
The Invocation was given by Council Member Waller.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Council Member
Shaw.
1. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -02 - Setting up Procedures for Holding
Meetings of the City Council and the Commissions, Boards and
Agencies of the City in Conformance with Government Code
Section 54940, et seq. More Commonly Known as the Brown Act
as Amended and Effective January 1, 1987.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Connors, to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -02.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo
and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
2. Clerk's Declaration of Posting.
The City Clerk read the Affidavit of the Deputy City Clerk
Relative to the posting of the agenda 72 hours in advance of
the meeting.
3. Adjustments to Agenda.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Shaw, to make the following adjustments to the agenda:
a. Move the Pass Boxing Club agenda item for consideration
immediately following Agenda Item No. 4.
b. Delete Agenda Items No. 8, 9 and 13.
C. Change the Consent Calendar Heading to Reflect Item No.
17 rather than Item No. 9.
d. Remove Consent Calendar Item No. 17.a for consideration
separately.
e. Remove Consent Calendar Item No. 17.d to be discussed
as a separate item.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
4. ORAL COMMUNICATION:
There was no one wishing to speak under Oral Communication.
Page 1
10.
Beaumont City Council
January 12, 1987
Use of City Facilities by Pass Boxing Club, Submittal of
Quotes for Insurance Coverage.
Mr. Russ Rodriquez, representing the Pass Boxing Club,
addressed the Council, stating he had been unable to get in
contact with his insurance agent concerning the liability
insurance, and another insurance agent indicated he did not
handle this type of insurance and had no idea what the cost
would be.
He then told the Council he had been using Room 12 for ten
years with the permission of past Councils, and feels the
issue at hand is the City is getting no money from his use
of Room 12. There is also the question of insurance, which
he had until this past July. He then asked the Council if
that was the issue - the money that the City is not getting.
So far as insurance is concerned he hopes to be able to
provide insurance by next month through the International
Boxing Hall of Fame.
He advised the Council he could have had the room completely
filled with the supporters of his boxing program, but did
not want to turn this into a circus. He said all he wanted
to do was make them aware of what he is doing, and if they
think it is worth it, fine, if not, it will be up to them.
He then introduced several boxers who are participating in
his boxing program, including the 1986 Amateur Boxing
Federation champion, who is from Beaumont, and the boxer
from Beaumont who is hopeful of participating in the 1988
Olympics.
He closed with the appeal that the City could come up with
something to allow them the use of the room.
Mr. "Red" Livingston, 1245 Massachusetts, Beaumont,
speaking in support of the boxing program and as a Board of
Director Member of the International Boxing Hall of Fame,
stated they will have liability insurance for the local
group by February 21, 1987.
It was pointed out by Mayor Partain that the City has not
yet received all the information which had been requested,
which included the names and addresses of all participants
in the program. Mr. Rodriquez indicated he would get this
information to the City.
Council Member Connors said she did not want to see these
people mislead. The original discussion did not come from
liability insurance. It came from using Room 12 and abusing
Room 12 and the use of City facilities in this building. In
listening to this discussion it sounds as if they expect
once they have the insurance everything will be all right,
and she doesn't want them to think that, but she hopes the
Council will discuss it again.
Council Member Shaw said if this is a means to keep some of
these youngsters out of trouble, he would not want to be
responsible if anything were to happen because of the fact
they were not able to use the facilities and got into other
things which would get them into trouble.
Council Member Waller suggested that since the ring belongs
to the boxing club perhaps they could find another location,
or the ring could be taken down when it is not in use so the
room could be used by other groups.
Page 2
Beaumont City Council
January 12, 1987
Mayor Partain said this has been discussed before, and the
Pass Boxing Club was to bring back information so a further
determination could be made by this Council, and the Council
is at the point where they have not received that further
information. Mr. Rodriquez has now asked if the room can be
used until the questions have been resolved. It was the
determination of the Council that because, among other
things the lack of liability insurance, all activities be
stopped at that time.
Council Member Russo pointed out the original discussion
regarding the boxing club was a side issue to looking at the
total usage of this facility and each room. In the course
of reviewing what organizations were using facilities here
the Pass Boxing Club came up. At that time the City had no
knowledge of the lack of liability insurance. Now that we
have knowledge of the insurance problem that raised a new
issue. The City would be allowing something to happen in
this facility with knowledge there is no insurance. But the
basic issue was usage of the facility. His motion was for
the Pass Boxing Club to discontinue use of Room 12 until
this Council had made a determination of the use of that
room. Part of the intent of that motion was similar to the
original letter sent to Mr. Rodriguez asking for a roster of
those individuals. Mr. Rodriguez has not produced this
information, and this is holding up the determination of
this Council in some respects.
Council Member Russo went on to say the point Ms. Connors
has made that the use of the Pass Boxing Club, (and it is
his opinion also) is totally not contingent upon them
showing proof of liability insurance. That determination
will be made by this Council as to the usage of that room in
the immediate future, and the future. He also did not want
these people to get the impression that the presentation of
liability insurance is going to guarantee and insure them
the use of the room as they have had in the past.
By a concensus of the Council, this agenda item is to be
brought back to the Council when the roster information has
been made available.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - 7:30 P.M.
5. PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT - Related to the Inclusion
of Proposed Bridge and Gra a Separations in the Circulation
Element of the City of Beaumont General Plan. Applicant:
City of Beaumont. Locations: Highland Springs Road and
Beaumont Avenue. (86- GP -2), (86- ND -24).
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:19 P.M.
There were no proponents or opponents requesting to speak.
The Public Hearing was closed at 8:20 P.M.
The Council then received a verbal report from the City
Manager concerning the intent of this General Plan
Amendment.
Consideration of Adoption of Negative Declaration 86-ND -24.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Russo, to adopt Negative Declaration 86- ND -24.
Page 3
Beaumont City Council
January 12, 1987
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -03 - Amending the Circulation Element of
the City of Beaumont General Plan to Include Proposed Bridge
and Grade Separations at Highland Springs Road and at
Beaumont Avenue.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Russo, to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -03.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
6. PROPOSED HIGHLAND SPRINGS AVENUE BRIDGE AND THOROUGHFARE
DISTRICT: Determination whether said District should be
established; the boundaries of said District; the estimated
cost of the improvements; and the basis on which such costs
are to be equitably apportioned on real property within said
District.
A presentation was given by Mr. Richard O. Rafanovic, of BSI
Consultants, regarding the establishment of this Bridge and
Thoroughfare District.
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:40 P.M.
Mr. John J. Murphy, representing Loma Linda University:
Thank you Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council. I am here
this evening representing Loma Linda University. Also here
with me in the audience this evening is Ralph M. Kennedy of
the Real Estate Management Department of the University. I
would like to say that the University's position is not one
of opposition to the District. The University has been
beneficiary of previous discussion concerning the District,
has an understanding of the role of the District in
connection with the ultimate construction of the facility
here, and is generally supportive of the formation of the
District. It is also generally supportive of the manner in
which the costs have been determined, and the proposed
distribution of the costs to the various properties.
There is, however, one item which the University would like
to bring to your attention in connection with the report,
and that relates to the apportionment of fees in the future
years. Just by way of background, the notice of this
evening's public hearing, which was furnished to the
University, described the method of apportionment of the
fees among the property owners. It did not speak to the
proposed adjustments in future years based upon increases in
construction costs, or increases in the cost of funds -
excuse me, not increases in the cost of funds, but just
reimbursement for the cost of funds. It was silent with
respect to future years. Similarly, the December report
prepared by BSI with respect to this item, did not address
future years adjustments in the fees. It spoke only to the
manner of apportioning the fees at present. It did point out
that if there were changes in use in the future, substantial
development of the property, or something of that manner,
that it would be appropriate to recast the fees.
Page 4
Beaumont City Council
January 12, 1987
It is only the January BSI report that addresses the concept
that once the facility has been constructed the annual fee
should continue to be adjusted to reflect future increases
in cost of constructing the facility, or the cost of funds
based on the bond issue to build the facility in the first
instance. To do so would be to require the citizens of
Beaumont reimburse the developer in Banning who builds the
bridge a greater sum of money. There are arguments in
support of that, and the University recognizes that it is
not grossly inequitable to say, well, if the developer goes
ahead and builds that facility now, since it might have been
more expensive to build it ten years from now, perhaps the
property owners should pay on the basis of the cost ten
years from now if they pay a fee ten years from now. But we
also think there is equity to the other side of that coin.
If a developer wishes to proceed now to build a facility
now, more power to the developer and more power to the
community. The University stands ready to honor its
obligation to pay its fair share of the facility if, as and
when its property develops. But we think it would be
appropriate, in the context of this evening's hearing, if
the Council would merely confirm the manner of apportioning
the fees, which was outlined in the notice of the public
hearing, and which was included in the December BSI report,
which is to say, look to the total cost of the facility and
apportion that in accordance with the formulas set forth in
the study, and leave for a future date the question of
whether there should be adjustments for increases in the
cost of construction of the facility, and /or the cost of
funds. We really think that the property owners of Beaumont
will be contributing their fair share to this facility if
they agree to pay exactly that. Their fair share of the
facility itself, and not to reimburse for future
construction costs that were never incurred, and not either
to reimburse for the cost of funds.
Having said that, if I can respond to any questions
concerning the University's position, I will be glad to
attempt to do so.
Council Member Waller: What page is this found on.
Mr. Murphy: 16.
Council Member Waller: And this is of the. . .
Mr. Murphy: If the Council has available to it the December
and January reports, the language found at Pages 16 and 17
specifically - I believe it starts the fifth paragraph - the
sixth paragraph - the fees should be reviewed and amended
annually to reflect inflation and changes in construction
cost. I should say in the way of clarification, the
University would not object to that adjustment in
construction costs during the period between today and the
date the facility is actually constructed. The objection is
only to increases in construction costs after the facility
has been completed. Continuing - the fee shall be increased
by a percentage reflecting the cost of money or the change
in the construction cost index, whichever is the larger.
And then the next paragraphs go on to describe which index
will be used, and how the cost of money will be measured.
As I say there are arguments that the property owner in
Banning could advance to say this is fair. If we build the
facility today and it is cheaper because we built it today
Page 5
Beaumont City Council
January 12, 1987
than it might be five years from now, then it is not unfair
to ask the citizens of Beaumont, the property owners of
Beaumont, to pay us what it would have cost them if the
facility were built five years from now. There is an
argument that can be made there. We think the better
argument is if the facility is built today, that you don't
need to escalate for construction costs. If it is built
today you know what the costs are. And it is fair that the
citizens and property owners of this community pay their
fair share on the basis of that figure, especially in the
context of a hearing which has been noticed on the basis of
a specific method of apportionment, and a formula that was
set forth in one report.
City Manager: Mr. Mayor, what basically is being said is if
you take Page 16, everything starting with the paragraph -
"the fee shall be reviewed ", those three paragraphs on 16
and the paragraph on the top of 17 are the additions and the
changes between the December and the January report.
Mr. Murphy: I should point out too, obviously the Council
retains jurisdiction in connection with future public
hearings. If you determine, as a result of changes in
land use, or whatever, that you need to adjust the fees,
obviously you have it within your authority to give notice
of another public hearing, to describe in that notice what
it is that you contemplate, and to conduct a public hearing
and to take action. But in the context of this public
hearing we believe that the appropriate decision is to
basically adopt the procedure which was originally noticed.
Mayor Partain: Anything else for Mr. Murphy. Questions or
comments at this time. Thank you sir. Anyone else wishing
to speak to Item No. 6 at this time. Either proponents or
opponents. Anyone at all.
Pat Giannone: Mr. Bounds introduced me previously. I
represent Presley of Southern California, who is the
majority landowner in Banning who will be helping the City
put into place the Mellos -Roos District that will be selling
the bonds to pay the cost up front of the project. And, as
Mr. Murphy explained we do think it would be fair that the
property owners in Beaumont and the County helped pay the
financial cost that will be incurred by our client as a
result of funding this at this time, or in the near future,
however, we also recognize the things that he has said, and
we would request that the Council, at least tonight, and I
understand Mr. Murphy to be in agreement with this, that we
make clear that if you want to adjust the hard cost of
construction prior to the time the facility is built, those
kinds of adjustments would be acceptable. I just wanted to
make sure that Mr. Murphy didn't have an objection to that,
as opposed to the financial cost.
Mr. Murphy: We don't object to fees based on the actual
cost of construction. If they receive the estimates, it is
only fair that the fees be based on the actual cost.
Likewise, if it came in under budget, it would be fair that
the fees be reduced.
Ms. Giannone: That is fine, and then your ordinance does
let you, as Mr. Murphy explained, come back and provide for
readjustment, so the question of other property owners in
Beaumont bearing some of those financial costs could come
back to your attention at a future time. That would be
acceptable to us at this time.
Page 6
7.
Beaumont City Council
January 12, 1987
Mayor Partain: Any questions. Thank you very much. Anyone
else wishing to speak at this time on Item No. 6. The
Bridge and Thoroughfare District. Anyone else, either for
or against.
The Public Hearing was closed at 8:50 P.M.
Prior to considering Resolution No. 1987 -04, the City
Manager stated the Council had before them the determination
to make whether or not to strike the last four paragraphs,
the last three of Page 16 and the one on Page 17 and
inserting a paragraph indicating that if there are changes
in the estimated construction costs, that a review would be
made.
Motion by Council Member Russo, second by Council Member
Waller, to delete the last three paragraphs on Page 16, and
the paragraph on Page 17 in the BSI report regarding the
engineering report of the Highland Springs Bridge and
Thoroughfare District for the City of Beaumont, dated
January 1987; and to insert a paragraph that would allow for
any increase in construction costs above estimates in the
report to be reviewed for adjustment.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -04 - Approving Establishment of Highland
Springs Bridge an Thoroughfare District, Establishing
Fee Schedule, and Adopting Negative Declaration 86- ND -26.
Motion by Council Member Russo, second by Council Member
Connors, to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -04.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
INTENTION TO ORDER ABANDONMENT OF THE DEADEND PORTION OF
MAPLE STREET SOUTH OF 5TH STREET.
The Public Hearing was opened at 9:01 P.M.
There were no proponents or opponents requesting to speak to
this issue.
The Public Hearing was Closed at 9:02 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -05 - Ordering the Abandonment and
Vacation of the Dea end Portion of Maple Street South of 5th
Street.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Connors, to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -05.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
END PUBLIC HEARINGS.
Page 7
Beaumont City Council
January 12, 1987
8. RESOLUTION NO. 1986 -63 - Intention to Order Abandonment of a
Portion of Fourth Street and a Portion of Walnut Avenue.
(Continued from December 22, 1986).
By previous motion,. the agenda item was deleted from the
agenda.
9. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 21830 - Applicant: Centennial
Engineering, Inc. for Development Entity Ventures, Inc.
Location: Orange Avenue (extended) approximately 600 feet
south of Brookside Avenue. Proposed subdivision of 10 acres
into 65 single family patio home lots. (86 -TM -3, 86- ND -9).
(Continued from December 8, 1986).
By previous motion, this agenda item was deleted from the
agenda.
11. Authorization for City Manager to Negotiate Items that are
Needed Immediately to Restore household to Livable Condition
Relative to Sewer Backup at 1368 San Miguel.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Shaw, to authorize the City Manager to negotiate the claim
for damages incurred at 1368 San Miguel, in an amount not to
exceed $9,000.00, with anything over that amount to be
brought back to the Council.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
12. Authorization for City Manager to Negotiate Items that are
Needed Immediately to Restore Household to Livable Condition
Relative to Sewer Backup at 1374 San Miguel.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Connors, to authorize the City Manager to negotiate the
claim for damages incurred at 1374 San Miguel, in an amount
not to exceed $4,000.00, with anything over that amount to
be brought back to the Council.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
13. Request from Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) for amendment or
waiver to allow bus bench and shelter advertising on public
right -of -way.
By previous motion, this agenda item was deleted from the
agenda.
The meeting was recessed at 9:10 P.M., reconvening at 9:21.
14. Appointment of Senior Citizens Advisory Commission for the
City of Beaumont Consisting of Seven Regular Members, with
three members appointed to serve one year terms, and four
members appointed to serve two year terms.
Motion by Council Member Russo, second by Council Member
Shaw, to appoint Evelyn Fenton, Grace Begley, Helen Manley
and Lila Reubin to serve two year terms, and Ray Tiber, Ruby
Thomas and Helen Sara to serve one year terms on the Senior
Citizens Advisory Commission.
Page 8
Beaumont City Council
January 12, 1987
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
15. Discussion of the Extension of Palm Avenue from 14th Street
to Brookside Avenue, and Request for Direction from Council
Pertaining to Processing of a General Plan Amendment to the
Circulation Element in this Area.
Motion by Council Member Russo, second by Council Member
Connors, as follows:
1. Authorize Jim Dotson to prepare a precise alignment
plan for the proposed street utilizing an 88 foot
right -of -way.
2. Authorize the City Manager and City Attorney to take
all steps necessary to prepare for the hearings
required to amend the circulation element of the
General Plan to provide for the new street alignment.
3. Authorize the City Manager and City Attorney to prepare
proposals for a landscape maintenance district to
finance the landscape maintenance after the developers
construct the street and landscaping.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
16. Request from Council Member Waller to Consider Establishing
a Steering Committee for Beaumont's 75th Anniversary
Celebration.
Council Member Waller stated that if we are going to do
anything to celebrate our 75th anniversary, that a steering
committee should be established as quickly as possible so
that if there should be any funding, it will come directly
from the budget itself. We would then have a committee in
existence. He offered himself as Chairperson since his
major is history, and he knows a lot of people involved in
the history of Beaumont, and he is a charter member of the
Gilman Ranch Bands, and has taken a course in the Redlands
Heritage and knows the historian at the County.
It will not be just purely an historical thing, but he does
know the people that would be interested in doing this.
Responding to a question from Council Member Russo, Council
Member Waller indicated the types of events would be at
least comparable to the Cherry Festival, even though
November would not be the greatest weather. He thinks we
should do something special about the birthday of Beaumont,
and would like to see the City do a year long celebration,
with special pins or paperweights with the 75th emblem, and
really get into a strengthening of the historical aspect of
the City. He could also see where the City could really
begin to attract developers and he would like to tie all of
this in with a City beautification program. He is exploring
some grants right now about shaping the City up.
Council Member Russo asked if anything else was going on at
this time, and the City Manager indicated he was waiting for
the Council to indicate what they want. Staff wants to open
City government to the people, which can very easily go
along with a lot of these things. Staff feels very strongly
Page 9
Beaumont City Council
January 12, 1987
that the people do not know what we do, and staff wishes to
spend some time on that, not just on the anniversary, but
this could lead up to it.
Mayor Partain indicated one of the things that needed to be
looked at is when we are going to start and when we are
going to finish. The Cherry Festival theme is Diamond
Jubilee, aimed at the 75th being the diamond anniversary of
the City of Beaumont. Also, the Kiwanas Club has contacted
him and they want to know if the City would like to help
them and make their annual Cherry Ball in conjuction with a
kick -off with that same theme. There has also been interest
from other clubs to be active with this.
Mayor Partain feels we certainly do need to set some dates
and make some decisions. A lot of the clubs are looking at
it from their standpoint and they are waiting to hear from
the City.
The City Manager indicated there are some things that are
being waited for right now such as the possibility of
businessmen who fly the American Flag, to develop a system
where they fly the Beaumont flag, if we can create it where
it is not so expensive that we could not afford to buy them.
We have started looking at places to buy. This brings us to
another point, one of the things needed as a central theme
is a logo of some kind which is different than just your
City logo, which may not ever be used again. All of our
vehicles can bear that logo along with the regular City logo
for the year. That is one of the things that is needed as
early as possible. Someone should be commissioned to
prepare that, because the advertising would be using that
type of thing.
The City Manager continued with information that the Dial -a-
Ride buses want to go into a transfer token situation. A
lot of people don't carry the correct change, so they could
buy ten tokens and they want to put the 75th on there. They
could become collector items, because only a certain amount
would be printed.
Mayor Partain indicated he agreed with Mr. Waller that we
need to have some type of committee. He feels we should
advertise in the community and set a number on the committee
and then ask for applications within the community, and make
sure the service organizations are included. He is sure the
Chamber will have someone involved.
The City Manager advised that the Chamber map just
distributed already has the 75th on it. Also, in the last
newsletter it carried a reference to the 75th.
There was continued discussion concerning the composition of
this steering committee.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Russo, to authorize a steering committee of nine to begin
the Beaumont 75th Anniversary celebration, with applications
to be obtained through the City offices and a cut -off date
established as February 2, 1987.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
17. CONSENT CALENDAR - All items listed under Item No. 17,
Consent Calendar, are considered to be routine by the City
Council and will be approved by one motion. There will be
Page 10
Beaumont City Council
January 12, 1987
no separate discussion of these items unless a Council
Member or citizen so requests, in which case the item will
be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a
separate item.
By previous motion Consent Calendar Items No. "a" and "d"
were removed from the Consent Calendar to be discussed as
separate items.
b. Acceptance of Minutes of Regular Planning Commission
Meeting of December 16, 1986, and Special Planning
- Commission Meeting of December 19, 1986.
C. Approval of Warrants as audited per Warrant List of
January 12, 1987, in the amount of $121,638.09; and
Payroll of December 25, 1986, in the amount
of $40,553.07.
e. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -01 - Accepting Grant of Easement -
Sewers, and Ordering Recordation Thereof with County
Recorder. (Tract No. 19303).
f. Report of Planning Commission Action at meeting of
January 6, 1987.
Motion by Council Member Russo, second by Council Member
Shaw, to approve the Consent Calendar as amended.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
17.a Approval of Minutes of Regular City Council Meeting of
December 22, 1986.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Russo, to hold Agenda Item No. 17.a over to the next Council
Meeting.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
17.d Consideration of Adoption of Negative Declaration 86- ND -25.
Applicant: Salvador Valdivia. Location: Northeast corner
of Fifth Street and Orange Avenue. Proposed Construction of
two 6 -unit Apartment Buildings.
Mayor Partain advised he had requested this be removed from
the Consent Calendar due to the fact he is unable to vote on
this agenda item because of a possible conflict of interest.
Motion by Council Member Russo, second by Council Member
Waller, to adopt Negative Declaration 86- ND -25.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and Russo.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: Mayor Partain.
ABSENT: None.
18. Recess to Closed Session to Consider Personnel Matters
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 at 10:17 P.M.
Reconvene to Regular Session at 10:36 P.M.
Page 11
Beaumont City Council
January 12, 1987
Let the record show that a report was given by Mr. Bounds
pursuant to personnel matters, but no definitive action was
taken.
There being no further business to come before the Council,
on motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Russo, the meeting was adjourned at 10:38 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Page 12
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
Minutes of
JANUARY 26, 1987
The Beaumont City Council met in a regular meeting at 7:30 P.M.,
on Monday, January 26, 1987, in the City Council Chambers, with
Mayor Partain presiding.
On Roll Call the following Council Members were present:
Connors, Shaw, Russo and Mayor Partain. Council Member Waller
was excused.
The Invocation was given by Council Member Connors.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Council Member
Russo.
1. The Clerk's Affidavit of Posting of the agenda was read into
the record by the Deputy City Clerk.
2. Adjustments to Agenda.
There were no adjustments to the agenda.
3. ORAL COMMUNICATION
There was no one requesting to speak under oral
communication.
4. Consideration of Applications Received for Appointment to
Planning Commission.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Shaw, to reappoint Patti Burton and Emeline Schuelke to the
Planning Commission for four year terms ending December 31,
1990.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Russo and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Waller.
Council Member Russo asked that the record reflect the
appreciation of the Council for Mr. Ingrao's application,
as he seems to also have the qualifications the Council
would look for in selecting a Planning Commissioner if there
are other appointments to be made.
5. Request Authorization to Allow the Non - Safety Employees to
Celebrate Lincoln's Birthday Friday, February 13 Rather Than
Thursday, February 12, in 1987.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Connors, to authorize the change of date for the Lincoln's
Birthday holiday from Thursday, February 12 to Friday,
February 13, for 1987 only.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
Page 1
Beaumont City Council
January 26, 1987
6. CONSENT CALENDAR - All items listed under the Consent
Calendar are considered to be routine by the City Council
and will be approved by one motion. There will be no
separate discussion of these items unless a Council Member
or Citizen so requests, in which case the item will be
removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a
separate item.
a. Approval of Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of
December 22, 1986 (continued from January 12, 1987) and
Regular Council Meeting of January 12, 1987.
b. Acceptance of Minutes of Regular Planning Commission
Meeting of January 6, 1987.
C. Approval of Warrants as audited per Warrant List of
January 26, 1987, in the amount of $174,389.44; Payroll
of January 8, 1987, in the amount of $39,690.56, and
Special Payroll of January 21, 1987, in the amount of
$496.61.
d. Ratify the City Manager's decision to grant a service
retirement to Robert Bridges, effective January 15,
1987.
e. Authorization for City Attorney to Attend League of
California Cities Municipal Attorneys Meeting on
February 19, 1987.
f. Report of Action by Planning Commission at Meeting of
January 20, 1987.
Motion by Council Member Russo, second by Council Member
Shaw to approve the Consent Calendar.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Russo and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Waller.
Date Set for Next Regular Study Session, Monday, February 9,
1987, at 6:30 P.M., in the City Manager's Conference Room.
Date Set for Next Regular Council Meeting, Monday, February 9,
1987, at 7:30 P.M., in the City Council Chambers.
There being no further business to come before the Council, on
motion by Council Member Russo, second by Council Member Connors,
the meeting was adjourned at 7:39 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
4
D uty City Clerk
Page 2
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
FEBRUARY 9, 1987
(as corrected)
The Beaumont City Council met in a regular meeting at 7:31 P.M.,
on Monday, February 9, 1987, in the City Council Chambers, with
Mayor Partain presiding.
On Roll Call the following Council Members were present:
Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo and Mayor Partain.
The Invocation was given by Council Member Russo.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Council Member
Shaw.
1. The Clerk's Affidavit of Posting of the agenda was read into
the record by the Deputy City Clerk.
2. Adjustments to Agenda.
When first considered by the Council there appeared to be no
adjustments to the agenda, and no action was taken. At the
conclusion of Oral Communication, the City Attorney
requested a motion to make an adjustment to the agenda as
the result of a lawsuit now having been filed and served, in
its amended format, on the City by the Recreation and Parks
District after the 72 hour time limit for posting of the
agenda.
Agenda Item No. 14.b refers to significant exposure to
litigation and, effective last Friday, this can now be
changed to pending litigation for the above stated reason.
Motion by Council Member Russo, second by Council Member
Connors, to change the wording of Agenda Item No. 14.b to
read, "Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) to
confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation which
has been initiated formally and to which the City is a
party. The title of the litigation is Beaumont - Cherry
Valley Recreation and Parks District vs City of Beaumont,
Case No. 184660, Riverside Superior Court
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
3. ORAL COMMUNICATION:
a. Mr. Brien Ross, Beaumont - Cherry Valley Recreation and
Parks District, P. 0. Box 490, Beaumont, formally
presented copies of a letter from the Beaumont- Cherry
Valley Recreation and Parks District relative to the
issues raised by the Park District in their opposition
to the negative declaration given to the "DeZorzi"
apartment project.
4. Hear a Presentation on Continuation of Beaumont's Utility
Undergrounding Programs by Mr. Bob Stranger, Area Manager,
Southern California Edison.
Mr. Bob Stranger, Area Manager for Southern California
Edison, gave the Council a brief overview of the proposed
undergounding project between American Avenue and Allegheny
on 6th Street. He pointed out the City has an existing
undergrounding ordinance the Council may wish to take
Page 1
Beaumont City Council
February 9, 1987
another look at and bring up to date. Edison has model
ordinances he can provide to the City Manager for this
purpose._ Later on,. as the engineering costs are firmed up,
Edison can bring back to the Council a presentation of the
total cost and timeframe of the project. Edison feels the
project can be completed this year.
It was the concensus of the Council that Edison and the City
Manager should proceed with the next steps of the proposed
undergrounding project, with a report back to the Council at
a later date.
5. Submittal of Roster and Insurance Information by Pass Boxing
Club.
Ms. Mary DeLara, speaking for the youth of Beaumont,
addressed the Council in support of the Pass Boxing Club.
Mr. Russ Rodriguez, having previously submitted the roster
and insurance information to the Council, indicated he could
obtain the insurance by a telephone call and would do so
immediately if the Council indicated they could use the
facility provided they had the insurance.
Council Member Waller requested to make a statement
concerning his position in the matter of the use of the
facilities. This statement is included in the record
verbatim, as follows:
Council Member Waller: First of all, I would like to make a
clarification. Council Member Connors was not the only one
with concerns, and I am rather perplexed as to why there was
a personal attack, although, you know, Council Member
Connors knows that that is part of the turf for being a
Council Member, and we all know that. I, nor any member of
the Council, are opposed to quality programs that are truly
representative of the needs and desires of the majority of
the Beaumont youth. I think that has been shown in the fact
that we have been working with the Parks and Recreation
Department in an attempt to develop a full fledged type of
youth program. Even to the point where we are considering
offering a place for the boy scouts - or, the scouts of
Beaumont.
We all are aware, with Council Member Connors being in
charge of the Say No to Drugs, as a liaison or just plain
old in charge, we are all aware of its ability to deter
juvenile delinquency, and possible substance abuse among the
youth. And we are also aware of its admirable concern - the
program's admirable concern for the safety of the youth
involved.
I myself have problems with 1) the media approach taken by
the members, and /or supporters. I don't really know whether
or not it was the members or just the supporters, but there
were many misleading and emotionally laden statements.
Again, that is part of the turf, we have got to sit here and
take it, but one such is the depriving of the youth of
recreation. It was never really mentioned that we were
going to deprive the boxing club of this program. It was
merely stated that we wanted to concern ourselves with the
use of the facilities, and with that, that may involve maybe
making some accommodations either in a fee or a room type of
arrangement that may be able to allow us to offer to more
people. The fact that it was stated that there was no cost
Page 2
Beaumont City Council
February 9, 1987
to the City, in the, I don't know, seventeen years or
so, when you actually look at it, Mr. Rodriquez has done --
I just wish every City had a Russell Rodriquez. It just
shows that we have got people that are concerned about the
youth more than just those involved in education, those
involved in scouting, and, God knows, we need that.
We have never paid Russell Rodriquez. He has never asked
for pay. He is doing this all by himself, but when we as
Council members look to make the decisions, and money is of
course not our only concern, in fact, in this situation it
has not been hardly a concern, but it is something that if
we do not include it in our thoughts and our decisions, then
we are going to look irresponsible to the rest of the
citizens of Beaumont. There is a cost. There is a possible
source of income to renting of the room to other groups.
Youth groups. They are presently unable to. Again, the
media approach that made it look like that if we voted this
down, we are opposed to hot dogs, chevrolet and apple pie.
I thought that was totally uncalled for, but, you know, more
power.
The roster, 43% -43% from Beaumont. Ten families, 57% from
Beaumont and Cherry Valley. I am also concerned about the
condition of the room. I and Mayor Partain went to school
here and I haven't seen it look in that shape in quite some
time, but I think one good Saturday probably could get it
all back into shape, I think.
I am also concerned about the fact that we are charging
three different rates. We are charging one rate to the Pass
Boxing Club, up to this point, of no charge. Free gratis.
And this represents 43% of the citizens. We are charging
another rate of half the total amount to a group of
gymnastics people, with the gymnast being from out -of -town,
out -of- state, out -of- country. Then this gentleman, that is
is a former Olympic coach, is receiving money, and it is
serving people from other areas than Beaumont.
And then, finally, we have a volley ball team that is
exclusively from Beaumont that we are charging full for half
of what they should be getting. That is another matter, and
that is out of order. But, we have repeatedly, or I have,
repeatedly asked if there is any way in which the room in
this set -up - the ring and all - could be put up in a
temporary basis. This would allow the room to be used by
other people. This would allow, also, us to reach greater
amounts of youth, and curtail even that much more drug abuse
and juvenile delinquency than what is presently taking
place. What the club is presently, admirably, doing. It
would also - with the fact that we have lost more square
footage over here in this area, we are slowly, but surely,
going to have this entire Civic Center given to people that
- or groups - that don't have to pay.
Now, I would love to be able to provide programs and not
charge a thing. I mean that is what I thought the City did
when I was growing up. You know, provide programs. But as
it is now, we have to - we have got a budget, so that is
basically, I guess, my concerns.
No action was taken on this specific agenda item pending
discussion on Agenda Item No. 5.a.
5.a Request from Council Member Connors for Consideration of the
Use of Room 12 in the Civic Center Building, and Use of City
Facilities by the Pass Boxing Club.
Page 3
Beaumont City Council
February 9, 1987
There was lengthy discussion concerning the use of Room 12
and of City facilities by the Pass Boxing Club, with all
Council Members participating. Mr. Rodriquez and Mr.
Livingston spoke in support of the boxing club.
The meeting was recessed at 8:45 P.M. to give the Council
an opportunity to look at Room 12, reconvening at 8:55 P.M.
Motion by Council Member Russo, second by Council Member
Shaw, to grant the Pass Boxing Club usage of Room 12 for a
period of ninety (90) days; commencement shall be contingent
upon proof of insurance presented to the City Manager; the
period of ninety (90) days to run until May 11, 1987.
AYES: Council Member Connors,. Shaw, Waller, Russo and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
6. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -08 - Amending Resolution No. 1986 -17 and
all other Reso utions in Conflict Herewith to Provide for
Updated Rubbish Service Collection Costs for Residential
Users and Commercial Bin Users.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Shaw, to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -08.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
7. Request from City of Grand Terrace for Assistance in the
Financial Expense of Fighting the Tire Burning Facility in
the City of Rialto.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Connors, to continue this agenda item to the regular meeting
of March 9, 1987, for further information concerning
contributions by other cities.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
The meeting was recessed at 9:25 P.M., reconvening at 9:35
P.M.
8. Consideration of Applications Received for Appointment to
75th Anniversary Steering Committee.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Russo, to accept the applications of Margaret Millage for
the Chamber of Commerce, Fred Hicks, Don McLaughlin, Thelma
McLaughlin, Robert Purcell, Kathleen Russo and Lew Weaver,
to serve on the 75th Anniversary Steering Committee.
Let the record show that, prior to the vote on Agenda Item
No. 8, having taken part in the discussion, Council Member
Shaw was excused at 9:45 P.M., due to his wife's illness,
and Council Member Waller was excused at 9:50 P.M.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Russo and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Shaw and Waller.
Page 4
9.
Beaumont City Council
February 9, 1987
Review of Promotional Program of Assistance to Certain Needy
Groups of Citizens as Established by Resolution No. 1986 -11.
Motion by Council Member Russo, second by Council Member
Connors, that this resolution has had no significant long
term promotional value for the City of Beaumont, and no
further action should be taken.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Russo and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Shaw and Waller.
10. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -10 - A Resolution Of Intention to Order
Abandonment of a Portion of Maple Avenue, a Portion of
Chestnut Avenue, a Portion of Third Street, the Alley in
Block 125 and the Al -ley in Block 126.
Motion by Council Member Russo, second by Council Member
Connors, to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -10.
There being no opposition, the motion carried with three
ayes, two absent.
11. Authorization for City Manager to Attend League of
California Cities Meetings on February 18 -20 and February
26 -27, 1987.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Russo, to authorize the City Manager to attend the City
Manager's Annual Meeting February 18 -20 and the Employee
Relations Institute February 26 and 27, taking
administrative leave February 23 -25.
There being no opposition, the motion carried with three
ayes, two absent.
12. Consideration of Cancellation of Regular Council Meeting of
February 23, 1987.
Motion by Council Member Russo to cancel the regular meeting
of February 23, 1987 DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
13. CONSENT CALENDAR - All items listed under the Consent
Calendar are considered to be routine by the City Council
and will be approved by one motion. There will be no
separate discussion of these items unless a Council Member
or Citizen so requests, in which case the item will be
removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a
separate item.
a. Approval of Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of
January 26, 1987.
b. Acceptance of Minutes of Regular Planning Commission
Meeting of January 20, 1987.
C. Approval of Warrants as Audited per Warrant List of
February 9, 1987, in the amount of $86,182.57; and
Payroll of January 22, 1987, in the amount of
$41,376.79.
d. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -06 - Accepting Grant of
Easement - Grading, and Or eying Recordation Thereof with
County Recorder. Tract No. 19303 - Grading Improvements.
Page 5
14.
Beaumont City Council
February 9, 1987
e. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -07 - Accepting Grant of
Easement - Drainage, an Ordering Recordation Thereof
with County Recorder. Tract No. 19303 - Grading
Improvements.
f. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -09 - Approving Final Parcel Map
2149-2, and Authorizing Recordation Thereof. Applicant:
Lawrence J. Schram. Location: 1152 Edgar AVenue.
Three lot land division of one acre property (86- PM -2).
g. Authorization for City Attorney to Attend Land Use Law
and Planning Conference February 20, 1987.
h. Report of Action by Planning Commission at Meeting of
February 3, 1987.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Mayor Partain,
to approve the Consent Calendar.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Russo and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Shaw and Waller.
The meeting was recessed to Closed Session at 10:10 P.M. for
the following:
a. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) To
Confer with Its Attorney Regarding Pending Litigations
which have been initiated formally and to which the
City is a party. The titles of the litigations are
Citizens Against Pass Area Prisons, et al., vs City of
Beaumont, Case No. 164329, Riverside Superior Court,
and Beaumont - Cherry Valley Recreation and Parks
District vs City of Beaumont, Case No. 184660,
Riverside Superior Court.
The meeting was reconvened to Regular Session at 11:10 P.M.
Let the record show there was discussion pursuant to:
a. Litigation as far as Citizens Against Pass Area Prisons
and instruction given to the City Attorney regarding
that litigation.
b. Litigation involving the Beaumont - Cherry Valley
Recreation and Parks District. The City Council will
consider the following motion in regular session as a
result of that discussion:
Motion by Council Member Russo, second by Council Member
Connors, recognizing that Mr. DeZorzi is anxious to proceed
with his project, and has indicated a willingness to
cooperate, as did the owner of the 274 unit project approved
recently, the City proposes that a settlement offer be made
in written form by the City Attorney's office upon the
Council's direction, which would contain the following three
items:
a. To mitigate the alleged impacts, that Mr. DeZorzi be
required to pay to the Recreation and Park District a
sum to be determined by taking the proportion that his
48 units has to the 274 unit project in which the issue
was dealt with previously with the Park District, times
what that group paid, which, according to the terms of
the agreement was $11,000.00.
Page 6
Beaumont City Council
February 9, 1987
b. That upon payment of that amount there be a dismissal
of the lawsuit against the City thereby allowing Mr.
DeZorzi to proceed.
C. That within thirty days from the filing of that
dismissal, the Council and the Board take all steps
necessary to meet for the purpose of discussion of the
following items:
(1) Provisions for the City to enact mitigation fees
for new apartments, new residential units, parcels
and subdivisions.
(2) To consider equitable divisions of those fees
between the City and the Park District in terms of
use of the parks.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Russo and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Shaw and Waller.
Date Set for Next Regular Study Session, Monday, February
23, 1987, at 6:30 P.M., in the City Manager's Conference
Room.
Date Set for Next Regular Council Meeting, Monday, February
23, 1987, at 7:30 P.M., in the City Council Chambers.
On Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council
Member Russo, the meeting was adjourned at 11:15 P.M.
Page 7
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
FEBRUARY 23, 1987
The Beaumont City Council met in a regular meeting at 7:32 P.M.,
on Monday, February 23, 1987, in the City Council Chambers, with
Mayor Partain presiding.
On Roll Call the following Council Members were present:
Connors, Russo and Mayor Partain. Council Member Shaw and Waller
were excused due to illness.
The Invocation was given by City Attorney, George Ryskamp.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Council Member
Connors.
Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation from the U. S.
Marine Corps to Organizations and Individuals For Their Support
of the 1986 Toys for Tots.
Certificates, of Appreciation from the U. S. Marine Corps were
presented by Mayor Partain to the following organizations in
recognition of their support of the 1986 Toys for Tots drive:
Beaumont Police Department, Beaumont Fire Department, Beaumont
High School, Beaumont Lions Club, Beaumont Senior Center and the
Beaumont City Manager's office.
There were also certificates for Beaumont Laundry, K -Mart,
Beaumont Stationers, Love's Sporting Goods, Beaumont Chamber of
Commerce, and Deutsch Engineer Connecting Devices. These
certificates will be presented to the organizations by Marine
Corps Sgt. John Church as representatives were unable to be
present tonight.
1. Clerk's Affidavit of Posting.
The Clerk's affidavit of posting the agenda was read into
the record by the Deputy City Clerk.
2. Adjustments to Agenda.
There were no adjustments to the agenda.
3. ORAL COMMUNICATION:
There were no requests to speak under oral communication.
4. Submittal of Resignation by City Clerk Irene Joyce Sweeney
Effective Immediately.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Russo, to'accept the resignation of the City Clerk, with the
office being declared vacant effective February 23, 1987,
and ask for letters of interest from people who may be
interested in becoming City Clerk, and that they submit
those to the Mayor by the 16th of March so that the
Council can get it on the agenda the 23rd of March.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Russo and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Shaw and Waller.
Page 1
S.
W
Beaumont City Council
February 23, 1987
Consideration of Tort Claim Filed by Hemet Supply Company.
Motion by Council Member Russo, second by Council Member
Connors, to reject the claim of Hemet Supply Company and
direct the City Clerk to mail Notice of Rejection to the
claimant, for the following reasons:
1. The City has no jurisdiction over the district
as it is a special district with an elected
Board of Directors.
2. The facility is located outside the city limits
of Beaumont in the County of Riverside, and is
not owned or controlled by the City.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Russo and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Shaw and Waller.
Consideration of Claim for Damages Filed by Frances Calhoun.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Russo, to reject the claim of Frances Calhoun, direct the
City Clerk to send a Notice of Rejection to the claimant,
and forward the file to the City Attorney.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Russo and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None._
ABSENT: Council Member Shaw and Waller.
7. Authorization to Request Bids for Purchase of Police Patrol
Vehicles Which Meet the Specifications of the California
Highway Patrol, with a Specific Requirement that
Consideration of Bids Will Be Based on the Lowest
Responsible Bid on an Actual Cost Basis Rather Than a Life
Cycle Basis.
The Council received the staff report from Ronney Wong and
comments from the City Attorney and Acting Chief of
Police John Funston, concerning the desirability of going to
bid on our own for these police vehicles, since the State
bid was awarded on a life cycle basis rather than actual
cost.
Motion by Council Member Russo, second by Council Member
Connors, to authorize advertising and mailing of Request for
Bids for purchase of police patrol vehicles which meet the
specifications of the California Highway Patrol, with
consideration of bids based on the lowest responsible bid on
an actual cost basis rather than a life cycle basis, with a
bid opening date of Friday, March 20, 1987, at 4:00 P.M.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Russo and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Shaw and Waller.
8. CONSENT CALENDAR: All items listed under the Consent
Calendar are considered to be routine by the City Council
and will be approved by one motion. There will be no
separate discussion of these items unless a Council Member
or Citizen so requests, in which case the item will be
removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a
separate item.
Page 2
Beaumont City Council
February 23, 1987
Prior to consideration of the Consent Calendar, Council
Member Connors requested the following correction be made to
the Council minutes of February 9, 1987:
The motion on Item No. 8, Consideration of Applications
Received for Appointment to 75th Anniversary Steering
Committee, should read, "Motion by Council Member Connors,
second by Council Member Russo, that we appoint to the
steering committee for the 75th Anniversary Celebration
Margaret Millage for the Chamber of Commerce, Fred Hicks,
Don McLaughlin, The ma McLaug in, Bob Purcell, Kathleen
Russo and Lew Weaver."
a. Approval of Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of
February 9, 1987, as corrected.
b. Acceptance of Minutes of Regular Planning Commission
Meeting of February 3, 1987.
c. Approval of Warrants as Audited per Warrant List of
February 23, 1987, in the amount of $66,608.87; and
Payroll of February 5, 1987, in the amount of
$42,458.76.
d. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -11 - Supporting Federal
Appropriation for a Flood Warning System.
e. Authorization for Mayor to Execute Subdivision
Agreement- Between Development Entity Ventures
Corporation and City of Beaumont - Tract No. 19303.
Country Crossing Unit No. 3, Orange and Brookside
Avenue.
f. Report of Action by Planning Commission at Meeting of
February 17, 1987.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Russo, to approve the Consent Calendar, with the correction
made to the minutes of February 9, 1987.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Russo and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Shaw and Waller.
Date set for Next Regular Study Session, Monday, March 9,
1987, at 6:30 P.M., in the City Manager's Conference Room.
Date set for Next Regular Council Meeting, Monday, March 9,
1987, at 7:30 P.M., in the City Council Chambers.
On motion by Council Member Russo, second by Council Member
Connors, the meeting was adjourned at 8:14 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
LA W 4 44-
�.s
uty City Clerk
Page 3
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
MARCH 9, 1987
The Beaumont City Council met in a regular meeting at 7:35 P.M.,
on Monday, March 9, 1987, in the City Council Chambers, with
Mayor Partain presiding.
On Roll Call the following Council Members were present:
Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo and Mayor Partain.
The Invocation was given by City Manager, Robert J. Bounds.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Mayor Partain.
1. Clerk's Affidavit of Posting.
The Clerk's affidavit of posting the agenda was read into
the record by the Deputy City Clerk.
2. Adjustments to Agenda.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Russo, to add an item to the agenda on the following
grounds:
1. This item did not come to the awareness of staff and the
Council until after the posting of the agenda.
2. It is not an old item.
3. There is an urgency for discussion and a decision in
regard to the 4th of July fireworks.
This item to be added to the agenda as Item No. 18, to be
considered immediately following Item No. 15.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
3. ORAL COMMUNICATION:
t a. Mr. Keith Burton, 238 Maple, Beaumont, read a letter
into the record relative to a review of the business
license for Abbey Animal Hospital. This letter is a
matter of record in the Clerk's file. Mr. Burton's
request will be placed on the agenda for March 23,
1987, with staff directed to bring a report to the
Council at that time.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - 7:30 P.M.
4. Intention to Order Abandonment of a Portion of Maple
Avenue, north of Third Street and South of the Southern
Pacific Right -of -Way. Applicant: Alma Surveying for Dura
Plastic Products, Inc.
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:40 P.M.
Page 1
Beaumont City Council
March 9, 1987
There were no proponents or opponents requesting to speak.
The Public Hearing was closed at 7:41 P.M.
The City Manager indicated that the abandonments in Agenda
Items 4 through 8 are all in the same vicinity, and
presented his staff report regarding these proposed
abandonments with his recommendation for approval.
RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -15 - Ordering Abandonment of a Portion
of Maple Avenue North of Third Street and South of the
Southern Pacific Right -of -Way.
Motion by Council Member Russo, second by Council Member
Shaw, to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -15.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
5. Intention to Order Abandonment of a Portion of Chestnut
Avenue North of Third Street, and South of the Southern
Pacific Right -of -Way. Applicant: Alma Surveying for Dura
Plastic Products, Inc.
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:46 P.M.
There were no proponents or opponents requesting to speak.
The Public Hearing was closed at 7:47 P.M.
The City Manager's staff report was presented prior to
consideration of Item No. 4.
RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -16 - Ordering Abandonment of a Portion
of Chestnut Avenue, North of Third Street and South of the
Southern Pacific Right -of -Way.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Connors, to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -16.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
6. Intention to Order Abandonment of the North 7.00 feet of
Third Street East of Maple Avenue and West of Chestnut
Avenue. Applicant: Alma Surveying for Dura Plastic
Products, Inc.
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:49 P.M.
There were no proponents or opponents requesting to speak.
The Public Hearing was closed at 7 :50 P.M.
The City Manager's staff report was presented prior to
Agenda Item No. 4.
RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -17 - Ordering Abandonment of the North
7.00 feet of Third Street, East of Maple Avenue and West of
Chestnut Avenue.
Page 2
Beaumont City Council
March 9, 1987
Motion by Council Member Russo, second by Council Member
Shaw, to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -17.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
7. Intention to Order Abandonment of the Alley Right -of -way in
Block 125 (Between Palm, Chestnut, Third and the Southern
Pacific Right -of -Way.) Applicant: Alma Surveying for Dura
Plastic Products, Inc.
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:52 P.M.
There were no proponents or opponents wishing to speak.
The Public Hearing was closed at 7:53 P.M.
The City Manager's staff report was presented prior to
Agenda Item No. 4.
RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -18 - Ordering Abandonment of the Alley
Right-of-Way in Block 125 (Between Palm, Chestnut, Third and
Southern Pacific Right -of -Way).
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Shaw, to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -18.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
8. Intention to Order Abandonment of the Alley Right -of -Way in
Block 126 (Between Maple, Palm, Third and Southern Pacific
Right -of -Way). Applicant: Alma Surveying for Dura Plastic
Products, Inc.
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:54 P.M.
There were no proponents or opponents requesting to speak.
The Public Hearing was closed at 7:54.05 P.M.
The City Manager's staff report was presented prior to
Agenda Item No. 4
f
RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -19 - Ordering Abandonment of the Alley
Right -of -Way in Block 126 (Between Maple, Palm, Third and
Southern Pacific Right -of -Way).
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Connors, to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -19.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
END PUBLIC HEARINGS.
Page 3
Beaumont City Cuoncil
March 9, 1987
The Meeting was recessed at 7:55 P.M. to allow the
representatives of Benzeevi Cohen Corporation to set up
equipment for their presentation, reconvening at 8:05 P.M.
9. Presentation by Mr. Iddo Benzeevi, President of Benzeevi
Cohen Corporation, Regarding the Proposed Moreno
International Airport and Trade Center in Moreno Valley.
Mr. Iddo Benzeevi, President of Benzeevi Cohen Corporation,
addressed the Council concerning the proposed Moreno
International Airport and Trade Center in Moreno Valley,
giving an overview of the project. He then introduced Mr.
Steve L. Gomes, of Bechtel Civil, Inc., who gave a slide
presentation concerning the aviation facility.
10. Request from Valley Mobile Homeowners and Rental Association
for an Amendment to Ordinance No. 602, Title 13, Chapter
13.16 of the Beaumont Municipal Code, to Provide that Mobile
Home Park Owners Not be Permitted to Increase Rents when a
Rent Increase Review is Pending.
Mr. Allan Hacker, 1425 Cherry Avenue, Space 180,
representing the Valley Mobile Homeowners and Renters
Association, addressed the Council relative to their request
for an amendment to Ordinance No. 602.
At the conclusion of Mr. Hacker's presentation, certain
concerns were stated by the Council relative to this
amendment, as follows:
a. The amendment should be worded so the issue will be
settled in a timely manner, both by the way the owners
proceed and by the way the renters proceed.
b. The petition procedure.
C. Other procedural changes that need to be tightened
down.
d. The City Attorney and City Manager should review the
entire Ordinance for amendments to better fit the needs
of the City, homeowners and park owners, since what
works for the County does not always work for the City.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Mayor Partain, to
direct staff to prepare a proposed amendment to Ordinance
No. 602, taking into account all the concerns mentioned in
tonight's meeting, for the March 23 meeting.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Waller, Russo and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: Council Member Shaw.
ABSENT: None.
11. Request from A. S. Randhawa, D.V.M., for Reevaluation of
Business License Issued to a Sand Blasting Business located
at 238 Maple Avenue.
Dr. A. S. Randhawa, 754 E. Third Street, addressed the
Council stating this business is causing problems for his
family and his business due to noise and dust. He feels the
business was not required to meet all City requirements
prior to being issued a business license.
Page 4
Beaumont City Council
March 9, 1987
Mr. Keith Burton, 238 Maple, owner of the business in
question, addressed the Council, responding to Dr.
Randhawa's complaint, and giving the Council details
regarding how his business is operated, and the fact he is
located on 4 -1/2 acres purposely in order not to disturb the
neighbors.
Council Member Waller called the Council's attention to the
fact that Title 17, Chapter 17.50.210, Light Manufacturing,
indicates to him, unless he is reading it incorrectly,
that a Conditional Use Permit is required for sandblasting
plants. In answer to a question from Council Member Waller,
Mr. Burton indicated he was not required to apply for a
Conditional Use Permit.
Council Member Waller also pointed out that 17.70.015
specifically states that "the following procedures shall
apply to all applications for approval of conditional use
permits ", of which one is, "all procedures required by
Beaumont City rules implementing the California
Environmental Quality Act to hear a matter have been
completed ". And, 17.70.020, states that "a conditional use
permit shall not be granted unless the applicant
demonstrates that the proposed use will not be detrimental
to the health, safety or general welfare of the community.
Any permit that is granted shall be subject to such
conditions as shall be necessary to protect the health,
safety or general welfare of the community ".
In light of the above, Mr. Waller feels there are a lot of
questions to be answered before any action could be taken on
this request.
It was the general concensus -of the Council that this
request be referred back to the City Manager for further
input, with a report to be brought back at the meeting of
March 23. Council Member Connors requested a section of
Title 17 that she would like some specific input on, and
that is the intent of the ML zone, 17.50.200, and whether it
is up to the Council to make an interpretation of it when it
is discussed.
12. Consideration of Claim for Damages Filed by Eleanor Hudak.
Motion by Council Member Russo, second by Council Member
Connors, to deny the claim of Mrs. Hudak.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
13. Request from Mayor Partain to Set a Date and Time for
Discussion of Use of All City Facilities.
It was the general concensus of the Council to set the date
of March 30, at 4:30 P.M., in the City Manager's Conference
Room, for an adjourned meeting to discuss the use of all
City facilities and the fees being charged. The Council
will adjourn their March 23 meeting to March 30 for this
purpose.
Page 5
Beaumont City Council
March 9, 1987
14. Request from Council Member Connors for Consideration of
Request for Grant from City of Beaumont to Riverside County
Coalition for Alternatives to Domestic Violence (RCCADV) To
Assist with the Construction of a 45 Bed Emergency Shelter.
Mr. David McNeil, representing the Riverside County
Coalition for Alternatives to Domestic Violence, addressed
the Council, giving background information concerning the
expansion program badly needed to provide additional beds.
The goal is to have 60 beds in the County, (a 45 bed western
shelter, and a 15 bed shelter in the desert area). Beaumont
is generally served by the western shelter, which is what
this proposal addresses. The amount requested from the City
of Beaumont is based on the fair share concept which has
been developed, asking the public sector to contribute one -
half of the money, and the private sector to contribute the
remaining half. The total amount needed is $750,000,
therefore the public sector goal would be $375,000, which
has been divided based on population of the different
municipalities and the County.
50 calls were received from this area last year, and they
expect the calls from the area to increase due to the
establishment of an outreach program in Beaumont.
Answering a question from Council Member Russo, it was
determined the facility will be located in the Riverside
area although the specific location is confidential, and
both shelters would probably serve Beaumont.
The question was raised concerning where the funding would
be obtained from within the City's budget. The City Manager
indicated if it were to be authorized during this fiscal
year, he would have to review the budget and make a
determination where the funding might be taken from.
Council Member Connors advised that over half of the
municipalities have already contributed, and since they are
in the process of forming a satellite group of this
organization out here, with Council Member Connors serving
as the representative to this organization from the City,
she feels it is only right that the City join with the rest
of the cities and make sure that everyone is being served.
Beaumont does have people who need help too, and she does
not like to see them turned away for lack of space.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Russo, that the City grant to the Riverside County Coalition
for Alternatives to Domestic Violence $4,500.00 toward the
construction of a 45 bed emergency shelter for battered
women and their children.
AYES: Council 11ember Connors, Shaw, Russo and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: Council Member Waller.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
The City Manager is to make a determination regarding where
the funding will be obtained, with a report to the Council
at their next meeting.
15. Request from Council Member Waller To Be Appointed to the
75th Anniversary Steering Committee.
Page 6
Beaumont City Council
March 9, 1987
Mrs. Leota Blackaby, 662 Maple Avenue, Beaumont, read from a
prepared statement in support of Council Member Waller being
appointed to the 75th Anniversary Steering Committee.
Mr. Fred Hicks, Chairman of the 75th Anniversary Steering
Committee, stated it was the concensus of the committee that
it would be better if a member of the Council did not sit as
a member of the committee for a number of reasons, including
the conflict of serving as both Council Member and Committee
Member.
Council Member Waller requested the following statement be
made a part of the record:
As you all know I have asked that there be transcripts
presented to every Council Member of the February 9 meeting,
specifically about Agenda Item No. 8. I think upon reading
that everyone would realize that basically there were two,
two and a half arguments used in which every time that it
was brought out by the three members, that it was rebutted,
but it apparently fell upon deaf ears. I feel also that
there is quite a few inconsistencies in the fact that some
members are allowed on, others, meaning myself, was not.
And I am still wrestling with the problem of a spouse being
on the committee, and yet, that doesn't seem to make any
difference to the general group.
I am also concerned - I mean I feel that I want this to be
known and a matter of public record - that I feel that all
of the people on the committee are more than qualified, and
I think we are very fortunate to have all of them. I don't
want it to be sounding as though I have any problems working
with any - I was looking forward to working with all seven.
I also have a problem with the fact that there are members
on the committee that are not residents of Beaumont, and yet
I am. Mr. Hicks lives outside of the City limits, as well
as, I do believe, a few others. I feel that - I really feel
that an injustice is being done to the community in that I
have a lot to offer, and I guess it doesn't seem to make any
difference what arguments I use, but when it seems as though
there are people, Council Members, being appointed to
different committees all over the place, and they can serve
on two committees - three committees - and I am asking to
get on one damn committee, and I can't get on it. I mean, I
didn't think it was a political committee, I wasn't going
to, I don't know, I just really wanted to bring this up so
that the Council could reconsider this, and possibly think
of the decision that was made, and possibly change their
opinion. I don't know if it can be where the Mayor can
appoint me separately, but I wanted everyone on the Council
to have another chance at it. And I did leave the meeting
the last time prior to the vote, not after.
Council Member Shaw spoke in support of appointing Council
Member Waller to the committee, with Council Member Connors
and Mayor Partain giving their reasons for opposing the
appointment.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Waller, to appoint Council Member Waller to the 75th
Anniversary Steering Committee.
Page 7
Beaumont City Council
March 9, 1987
AYES: Council Member Shaw and Waller.
NOES: Council Member Connors, Russo and Mayor Partain.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
MOTION FAILED
Let the record show Council Member Shaw was excused at
10:28, returning to his seat at 10:30.
18. Funding for 4th of July Fireworks for the 75th Anniversary.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Russo, to underwrite the 4th of July fireworks display for
the 75th anniversary celebration committee up to $7,500.00.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Russo and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Waller.
Let the record show Council Member Waller was excused at
10:40, returning to his seat at 10:45.
16. CONSENT CALENDAR:
a. Approval of Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of
February 23, 1987.
b. Acceptance of Minutes of Regular Planning Commission
Meeting of February 17, 1987.
C. Approval of Warrants as Audited per Warrant List of
March 9, 1987, in the amount of $56,379.78 and Payroll
of February 19, 1987, in the amount of $39,452.71.
d. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -12 - Approving Final Tract Map
19303 and Authorizing Recordation of Same. Applicant:
DEVCORP . Location: Brookside Avenue.
e. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -13 - Accepting Offer of Dedication
of Right -of -Way and Authorizing Recordation Thereof.
(86- PP -21, 8th and Allegheny, DeZorzi).
f. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -14 - Approving Final Parcel Map No.
20912 and Authorizing Recordation Thereof. Applicant:
Ernest Kelly. Location: 11th & Edgar.
g. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -20 - Authorizing the Department of
General Services of the State of California to Purchase
Certain Items.
h. Authorizing Approximately $1,000.00 Additional for Cost
of Damages Resulting from Sewer Back -Up at 1368 San
Miguel.
i. Report of Action of Planning Commission At Meeting of
March 3, 1987.
notion by Council Member Russo, second by Council Member
Connors, to adopt the Consent Calendar.
Page 8
Beaumont City Council
March 9, 1987
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
17. Recess to Closed Session Pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(a) To Confer with Its Attorney Regarding Pending
Litigations Which Have Been Initiated Formally and to Which
the City is a Party. The title of the litigations are as
follows:
a. Citizens Against Pass Area Prisons et al., vs City of
Beaumont, Case No. 164329, Riverside Superior Court.
b. Beaumont - Cherry Valley Recreation and Park District vs
City of Beaumont, Case No. 184660, Riverside Superior
Court.
The meeting was recessed to Closed Session at 10:45 P.M.
The meeting was reconvened to Regular Session at 11:35 P.M.
Let the record show reports were received from the City
Attorney, and direction was given regarding litigations, but
no definitive action was taken in closed session.
Date Set for Next Regular Study Session, Monday, March 23,
1987, at 6:30 P.M., in the City Manager's Conference Room.
Date Set for Next Regular Council P!leeting, Monday, March 23,
1987, at 7:30 P.M., in the City Council Chambers.
On Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Russo, the meeting was adjourned at 11:36 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Page 9
City 12'...Ont
Drawer 158, Uoumont, California 92223 -- 845 -1171
To all receipients of Beaumont City Council Minutes.
(I
L %
OV.1
At their regular meeting of March 23, 1987, the Beaumont City
Council approved the minutes of March 9, 1987, with one addition
requested by Council Member Connors.
The attached Page 4 of the minutes will replace Page 4 in the
minutes which were previously mailed to you. The addition is to
Item No. 9 wherein it is stated, "Concerns were raised and
questions asked by the Council concerning the proposed airport at
Moreno Valley ".
Thank you for your cooperation in inserting this corrected page
in your copy.
Robert J. Bounds, City Clergy;
�s7_�-
9 14/;U&
Beaumont City Cuoncil
March 9, 1987
The Meeting was recessed at 7:55 P.M. to allow the
representatives of Benzeevi Cohen Corporation to set up
equipment for their presentation, reconvening at 8:05 P.M.
9. Presentation by Mr. Iddo Benzeevi, President of Benzeevi
Cohen Corporation, Regarding the Proposed Moreno
International Airport and Trade Center in Moreno Valley.
Mr. Iddo Benzeevi, President of Benzeevi Cohen Corporation,
addressed the Council concerning the proposed Moreno
International Airport and Trade Center in Moreno Valley,
giving, an overview of the project. Iie then introduced Mr.
Steve L. Gomes, of Bechtel Civil, Inc., who gave a slide
presentation concerning the aviation facility.
Concerns were raised and questions asked by the Council
concerning the proposed airport at Moreno Valley.
10. Request from Valley Mobile Homeowners and Rental Association
for an Amendment to Ordinance No. 602, Title 13, Chapter
13.16 of the Beaumont Municioal Code, to Provide that Mobile
:come Park Owners Not be Permitted to Increase Rents when a
Rent Increase Review is Pending.
Mir. Allan Hacker, 1425 Cherry Avenue, Space 180,
representing the Valley Mobile Homeowners and Renters
Association, addressed the Council relative to their request
for an amendment to Ordinance No. 602.
At the conclusion of Mr. Hacker's presentation, certain
concerns were stated by the Council relative to this
amendment, as follows:
a. The amendment should be worded so the issue will be
settled in a timely manner, both by the way the owners
proceed and by the way the renters proceed.
b. The petition procedure.
C. Other procedural changes that need to be tightened
down.
d. The City Attorney and City Manager should review the
entire Ordinance for amendments to better fit the needs
of the City, homeowners and park owners, since what
works for the County does not always work for the City.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Mayor Partain, to
direct staff to prepare a proposed amendment to Ordinance
IJo. 602, taking into account all the concerns mentioned in
tonight's meeting, for the March 23 meeting.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Waller, Russo and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: Council Member Shaw.
ABSENT: None.
11. Request from A. S. Randhawa, D.V.M., for Reevaluation of
Business License Issued to a Sand Blasting Business located
at 238 211aple Avenue.
Dr. A. S. Randhawa, 754 E. Third Street, addressed the
Council stating this business is causing problems for his
family and his business due to noise and dust. lie feels the
business was not required to meet all City requirements
prior to being issued a business license.
Page 4
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
MARCH 23, 1987
The Beaumont City Council met in a regular meeting at 7:37 P.M.,
Monday, March 23, 1987, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor
Partain presiding.
On Roll Call the following Council Members were present:
Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo and Mayor Partain.
The Invocation was given by Reverand Richard Weis, United
Presbyterian Church.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Council Member
Waller.
1. Clerk's Affidavit of Posting.
The Clerk's affidavit of posting the agenda was read into
the record by the Deputy City Clerk.
2. Adjustments to'Agenda.
Motion` by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Shaw, to make the following adjustments to the agenda:
a. Remove Item No. 14.e from the Consent Calendar for
consideration separately.
b. Continue Items No. 4 and 5 to April 13, 1987, since Dr.
Randhawa is out -of -town.
C. Add Item No. 18 to the agenda for the purpose of
posting a Notice Requesting Applications for a Planning
Commissioner to fill the vacancy created by the death
of Larry Gordon.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo
and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
3. ORAL COMMUNICATION:
There were no requests to speak.under oral communication.
i
4. Request from A. S. Randhawa, D.V.M., for Reevaluation of
Business License Issued to a Sand Blasting Business
located at 238 Maple Avenue. (Continued from March 9, 1987)
By previous motion this item was continued to April 13,
1987.
5. Request from Mr. Keith Burton, Burton Sandblasting, for
Review of Business License Issued to Abbey Animal Hospital.
By previous motion this item was continued to April 13,
1987.
Page 1
Beaumont City Council
March 23, 1987
6. Request from Mr. Jack Pope, of Yucca Valley, for Business
License to Hold an Auction in the City in April of 1987.
The City Council received the City Manager's report
indicating that a special permit is required from the
Council for an auctioneer's license.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Connors, to approve a special permit for Mr. Jack R. Pope,
of Pope's Auction, to conduct an auction on two weekends in
April, for a fee of $25.00.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
7. Discussion of Location for 1987 Fireworks Display.
The City Manager submitted his report relative to his
meeting with Ms. Waunnell Marlar, Executive Director of the
Banning Chamber of Commerce; Banning Fire Chief Sparks, the
Banning Chamber fireworks Chairman; and Fred Hicks,
Chairman of the 75th Anniversary Steering Committee.
Information resulting from this meeting included the
following:
a. It was agreed that $8,000.00 in fireworks display would
be ordered, with`Beaumont and Banning splitting the
cost for a total of $4,000.00 each.
b. Chief Sparks agreed to be in charge of the firing if it
is held in Beaumont.
C. The fireworks company provides the insurance for the
event.
d. The traffic and parking problem if the event is held at
Beaumont High School was also discussed, with the
suggestion that parking lots away from the site could
be advertised, with buses shuttling the people to the
high school.
Council Member Russo indicated he felt the fireworks display
should be in Beaumont this year to kick off the 75th
Anniversary celebration. He suggested the City contact
property owners in the area.surrounding the high school to
find out the availability of using their property for
parking during this eVnt.
Council Members Waller, Shaw and Connors had no comments.
Mayor Partain stated that in conjunction to finding if there
are any open fields available, we should also advertise
parking facilities within the downtown area and busing
people to the high school to help alleviate the traffic.
The parking lot at City Hall could be used, and find other
parking lots in the downtown area.
Motion by Council Member Russo, second by Council Member
Shaw, to approve the Beaumont High School as the site for
the 1987 4th of July Fireworks display; and authorizing the
City Manager to make arrangements to use City buses for the
shuttling of people to the high school.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
Page 2
Beaumont City Council
March 23, 1987
Council Member Waller requested that it be clarified the
funding for the use of the buses would come from Community
Promotion, not the transit fund.
8. Request from City of Grand Terrace for Assistance in the
Financial Expense of Fighting the Tire Burning Facility in
the City of Rialto. (Continued from February 9, 1987).
The City Manager referred to the letter received from the
City of Grand Terrace in response to our request for
additional information, stating it was necessary to contact
them by telephone to obtain all the information needed.
This letter and the memorandum written by the City Manager
is a matter of record in the Clerk's file.
Council Member Connors had no questions at this time.
Council Member Shaw asked if there had been a specific
request so far as the amount Beaumont should contribute, and
was informed by the `City Manager they had requested
$5,000.00. Council Member Shaw then questioned if this
could be justified or not.
Council Member Waller felt the Council had gone on record in
many instances as being supporters of a clean environment,
but the fact the questions were not answered, and it is so
removed from this area, (clarifying he does not mean it is
far away_ because Beaumont could still experience some ill
effects), but removed so far as government agency and actual
control over any of it, he really can see no real value in
Beaumont participating in the legal expense, as he would
really like to have much more information.
Council Member,Russo said he did not think Beaumont should
be paying any part of their share of fighting their battle.
He thinks if they have an argument that will be upheld by
CEQA, it is going to come forth. He stated further that he
felt with the ambiguity of some of the comments they make
with reference to who is giving money in support, he would
make a motion to deny the request.
Motion by Council Member Russo, second by Council Member
Waller, to deny the request. .
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo
and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None. 1
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
9. Report from City Attorney, and Discussion Relative to
Concepts for the Amendment of the Mobile Home Rent Review
Ordinance.
Mr. Allan Hacker, representing the Valley Mobile Homeowners
and Renter's Association, indicated he had submitted an oral
communication request in case there was a need for him to
comment or ask questions after he had heard the amendments
being proposed to the Ordinance.
The City Attorney indicated he had began the process of
reviewing the Ordinance. The original proposal that was
made was, by itself, ineffective. The Ordinance has also
proven very ineffective as the result of delays and
diffculties from both sides. The current Ordinance, which
Page 3
Beaumont City Council
March 23, 1987
was modeled after the County of Riverside Ordinance, isn't
working in the City of Beaumont. As a result, he recommends
that it be streamlined to reduce a lot of the additional
steps that have been set forth in it. He then read from his
written report which is a matter of record in the Clerk's
file.
He then stated the only issue that has not been directly
dealt with is who is going to pay for the arbitrator, how we
are going to exact that. He suggested that any
representative who wishes to file a written request, within
the time period, because there has been no action taken, be
required to post $500.00 with that request to pay for the
arbitrator.
His suggested changes would be quick and clean, the parties
would have to move quickly, and we should be able to hire an
arbitrator for the $500.00.
Council Member Connors asked the City Attorney if he meant
the person that wants to protest a rent increase, pays for
the arbitrator, and it would cost approximately $500.00.
The City Attorney indicated it has to come from somewhere.
His°driginal thought was'that it would come from the City.
Council Member Connors then stated, win or lose, that
protester, even though they may be right, and have to
protest because they are right, would have to pay the
$500.00.
The City Attorney said the City could propose that there be
'an assessment against the park owner, if no rental increase
is ,approved. That is the direction he needs from the
Council. If the Council does not feel the $500.00 is fair,
or the method of collecting that fee, he needs some type of
direction as to what the Council considers reasonable and
workable. In larger cities, the city picks up the tab.
Council Member Connors then commented it appeared to her
that a park owner or manager, who simply wanted to harrass
the tenants, could attempt to increase the rental knowing it
would cost this $500.00 arbitrarily. What would prevent
that, because they would have nothing to lose.
The City Attorney asked if she were suggesting the solution
to that would be a) the City would pay, or b) that the
arbitrator be- specifically given the authority to award
costs to one side %r the other, or to order them split
equally between the two.
Council Member Connors stated she felt the person who was
found to be in the wrong should be the person who would have
to pay the arbitrator.
The City Attorney questioned is the person in the wrong if
they asked for a $100.00 increase, and are given $50.00, or
$25.00, or is the park only wrong if they get no increase.
We are talking about factors that would have to be evaluated
and a determination made if a rent increase is appropriate.
Council Member Connors said it appeared then this would take
an entire schedule of payments, and who is doing what, in
order to decide that.
Page 4
Beaumont City Council
March 23, 1987
The City Attorney agreed this would be true, or it could be
left to the arbitrator to make a decision as part of his
award as to which party would pay the costs.
Mayor Partain stated it would work out, possibly, then, if
there is a rent increase, or the owner does notify of a rent
increase, invariably it would go to arbitration.
The City Attorney said he had considered proposing that we
skip the park committee completely. His concern is there
Should be some type of system set up that allows for some
type of negotiation. The park committee is designed to do
that. He did feel, however, that in many cases a park
committee would never be formed, with an arbitrator being
appointed within the 75 day period, and a decision being
made within 45 days after that.
He stated further, that may be the only thing that will
actually work. The concept of a park committee is ideal,
because you would like to think the parties would sit down
at the table and negotiate before going further.
Council Member Russo asked how we could order both sides to
split the cost of the arbitrator - if we could do this
legally.
The City Attorney said he was less concerned about the
legality of ordering it, as with the practicality of
collecting it. Hence, the $500.00 deposit he has suggested.
Council Member Russo then asked if it was the logical
solution for an arbitrator to award. What is our ability
then to collect.
The City Attorney stated that collecting from the park owner
after the fact should be a simpler task since he has rental
monies being collected that we may be able to approach, as
well as owning the property. Collecting from the tenants
could be a very difficult, if not impossible, situation.
This is, again, the reason for his suggestion that there be
a $500.00 deposit posted by the representative who was
requesting, since the assumption is that would normally be
the tenants.
Responding to a question from Mayor Partain, it was
clarified this would- not -be a bond, but a cash deposit.
The City Manager questioned the idea that any representative
from either side coukd call for arbitration. It could be
that the renter's association were meeting and preparing
that type of action, and one of the people who has signed
the petition could say let's go arbitration, and not
understand totally where the renter's association was, and
it might even be close to settlement. What would keep that
one individual from being able to cause the association to
wind up paying for them. Rental Associations have officers,
and have the ability in some way of developing a treasury of
some kind, if they desire to do this type of thing, but if
he were an officer of an association, he would question
whether he would want just anyone to sign a petition and run
down and set up a fee for me.
Council Member Russo suggested that a letter signed by a
majority of the park committee trigger the request for
arbitration, as the park committee would be representing the
tenants.
Page 5
Beaumont City Council
March 23, 1987
The City Attorney pointed out the park committee is 2 -2,
with a fifth member appointed if they can arrive at a fifth
member. If they can't, the whole thing fails, which has
happened.
He then stated one of the problems is the tenant's inability
to come up with a clear cut petition, and he wants the City
to have to evaluate. that petition only once, with one
petition filed. The other alternative is not even require a
written request, and make it automatic that if, within 35
days of the service of the petition, there has been no
written agreement approved by a vote of the tenants, and
signed by the park owner, that the City will appoint an
arbitrator, with no additional action required.
The City Manager asked.what power we have to collect money
from people on the basis of an arbitrator's decision. The
arbitrator doesn't have any taxing ability. He can see this
being a costly thing for the City if we have to go after the
money, and he does not feel that it is ,a situation where the
taxpayers of the City owe anything, and already, just
administratively, we have racked up a large amount of money
which we will never get back.
When asked by Council Member Russo if we could request or
require a deposit by each party, as the result of the
process the City has established, to be on hand at all times
for the purpose of arbitration, the City Attorney indicated
we could not.
Another alternative suggested by the City Attorney was to
set the deposit amount, and if either side fails to deposit,
either the full increase, or no increase at all, is granted
arbitrarily.
The City Manager indicated the problem he can see is over
getting the money for an arbitrator, and getting it in a
timely manner. He feels we are on a tight enough schedule
as it is now, that there is no guarantee we can get that
money in hand that quickly, even if everything is done by
certified mail, especially if the owner lives out of the
area. We certainly don't know that the manager has the
right to do anything.
Council Member Russo said on the basis of the statement that
we could write it in automatically, that if no action is
taken, the City could initiate the arbitration process. If
we were to adopt that kind of approach, why couldn't we
require an amount equal to the amount that the City feels
would be necessary in the event it goes to arbitration, by
each party.
The City Attorney asked what happens if they don't pay it
timely.
Mayor Partain stated there is apparently a great deal of
confusion, and felt the Council should accept the report
this evening, giving each of the Council the opportunity to
review it further with input to the City Attorney and the
City Manager, with the City Attorney bringing additional
information back to the Council in their packets for the
next meeting.
Council Member Waller asked if the City Attorney had
received enough direction tonight, and the City Attorney
Page 6
Beaumont City Council
March 23, 1987
indicated he did not have enough information to write an
ordinance, but did have enough to give the Council
additional detailed proposals dealing with the issues raised
tonight, which are:
a. Who is going to pay for it.
b. What the penalties are going to be if they fail to
pay for it.
C. How are we going to guarantee that the parties
will be involved.
d. How are we going to protect the rights of the park
owners who live at a distance.
Mr. Allan Hacker, representing the Valley Mobile Homeowners
and Renter's Association, addressed the Council, pointing
out the park committee consists of two tenants, two
representatives of park management, and the fifth person an
impartial party. In this case there was a mediator rather
than the fifth person, and the cost of the mediator was
assessed 50% to the tenants and 50% to the owner. The
understanding they have had as to how it is supposed to be
done with the arbitration part of it, had it been the actual
commission, which we were unable to do, was that the tenants
would put up a 50% deposit.
In "the mediation process they have already gone through in
the first two rental increases, it was a 50/50 deal, and
they both had to pay. They paid their part of it and assume
that Mr. Farr also paid his. They would have no problem
with a deposit being required in this new amendment.
The City Manager called attention to the fact that in the
mediation process, the tenants and owner hired the mediator.
The City did not get involved, therefore, if payment was not
made, the City did not get stuck. Arbitration is the
problem of the City, and the City would be responsible for
payment. The main problem would be if one side paid, and
the other side did not, what happens then. The Ordinance
doesn't address this.
The City Attorney felt the time frame could be increased to
allow sufficient time to notice and receive payment from the
park owner provided the owner lives at a distance.
Council Member Russo stated he could see no way the City
could find to collect the money except to pay for it and
trying to collect it - that there is no solution. To which
the City Attorney responded, in the alternative we could
collect from the requester, which would probably be the
tenants.
The City Manager said the key to it would be that the City
establish the approximate half cost, and it becomes a
deposit for each side, and if either side does not put up
its half by a certain day, then they have defaulted. This
could be put right in the ordinance.
Council Member Russo expressed the concern that the City
could legally declare either side in default.
Page 7
Beaumont City Council
March 23, 1987
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Waller, directing the City Attorney to bring back a further
report, for the April 13 meeting.
There being no oppostion, the motion carried with four ayes
and one abstain.
Let the record show Council Member Shaw abstained due to the
fact he is a tenant in a mobile home park.
10. Report from City Manager Relative to Source of Funding for
45 Bed Emergency Shelter to be Constructed by Riverside
County Coalition for Alternatives to Domestic Violence
(RCCADV). (Continued from March 9, 1987).
The Council received a report from the City Manager
with his recommendation concerning the source of funding for
the 45 bed emergency shelter.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Waller, that the $4,500.00 grant to the Riverside County
Coalition for Alternatives to Domestic Violence be charged
as an over - budget expense to General Government -
Miscellaneous, Account 1450 -4100.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo
and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
11. Request from Council Member Connors that Letters be nailed
to Assemblymen Chacon and Clute Opposing Assembly Bill 2190
which would make Election by Ward Mandatory in all Cities in
California.
Mr. Lyman Burhop, 1162 Pennsylvania, addressed the Council,
stating that he feels this bill should be supported, and if
the Council votes in opposition he would like to have their
reasons stated in open session. He thinks this is the best
piece of legislation that we have had in some time. It
would make the Council Members more responsive to the people
where they are elected from if they come out of wards.
Council Member Connors agreed with Mr. Burhop on the system
of voting by wards, when the community is large enough in
which to do it, or a Aistrict in which to do it or a County,
or a City the size of San Bernardino, where you would be
more accutely aware of what your constituents wanted because
you -would be covering•a smaller location. However, in the
City of Beaumont, and in small cities, it is difficult, at
best, to find five people to run for office that are
qualified to do so. It is also very difficult to only think
of the people in your area when you are voting. It has
never even occurred to her to cast a vote which would
benefit only her area, or only her precinct, because the
City is not that large. The one thing that bothered her
about the request is that she did not know when she put the
request on the agenda, because she had found out so late
about the bill, that there are other assembly members that
letters should be mailed to. She also asked if it would be
appropriate to send a letter from the Council itself.
The City Attorney said this should be handled in the form of
Page 8
12.
Beaumont City Council
March 23, 1987
a resolution rather than letter, as this is the way it has
been done in the past
Council Member - Connors remphasized that her reason for
supporting opposition to the bill is it is very difficult in
small cities, to find good qualified people to run for
office in a City that does not have a large population. As
a result, she does not think Beaumont needs the ward system,
but if Beaumont were a large City, we certainly would.
Council Member Waller asked if this bill passed, it would
not affect Beaumont because we do not have the ward system,
and was advised that it would affect Beaumont, in fact would
affect every City in Cali-f—ornia.
Mayor Partain stated he had a problem with the State telling
cities they have to have wards. He feels this should be
left to the City to decide.
The City Manager pointed out that every ten years we would
have to redraw the lines, which can become a problem itself;
and, secondly, there is the possibility of small suits being
filed between the ten year periods because of a discrepancy
in the numbering due to development in one area, and not the
other. He then recommended two articles that were in the
Western Cities magazine addressing this issue.
Council Member Russo feels the best interest of the citizens
of Beaumont are served the way the present system stands.
In big cities you do need wards, and you do need to
be able to represent the interest of groups within a large
community, but in Beaumont it would best serve the interest
of everyone without those kinds of lines drawn - without the
division that those kinds of politics create. He would
therefore oppose this bill.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Russo, directing the City staff to draft a resolution
opposing Assembly Bill 2190, making elections by ward
mandatory in all cities in California, to be sent to all
State Assembly and State Senate members.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
Consideration of Appointment to Fill Unexpired Term of City
Clerk, or Calling a Special Election.
The City Manager pre
fented his report advising the thirty
day period within which to make an appointment to fill the
seat of City Clerk for the unexpired term will be up
tonight, and if appointment is not made, they will be
required to fill the seat by special election. The way the
election code reads now, the special election would be set
for the next regular election within a certain time frame,
therefore, this would be set for November since the election
in June will occur less than the minimum number of days
within which the election can take place.
Council Member Russo pointed out that currently most of the
work that is required of a City Clerk is generally done by
the Deputy Clerks and is part of the regular business day of
the City Manager and the City Manager's secretary. He feels
this is an excellent opportunity for the Council to take
Page 9
advantage of their ability to
Interim City Clerk to fill the
then look at the City Clerk's
the Council can discuss this,
the City Manager's secretary
period of time to see if that
Beaumont City Council
March 23, 1987
appoint the City manager as an
remainder of this term, and
situation in 1989. He hopes
and allow the City Manager and
to perform those duties for a
can be effective for the City.
Council Member Shaw agreed with Council Member Russo,
feeling the appointment would be appropriate rather than a
special election.
Council Member Connors stated she has always felt there
should be a full time City Clerk, and she should have an
autonomy from the City Manager's office. But she realizes
that you can't always have what you want, since the fact
that no one has applied for the position is indicative of
the difficulty the City would have. And calling an election
to fill a position that no one has even shown an interest in
having the position, is something else again.
Mrs. Connors stated further, that if a motion were made to
appoint the City Manager, she would hope the motion would be
made to appoint Mr. Bounds, rather than the City Manager.
Mayor Partain pointed out this is the way it would have to
be since you are appointing an individual, not an office.
Council Member Waller asked if Mr. Bounds would be able to
handle the additional load, and it was indicated this would
not add anything not already being done in the City
Manager's office.
fie then asked if Mr. Bounds would receive any stipend for
this additional duty.
Mr. Bounds recommended that if a resolution is made to
appoint him, an individual, with the title City Manager
having nothing to do with it (the person serving must be a
registered voter, and the City Manager, by title, is not
necessarily a registered voter), but by appointing him as an
individual, _(and.he_ is a registered voter in the City), he
would ask them to consider putting the salary for the City
Clerk position for himself by name, at zero dollars per
month.
Council Member Waller then asked how many cities in the
State of California, currently, have this arrangement, and
was advised -there are seventy -one cities, including both
small and large citie 4.
He then said it had been alluded that there would be no
separation between the office of the City Manager and the
City Clerk if they were combined, and wondered if anyone had
any problem at this time.
Council Members Connors and Shaw both indicated they could
see no problem in this particular case.
Council Member Russo stated the way that issue is protected
is by appointing Mr. Bounds as an individual, not as City
Manager. In other words, if the appointment is made this
would not mean that whoever is City Manager would be City
Clerk. When 1989 comes along we may have people who wish to
run for City Clerk, or we may not, and could address it at
that time. He feels we should give it a test to see
Page 10
Beaumont City Council
March 23, 1987
if there are any conflicts, and relying on his own
experiences he knows for a fact that 990 of the Clerk's
responsibilities are being handled by the City Manager and
his secretary on an ongoing basis, and have been.
_Council Member Connors questioned whether, under the City
Clerk ordinance, that you had to pay the salary, and was
informed this is not the case. You cannot pay more, but
you can pay less.
The City Manager pointed out that of the 71 cities, many of
these are City Managers serving as City Clerk. They have
found the elected City Clerk is not working, and have put it
on the ballot and made it become appointed.
Council I Member Waller questioned whether or not this
decision could be held for reconsideration in November, and
then after that period of time, reappoint at that time, and
was advised they have to appoint for the unexpired term, or
go to the election and the appointee would serve until the
election.
Mayor Partain felt certain points that were brought out were
very important, as follows:
a. The City Manager's office is now doing the work of the
the City Clerk, and has been.
b. That people,were under the impression that this Council
was going to appoint the City Clerk from now on, and it
has been brought out-that only the voters can change
the position from elected to appointed. This
appointment will fill an unexpired term only.
RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -21 - Appointing Robert J. Bounds, as
City Clerk.
Motion by Council Member Russo, second by Council Member
Shaw, to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -21 appointing Robert J.
Bounds as City Clerk to fill the unexpired term of Irene
Joyce Sweeney, with the compensation for this position being
zero dollars.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo
and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
It
13. Consideration of Award of Bid for Police Patrol Vehicles.
The City Manager presented his report to the City Council
advising only one bid was received, from Swift Dodge of
Sacramento. Their bid represents a savings of $983.87 below
the base State bid. His complete report concerning this bid
is a matter of record in the Clerk's file.
Motion by Council Member Russo, second by Council Member
Connors to award the bid for police patrol vehicles to Swift
Dodge, 6250 East Florin Road, Sacramento, California, in the
amount of $10,589.07 each; purchase three (3) vehicles at a
cost of $31,767.21 from Swift Dodge; and authorize an over
budget expenditure of $8,242.21 from Account No. 2050 -6060,
Police Department- Vehicles.
Page 11
Beaumont City Council
March 23, 1987
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Russo and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Council Member Waller.
Let the record show Council Member Waller was excused at
9:12 P.M., returning to his seat at 9:17 P.M.
14. CONSENT CALENDAR - All items listed under the Consent
Calendar are considered to be routine by the City Council
and will be approved by one motion. There will be no
separate discussion of these items unless a Council Member
or Citizen so requests, in which case the item will be
removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a
separate item.
a. Approval of Minutes of Regular City Council Meeting of
March 9, 1987, as amended.
b. Acceptance of Minutes of Regular Planning Commission
Meeting of March 3, 1987.
C. Approval of Warrants as Audited per Warrant List of
March 23, 1987, in the amount of $145,477.09; and
Payroll of March 5, 1987, in the amount of $38,543.16.
d. Acceptance of Resignation of Ruby Thomas from Senior
Advisory Commission,
f. Report of Action by Planning Commission at Meeting of
March 17, 1987.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Russo, to adopt the Consent Calender excluding Item No. "e ",
and with a corrected warrant list total shown of
$145,477.09, said correction being due to the fact that
Check No. 5969, in the amount of $147,264.97, payable to the
Riverside ' County Fire Department, was voided after
publication of the warrant list due to an incorrect billing
to the City. A new billing will be resubmitted and a new
warrant will be issued at a later date.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Russo, to amend Council Member Shaw's motion, to make an
addition to the minutes of March 9, Item No. 9, that
concerns were raised4 and questions asked by the Council
concerning the proposed airport at Moreno Valley.
► VOTE TAKEN ON AMENDMENT TO MOTION:
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo
and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION CARRIED.
VOTE TAKEN ON MAIN MOTION:
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo
and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Page 12
Beaumont City Council
March 23, 1987
MAIN MOTION CARRIED AS AMENDED.
14.e Authorization for Mayor to Execute Subdivision Agreement
with Paul Turner, Inc.
Council Member Waller asked that this be removed from the
Consent Calendar in order to state certain concerns. He
asked if this is a normal procedure, and was informed by the
City Manager that it is. He then wanted to know if Mr.
Turner is aware of this agreement, and was advised a copy
was sent to him, and he knows that you have to have a
subdivision agreement when you have a subdivision, that it
has been written, that you have to have a surety bond, and
he is prepared for that; he knows the amount that was
estimated to be the cost of the public improvements, which
came from his engineer, and the City Engineer has checked
them; he knows the maps have been finally completed and
turned over to our City Engineer and checked; he knows that
he has to have an insurance policy that lists the City as an
additional insured for this project; he knows the type of
things that are talked about, soils report, compaction
reports and so forth are required, and that he has to
furnish as -built drawings to us.
It was also pointed out all of these things are standard
with .subdivisions, and since the time that Mr. Waller has
been on the Council this is only the second subdivision
agreement that we have had. The first one approved by the
Council was at a meeting at which Mr. Waller was absent due
to illness.
As additional information to the Council, the City Manager
informed them that at the time the houses are ready for
inspection, he has reached an agreement with the City of
Banning building inspector to do this inspection, since Mr.
Turner is the City of Beaumont's building inspector.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Shaw, to authorize the Mayor to execute the subdivision
agreement with Paul Turner, Inc.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo
and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
15. Recess to Closed Session Pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(a) to Confer with Its Attorney Regarding Pending
Litigations Which Have Been Initiated Formally and to Which
the City is a Party. The title of the litigations are as
follows
a. Beaumont - Cherry Valley Recreation and Park District vs
City of Beaumont, Case No. 184660, Riverside Superior
Court.
b. Identification of such litigation would jeopardize the
City's ability to conclude existing settlement
negotiations to its advantage.
The meeting was recessed to Closed Session at 9:30 P.M.
The meeting was reconvened to regular session at 10:11 P.M.
Page 13
i
Let the record show that
litigation, and direction
definitive action was taken.
Beaumont City Council
March 23, 1987
a report was given regarding
given to the attorney, but no
16. Consideration of Approval of Suggested Programs for the 75th
Anniversary as Submitted by the Steering Committee.
The suggested programs for the 75th Anniversary Celebration
as recommended by the Steering Committee were reviewed by
the Council and questions asked of Chairman Fred Hicks.
Amendments to the suggested programs were made as follows:
Item No. l.b: Change wording, "City to Provide" to read
"City will arrange ".
Item No. 3.a: Delete the words "Kiwanis and /or Soroptimist
Club to sponsor ".
Item No. 3.c:._Delete the words, "under direction of Cherry
Festival Association, Lions Club and /or City employees ".
Item No. 3.d: Delete the words, "built by Chamber of
Commerce or City employees ".
Item No. 4.b: Delete the words "Cost estimates from $3,500
for about 10 minutes to $7,000 for about 30 minutes. Clubs
and businesses will be asked for donations ".
Add an additional item indicating events especially planned
for the youth of the area.
Add an additional item for City employee open house of
facilities and display of City equipment.
Add an additional item to investigate the possibility of
having the police inspection for the public.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Connors, to accept the suggested programs for the 75th
Anniversary for the City of Beaumont as outlined by the
steering committee, as amended.
There being no opposition, the motion carried with four ayes
and one absent.
Let the record show Council Member Shaw was excused at 10:09
P.M., immediately following the Closed Session.
18. Notice of Vacancy on Planning Commission.
Motion by Council Member Russo, second by Council Member
Connors, directing City Clerk to post a thirty day notice
requesting applications to fill the seat that is now vacant
to serve the unexpired term of Larry Gordon, with
application closing date of April 23, 1987.
There being no opposition, the motion carried with four ayes
one absent.
17. Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Russo, to adjourn this meeting to Monday, March 30, 1987, at
4 :30 P.M., in the City Manager's Conference Room, to discuss
the use of all City facilities.
Page 14
Beaumont City Council
March 23, 1987
There being no opposition, the motion carried with four
ayes, one absent.
Date set -for next regular Study Session, Monday, April 13, 1987,
at 6:30 P.M., in the City Manager's Conference Room.
Date set for next regular Council Meeting, Monday, April 13,
1987, . at 7:30 P.M., in the City Council Chambers.
Meeting Adjourned to Monday, March 30, 1987, at 4:30 P.m., in the
City Manager's Conference Room at 10:50 P.M.
N
Respectfully submitted,
Page 15
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
MARCH 23, 1987
The Beaumont City Council met in a regular meeting at 7:37 P.M.,
Monday, March 23, 1987, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor
Partain presiding.
On Roll Call the following Council Members were present:
Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo and Mayor Partain.
The Invocation was given by Reverand Richard Weis, United
Presbyterian Church.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Council Member
Waller.
1. Clerk's Affidavit of Posting.
The Clerk's affidavit of posting the agenda was read into
the record by the Deputy City Clerk.
2. Adjustments to Agenda.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Shaw, to make the following adjustments to the agenda:
a. Remove Item No. 14.e from the Consent Calendar for
consideration separately.
b. Continue Items No. 4 and 5 to April 13, 1987, since Dr.
Randhawa is out -of -town.
C. Add Item No. 18 to the agenda for the purpose of
posting a Notice Requesting Applications for a Planning
Commissioner to fill the vacancy created by the death
of Larry Gordon.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo
and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS.
There were no requests to speak under oral communication.
t
4. Request from A. S. Randhawa, D.V.M., for Reevaluation of
Business License Issued to a Sand Blasting Business
located at 238 Maple Avenue. (Continued from March 9, 1987)
By previous motion this item was continued to April 13,
1987.
5. Request from Mr. Keith Burton, Burton Sandblasting, for
Review of Business License Issued to Abbey Animal Hospital.
By previous motion this item was continued to April 13,
1987.
Page 1
6.
7.
Beaumont City Council
March 23, 1987
Request from Mr. Jack Pope, of Yucca Valley, for Business
License to Hold an Auction in the City in April of 1987.
The City Council received the City Manager's report
indicating that a special permit is required from the
Council for an auctioneer's license.
Motion by Council.Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Connors, to approve a special permit for Mr. Jack R. Pope,
of Pope's Auction, to conduct an auction on two weekends in
April, for a fee of $25.00.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
Discussion of Location for 1987 Fireworks Display.
The City Manager submitted his report relative to his
meeting with Ms. Waunnell Marlar, Executive Director of the
Banning Chamber of Commerce; Banning Fire Chief Sparks, the
Banning Chamber Fireworks Chairman; and Fred Hicks,
Chairman of the 75th Anniversary Steering Committee.
Information resulting from this meeting included the
following:
a. It was agreed that $8,000.00 in fireworks display would
be ordered, with Beaumont and Banning splitting the
cost for -a total of $4,000.00 each.
b. Chief Sparks agreed to be in charge of the firing if it
is held in Beaumont.
c: The fireworks company provides the insurance for the
event.
d. The traffic and parking problem if the event is held at
Beaumont High School was also discussed, with the
suggestion that parking lots away from the site could
be advertised, with buses shuttling the people to the
high school.
Council Member Russo indicated he felt the fireworks display
should be in Beaumont this year to kick off the 75th
Anniversary celebration. He suggested the City contact
property owners in the area surrounding the high school to
find out the — availability of using their property for
parking during this event.
Council Members Waller, Shaw and Connors had no comments.
Mayor Partain stated that in conjunction to finding if there
are any open fields available, we should also advertise
parking facilities within the downtown area and busing
people to the high school to help alleviate the traffic.
The parking lot at City Hall could be used, and find other
parking lots in the downtown area.
Motion by Council Member Russo, second by Council Member
Shaw, to approve the Beaumont High School as the site for
the 1987 4th of July Fireworks display; and authorizing the
City Manager to make arrangements to use City buses for the
shuttling of people to the high school.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
Page 2
Beaumont City Council
March 23, 1987
Council Member Waller requested that it be clarified the
funding for the use of the buses would come from Community
Promotion, not the transit fund.
8. Request from City of Grand Terrace for Assistance in the
Financial Expense of Fighting the Tire Burning Facility in
the City of Rialto. (Continued from February 9, 1987).
The City Manager referred to the letter received from the
City of Grand Terrace in response to our request for
additional information, stating it was necessary to contact
them by telephone to obtain all the information needed.
This letter and the memorandum written by the City Manager
is a matter of record in the Clerk's file.
.. Council Member Connors had no questions at this time.
Council Member Shaw asked if there had been a specific
request so far as the amount Beaumont should contribute, and
was informed by the City Manager they had requested
$5,000.00. Council Member Shaw then questioned if this
could be justified or not.
Council Member Waller felt the Council had gone on record in
many instances 'As being supporters of a clean environment,
but the fact the questions were not answered, and it is so
removed from this area, (clarifying he does not mean it is
far away because Beaumont could still experience some ill
effects), but removed so far as government agency and actual
control over'any of it,' 'he really can see no real value in
Beaumont participating in the legal expense, as he would
really like to have much more information.
Council Member Russo said he did not think Beaumont should
be paying any part of their share of fighting their battle.
He thinks if they have an argument that will be upheld by
CEQA, it is going to come forth. He stated further that he
felt with the ambiguity of some of the comments they make
with reference to who is giving money in support, he would
make a motion to deny the request.
Motion by Council Member Russo, second by Council Member
Waller, to deny the request.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo
and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
9. Report from City Attorney, and Discussion Relative to
Concepts for the Amendment of the Mobile Home Rent Review
Ordinance.
Mr. Allan Hacker, representing the Valley Mobile Homeowners
and Renter's Association, indicated he had submitted an oral
communication request in case there was a need for him to
comment or ask questions after he had heard the amendments
being proposed to the Ordinance.
The City Attorney indicated he had began the process of
reviewing the Ordinance. The original proposal that was
made was, by itself, ineffective. The Ordinance has also
proven very ineffective as the result of delays and
diffculties from both sides. The current Ordinance, which
Page 3
Beaumont City Council
March 23, 1987
was modeled after the County of Riverside Ordinance, isn't
working in the City of Beaumont. As a result, he recommends
that it be streamlined to reduce a lot of the additional
steps .'that have been set forth in it. He then read from his
written report which is a matter of record in the Clerk's
file..
He then stated the only issue that has not been directly
dealt with is who is going to pay for the arbitrator, how we
are going to exact that. He suggested that any
representative who wishes to file a written request, within
the time period, because there has been no action taken, be
required to post $500.00 with that request to pay for the
arbitrator.
His suggested changes would be quick and clean, the parties
would have to move quickly, and we should be able to hire an
arbitrator for the $500.00.
Council Member Connors asked the City Attorney if he meant
the,. person that wants to protest a rent increase, pays for
the arbitrator, and it would cost approximately $500.00.
The City Attorney indicated it has to come from somewhere.
His original thought was that it would come from the City.
Council Member Connors then stated, win or lose, that
protester, even though they may be right, and have to
protest because they are right, would have to pay the
$500.00.
The City Attorney said the City could propose that there be
an assessment against the park owner, if no rental increase
is approved. That is the direction he needs from the
Council. If the Council does not feel the $500.00 is fair,
or the method of collecting that fee, he needs some type of
direction as to what the Council considers reasonable and
workable. In larger cities, the city picks up the tab.
Council Member Connors then commented it appeared to her
that a park owner or manager, who simply wanted to harrass
the tenants, could attempt to increase the rental knowing it
would cost this $500.00 arbitrarily. What would prevent
that, because they would have nothing to lose.
The, ;City.,Attorney asked if she were suggesting the solution
to that would be a) the City would pay, or b) that the
arbitrator be specifically given the authority to award
costs to one side ox the other, or to order them split
equally between the two.
Council Member Connors stated she felt the person who was
found to be in the wrong should be the person who would have
to pay the arbitrator..
The City 'Attorney questioned is the person in the wrong if
they asked for a $100.00 increase, and are given $50.00, or
$25.00, or is the park only wrong if they get no increase.
We are talking about factors that would have to be evaluated
and 'a determination made if a rent increase is appropriate.
Council Member Connors said it appeared then this would take
an entire schedule of payments, and who is doing what, in
order to decide that.
Page 4
Beaumont City Council
March 23, 1987
The City Attorney agreed this would be true, or it could be
left to the arbitrator to make a decision as part of his
award as to which party would pay the costs.
Mayor Partain stated it would work out, possibly, then, if
there is a rent increase, or the owner does notify of a rent
increase, invariably it would go to arbitration.
The City Attorney said he had considered proposing that we
skip the park committee completely. His concern is there
should be some type of system set up that allows for some
type of negotiation. The park committee is designed to do
that. He did feel, however, that in many cases a park
committee would never be formed, with an arbitrator being
appointed within the 75 day period, and a decision being
made within 45 days after that.
He stated further, that may be the only thing that will
actually work. The concept of a park committee is ideal,
because you would like to think the parties would sit down
at the table and negotiate before going further.
Council Member Russo asked how we could order both sides to
split the cost of the arbitrator - if we could do this
legally.
The City Attorney said he was less concerned about the
legality of ordering it, as with the practicality of
collecting it. Hence, the $500.00 deposit he has suggested.
Council Member Russo then asked if it was the logical
solution for an arbitrator to award. What is our ability
then to collect.
The City Attorney stated that collecting from the park owner
after the fact should be a simpler task since he has rental
monies being collected that we may be able to approach, as
well as owning the property. Collecting from the tenants
could be a very difficult, if not impossible, situation.
This is, again, the reason for his suggestion that there be
a $500.00 deposit posted by the representative who was
requesting, since the assumption is that would normally be
the tenants.
Responding to a question from Mayor Partain, it was
clarified this would not be a bond, but a cash deposit.
The City Manager questioned the idea that any representative
from either side coukd call for arbitration. It could be
that the renter's association were meeting and preparing
that type of action, and one of the people who has signed
the petition could say let's go arbitration, and not
understand totally where the renter's association was, and
it might even be close to settlement. What would keep that
one individual from being able to cause the association to
wind up paying for them. Rental Associations have officers,
and have the ability in some way of developing a treasury of
some kind, if they desire to do this type of thing, but if
he were an officer of an association, he would question
whether he would want just anyone to sign a petition and run
down and set up a fee for me.
Council Member Russo suggested that a letter signed by a
majority of the park committee trigger the request for
arbitration, as the park committee would be representing the
tenants.
Page -5
Beaumont City Council
March 23, 1987
The City Attorney pointed out the park committee is 2 -2,
with a fifth member appointed if they can arrive at a fifth
member. If they can't, the whole thing fails, which has
happened.
He then stated one of the problems is the tenant's inability
to come up with a clear cut petition, and he wants the City
to have to evaluate that petition only once, with one
petition filed. The other alternative is not even require a
written request, and make it automatic that if, within 35
days of the service of the petition, there has been no
written agreement approved by a vote of the tenants, and
signed by the park owner, that the City will appoint an
arbitrator, with no additional action required.
The City Manager asked what power we have to collect money
from people on the basis of an arbitrator's decision. The
arbitrator doesn't have any taxing ability. He can see this
being a costly thing for the City if we have to go after the
money, and he does not feel that it is a situation where the
taxpayers of the City owe anything, and already, just
administratively, we have racked up a large amount of money
which we will never get back.
When asked by Council Member Russo if we could request or
require a deposit by each party, as the result of the
process the City has established, to be on hand at all times
for the purpose of arbitration, the City Attorney indicated
we could not.
Another alternative suggested by the City Attorney was to
set the deposit amount, and if either side fails to deposit,
either the full increase, or no increase at all, is granted
arbitrarily.
The City Manager indicated the problem he can see
is
over
getting the money for an arbitrator,
and getting
it in
a
timely manner. He feels we
are on a tight enough
schedule
as it is now, that there is
no guarantee we can
get
that
money in'hand that quickly,
even if everything is
done
by
certified mail, especially
if the owner lives out
of
the
area. We certainly don't
know that the manager
has
the
right to do anything.
Council Member Russo said on the basis of the statement that
we could write it in automatically, that if no action is
taken, the City could initiate the arbitration process. If
we were to `adopt that kind of approach, why couldn't we
require an amount equal to the amount that the City feels
would be necessary in the event it goes to arbitration, by
each party.
The City Attorney asked what happens if they don't pay it
timely.
Mayor Partain stated there is apparently a great deal of
confusion, and felt the Council should accept the report
this evening, giving each of the Council the opportunity to
review it further with input to the City Attorney and the
City Manager, with the City Attorney bringing additional
information back to the Council in their packets for the
next meeting.
Council Member Waller asked if the City Attorney had
received enough direction tonight, and the City Attorney
Page 6
Beaumont City Council
March 23, 1987
indicated he did not have enough information to write an
ordinance, but did have enough to give the Council
additional detailed proposals dealing with the issues raised
tonight, which are:
a. Who is going to pay for it.
b. What the penalties are going to be if they fail to
pay for it.
C. How are we going to guarantee that the parties
will be involved.
d. How are we going to protect the rights of the park
owners who live at a distance.
Mr. Allan Hacker, representing the Valley Mobile Homeowners
and Renter's Association, addressed the Council, pointing
out the park committee consists of two tenants, two
representatives of park management, and the fifth person an
impartial party. In this case there was a mediator rather
than the fifth person, and the cost of the mediator was
assessed 50% to the tenants and 50% to the owner. The
understanding they have had as to how it is supposed to be
done with the arbitration part of it, had it been the actual
commission, which we were unable to do, was that the tenants
would put up a 50% deposit.
In the mediation process they have already gone through in
the first two rental increases, it was a 50/50 deal, and
they both had to pay. They paid their part of it and assume
that Mr. Farr also paid his. They would have no problem
with a deposit being required in this new amendment.
The City Manager called attention to the fact that in the
mediation process, the tenants and owner hired the mediator.
The City did not get involved, therefore, if payment was not
made, the City did not get stuck. Arbitration is the
problem of the City, and the City would be responsible for
payment. The main problem would be if one side paid, and
the other side did not, what happens then. The Ordinance
doesn't address this.
The City Attorney felt the time frame could be increased to
allow sufficient time to notice and receive payment from the
park owner provided the owner lives at a distance.
Council Member. Russ stated he could see no way the City
could find to collect the money except to pay for it and
trying to collect it - that there is no solution. To which
the. City Attorney responded, in the alternative we could
collect from the requester, which would probably be the
tenants.
The City Manager said the key to it would be that the City
establish the approximate half cost, and it becomes a
deposit for each side, and if either side does not put up
its half by a certain day, then they have defaulted. This
could be put right in the ordinance.
Council Member Russo expressed the concern that the City
could legally declare either side in default.
Page 7
Beaumont City Council
March 23, 1987
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Waller, directing the City Attorney to bring back a further
report, for the April 13 meeting.
There being no oppostion, the motion carried with four ayes
and one abstain.
Let the record show Council Member Shaw abstained due to the
fact he is a tenant in a mobile home park.
10. Report from City Manager Relative to Source of Funding for
.45 -- Bed - Emergency - Shelter to be Constructed by Riverside
County Coalition for Alternatives to Domestic Violence
(RCCADV). (Continued from March 9, 1987).
The Council received a report from the City Manager
with his recommendation concerning the source of funding for
the 45 bed emergency shelter.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Waller, that the $4,500.00 grant to the Riverside County
Coalition for Alternatives to Domestic Violence be charged
as an over - budget expense to General Government -
Miscellaneous, Account 1450 -4100.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo
and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
11. Request from Council Member Connors that Letters be Mailed
to Assemblymen Chacon and Clute Opposing Assembly Bill 2190
which would make Election by Ward Mandatory in all Cities in
California.
Mr. Lyman Burhop, 1162 Pennsylvania, addressed the Council,
stating that he feels this bill should be supported, and if
the Council votes in opposition he would like to have their
reasons stated in open session. He thinks this is the best
piece of legislation that we have had in some time. It
would make the Council Members more responsive to the people
where they are elected from if they come out of wards.
Council Member Connors agreed with Mr. Burhop on the system
of voting by' wards, when the community is large enough in
which to do it, or a c�i.strict in which to do it or a County,
or a City the size of San Bernardino, where you would be
more accutely aware of what your constituents wanted because
you would be covering a smaller location. However, in the
City of Beaumont, and in small cities, it is difficult, at
best, to find five people to run for office that are
qualified to do so. It is also very difficult to only think
of the people in your area when you are voting. It has
never even occurred to her to cast a vote which would
benefit only her area, or only her precinct, because the
City is not that large. The one thing that bothered her
about the request is that she did not know when she put the
request on the agenda, because she had found out so late
about the bill, that there are other assembly members that
letters should be mailed to. She also asked if it would be
appropriate to send a letter from the Council itself.
The City Attorney said this should be handled in the form of
Page 8
Beaumont City Council
March 23, 1987
a resolution rather than letter, as this is the way it has
been done in the past
Council Member Connors remphasized that her reason for
supporting opposition to the bill is it is very difficult in
small cities, to find good qualified people to run for
office in a City that does not have a large population. As
a result, she does not think Beaumont needs the ward system,
but if Beaumont were a large City, we certainly would.
Council Member Waller asked if this bill passed, it would
not affect Beaumont because we do not have the ward system,
and was advised that it would affect Beaumont, in fact would
affect every City in Cali ornia.
Mayor Partain stated he had a problem with the State telling
cities they have to have wards. He feels this should be
left to the City to decide.
The City Manager pointed out that every ten years we would
have to redraw the lines, which can become a problem itself;
And, secondly, there is the possibility of small suits being
filed- between the ten year periods because of a discrepancy
in the numbering due to development in one area, and not the
other. He then recommended two articles that were in the
Western Cities magazine addressing this issue.
Council Member Russo feels the best interest of the citizens
of Beaumont are served the way the present system stands.
In big cities you do need wards, and you do need to
be able to represent the interest of groups within a large
community, but in Beaumont it would best serve the interest
of everyone without those kinds of lines drawn - without the
division that those kinds of politics create. He would
therefore oppose this bill.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Russo, directing the City staff to draft a resolution
opposing Assembly Bill 2190, making elections by ward
mandatory in all cities in California, to be sent to all
State Assembly and State Senate members.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
12. Consideration of Appointment to Fill Unexpired Term of City
Clerk, or Calling a Special Election.
The City Manager presented his report advising the thirty
day period within which to make an appointment to fill the
seat of City Clerk for the unexpired term will be up
tonight, and if appointment is not made, they will be
required to fill the seat by special election. The way the
election code reads now, the special election would be set
for the next regular election within a certain time frame,
therefore, this would be set for November since the election
in June will occur less than the minimum number of days
within which the election can take place.
Council Member Russo pointed out that currently most of the
work that is required of a City Clerk is generally done by
the Deputy Clerks and is part of the regular business day of
the City Manager and the City Manager's secretary. He feels
this is an excellent opportunity for the Council to take
Page 9
advantage of their ability to
Interim City Clerk to fill the
then look at the City- Clerk's
the Council can discuss this,
the City Manager's secretary
period of time to see if that
Beaumont City Council
March 23, 1987
appoint the City Manager as an
remainder of this term, and
situation in 1989. He hopes
and allow the City Manager and
to perform those duties for a
can be effective for the City.
Council Member Shaw agreed with Council Member Russo,
feeling the appointment would be appropriate rather than a
special election.
Council Member Connors stated she has always felt there
should be a full time City Clerk, and she should have an
autonomy from the City Manager's office. But she realizes
that you can't always have what you want, since the fact
that no one has applied for the position is indicative of
the difficulty the City would have. And calling an election
to fill a position that no one has even shown an interest in
having the position, is something else again.
Mrs. Connors stated further, that if a motion were made to
appoint the City Manager, she would hope the motion would be
made to appoint Mr. Bounds, rather than the City Manager.
Mayor Partain pointed out this is the way it would have to
be since you are appointing an individual, not an office.
Council. Member Waller asked if Mr. Bounds would be able to
handle the additional load, and it was indicated this would
not add anything not already being done in the City
Manager's office.
Fie then asked if Mr. Bounds would receive any stipend for
this additional duty.
Mr. Bounds recommended that if a resolution is made to
appoint him, an individual, with the title City Manager
having nothing to do with it (the person serving must be a
registered voter, and the City Manager, by title, is not
necessarily a registered voter), but by appointing him as an
individual, (and he is a registered voter in the City), he
would ask them.to consider putting the salary for the City
Clerk position for himself by name, at zero dollars per
month.
Council Member Waller then asked how many cities in the
State of California, currently, have this arrangement, and
was advised -there are seventy -one cities, including both
small-and large cities.
He then said it had been alluded that there would be no
separation between the office of the City Manager and the
City Clerk if they were combined, and wondered if anyone had
any problem at this time.
Council Members Connors and Shaw both indicated they could
see no problem in this particular case.
Council Member Russo stated the way that issue is protected
is by appointing Mr. Bounds as an individual, not as City
Manager. In other words, if the appointment is made this
would not mean that whoever is City Manager would be City
Clerk.' When 1989 comes along we may have people who wish to
run for City Clerk, or we may not, and could address it at
that time. He feels we should give it a test to see
Page 10
Beaumont City Council
March 23, 1987
if there are any conflicts, and relying on his own
experiences he knows for a fact that 99% of the Clerk's
responsibilities are being handled by the City Manager and
his secretary on an ongoing basis, and have been.
Council Member Connors questioned whether, under the City
Clerk ordinance, that you had to pay the salary, and was
informed this is not the case. You cannot pay more, but
you can pay less.
The City Manager pointed out that of the 71 cities, many of
these are City Managers serving as City Clerk. They have
found the elected City Clerk is not working, and have put it
on the ballot and made it become appointed.
Council Member Waller questioned whether or not this
decision could be held for reconsideration in November, and
then after that period of time, reappoint at that time, and
was advised they have to appoint for the unexpired term, or
go to the election and the appointee would serve until the
election.
Mayor Partain felt certain points that were brought out were
very important, as follows:
a. The City Manager's office is now doing the work of the
the City Clerk, and has been.
b. That people were under the impression that this Council
was going to appoint the City Clerk from now on, and it
has been brought out that only the voters can change
the position from elected to appointed. This
appointment will fill an unexpired term only.
RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -21 Appointing Robert J. Bounds, as
City C er .
Motion by Council Member Russo, second by Council Member
Shaw, to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -21 appointing Robert J.
Bounds as City Clerk to fill the unexpired term of Irene
Joyce Sweeney, with the compensation for this position being
zero dollars.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo
and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
1
13. Consideration of Award of Bid for Police Patrol Vehicles.
The City Manager presented.his report to the City Council
advising only one bid was received, from Swift Dodge of
Sacramento. Their bid represents a savings of $983.87 below
the base State bid. His complete report concerning this bid
is a matter of record in the Clerk's file.
Motion by Council Member Russo, second by Council Member
Connors to award the bid for police patrol vehicles to Swift
Dodge, 6250 East Florin Road, Sacramento, California, in the
amount of $10,589.07 each; purchase three (3) vehicles at a
cost of $31,767.21 from Swift Dodge; and authorize an over
budget expenditure of $8,242.21 from Account No. 2050 -6060,
Police Department - Vehicles.
Page 11
Beaumont City Council
March 23, 1987
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Russo and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Council Member Waller.
Let the record show Council Member Waller was excused at
9:12 P.M., returning to his seat at 9:17 P.M.
14. CONSENT CALENDAR - All items listed under the Consent
Calendar are considered to be routine by the City Council
and will be approved by one motion. There will be no
separate discussion of these items unless a Council Member
or Citizen so requests, in which case the item will be
removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a
separate item.
a. Approval of Minutes of Regular City Council Meeting of
March 9, 1987, as amended.
b. Acceptance of Minutes of Regular Planning Commission
Meeting of March 3, 1987.
C. Approval of Warrants as Audited per Warrant List of
March 23,';1987, in the amount of $145,477.09; and
Payroll of March 5, 1987,.in the amount of $38,543.16.
d. Acceptance of Resignation of Ruby Thomas from Senior
Advisory Commission.
f. Report of Action by Planning Commission at Meeting of
March 17, 1987.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Russo, to adopt the Consent Calender excluding Item No. "e",
and with a corrected warrant list total shown of
$145,477.09, said correction being due to the fact that
Check No. 5969, in the amount of $147,264.97, payable to the
Riverside County Fire Department, was voided after
publication of the warrant list due to an incorrect billing
to the City. Anew billing will be resubmitted and a new
warrant will be issued at a later date.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Russo, ..to. amend Council Member Shaw's motion, to make an
addition to'-the minutes of March 9, Item No. 9, that
concerns were raised4 and questions asked by the Council
concerning the proposed airport at Moreno valley.
t
VOTE-TAKEN ON AMENDMENT -TO MOTION:
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo
and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION CARRIED.
VOTE TAKEN ON MAIN MOTION:
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo
and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Page 12
Beaumont City Council
March 23, 1987
MAIN MOTION CARRIED AS AMENDED.
14.e Authorization for Mayor to Execute Subdivision Agreement
with Paul Turner, Inc.
Council Member Waller asked that this be removed from the
Consent Calendar in order to state certain concerns. He
asked if this is a normal procedure, and was informed by the
City Manager that it is. He then wanted to know if Mr.
Turner is aware of this agreement, and was advised a copy
was sent to him, and he knows that you have to have a
subdivision agreement when you have a subdivision, that it
has been written, that you have to have a surety bond, and
he is prepared for that; he knows the amount that was
estimated to be the cost of the public improvements, which
came from his engineer, and the City Engineer has checked
them; he knows the maps have been finally completed and
turned over to our City Engineer and checked; he knows that
he has to have an insurance policy that lists the City as an
additional insured for this project; he knows the type of
things that are talked about, soils report, compaction
reports and so forth are required, and that he has to
furnish as -built drawings to us.
It was also pointed out all of these things are standard
with subdivisions, and since the time that Mr. Waller has
been on the Council this is only the second subdivision
agreement that we have had. The first one approved by the
Council was at a meeting at which Mr. Waller was absent due
to illness.
As additional information to the Council, the City Manager
informed them that at the time the houses are ready for
inspection, he has reached an agreement with the City of
Banning building inspector to do this inspection, since Mr.
Turner is the City of Beaumont's building inspector.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Shaw, to authorize the Mayor to execute the subdivision
agreement with Paul Turner, Inc.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo
and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
15. Recess to Closed Session Pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(a) to Confer with Its Attorney Regarding Pending
Litigations Which Have Been Initiated Formally and to Which
the City is a Party. The title of the litigations are as
follows:
a. Beaumont - Cherry Valley Recreation and Park District vs
City of Beaumont, Case No. 184660, Riverside Superior
Court.
b. Identification of such litigation would jeopardize the
City's ability to conclude existing settlement
negotiations to its advantage.
The meeting was recessed to Closed Session at 9:30 P.M.
The meeting was reconvened to regular session at 10:11 P.M.
Page 13
Beaumont City Council
March 23, 1987
Let the record show that a report was given regarding
litigation, and direction given to the attorney, but no
definitive action was taken.
16. Consideration of Approval of Suggested Programs for the 75th
Anniversary as Submitted by the Steering Committee.
The suggested programs for the 75th Anniversary Celebration
as recommended by the Steering Committee were reviewed by
the Council and questions asked of Chairman lied Hicks.
Amendments to the suggested programs were made as follows:
Item No. l.b: Change wording, "City to Provide" to read
"City will arrange ".
Item No. 3.a: Delete the words "Kiwanis and /or Soroptimist
Club to sponsor ".
Item No. 3.c: Delete the words, "under direction of Cherry
Festival Association, Lions Club and /or City employees ".
Item No. 3.d: Delete the words, "built by Chamber of
Commerce or City employees ".
Item No. 4.b: Delete the words "Cost estimates from $3,500
for about 10 minutes to $7,000 for about 30 minutes. Clubs
and businesses will be asked for donations ".
Add an additional item indicating events especially planned
for.the youth of the area.
Add an additional item for City employee open house of
facilities and display of City equipment.
Add an additional item to investigate the possibility of
having the police inspection for the public.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Connors, to accept the suggested programs for the 75th
Anniversary for the City of Beaumont as outlined by the
steering committee, as amended.
There being no opposition, the motion carried with four ayes
and one absent.
Let the record show Council Member Shaw was excused at 10:09
P.M., immediately following the Closed Session.
18. Notice of Vacancy on Planning Commission.
Motion by Council Member Russo, second by Council Member
Connors, directing City Clerk to post a thirty day notice
requesting applications to fill the seat that is now vacant
to serve the unexpired term of Larry Gordon, with
application closing date of April 23, 1987.
There being no opposition, the motion carried with four ayes
one absent.
17. Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Russo, to adjourn this meeting to Monday, March 30, 1987, at
4 :30 P.M., in the City Manager's Conference Room, to discuss
the use of all City facilities.
Page 14
Beaumont City Council
March 23, 1987
There being no opposition, the motion carried with four
ayes, one absent.
Date set for next regular Study Session, Monday, April 13, 1987,
at 6:30 P.M., in the City Manager's Conference Room.
Date set for next regular Council Meeting, Monday, April 13,
1987, at 7:30 P.M., in the City Council Chambers.
Meeting Adjourned to Monday, March 30, 1987, at 4:30 P.M., in the
City Mana.ger's Conference.Room at -10:50 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Page 15
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
ADJOURNED MEETING OF MARCH 30, 1987
(Adjourned from March 23, 1987)
The Beaumont City Council met in an adjourned meeting at 4:32
P.M., on Monday, March 30, 1987, in the City Manager's Conference
Room, that meeting having been adjourned from the regular meeting
of March 23, 1987, with mayor Partain presiding.
On Roll Call the following Council Members were present:
Connors, Shaw, Russo and Mayor Partain. Let the record show
Council Member Waller arrived at 4:50 P.M, during the
demonstration of the.Beaumont Police Department K -9.
The meeting was recessed at 4:32 to observe a demonstration of
the Beaumont Police Department K -9, reconvening at 5:00 P.M.
1. Clerk's Affidavit of Posting.
- The Clerk's affidavit of posting the agenda was read into
the record by the Deputy City Clerk.
2. Adjustments to Agenda.
There were no adjustments to the agenda.
3. Consideration of Use, Fee Structure and Needs of all City
Facilities.
Mayor Partain opened the discussion of the use, fee
structure and needs of all City facilities, by suggesting
the report from the City Manager concerning use of City
facilities for the past two years be reviewed item by item.
Council Member Waller asked what the purpose of the meeting
is. Are they going to establish guidelines or rules for the
use of City facilities. Will they be eliminating or opening
up other possibilities, and are they talking about the
building.
Council Member Russo asked who is managing the use of the
building, with the City Manager indicating his office is
responsible for the scheduling.
ti
Council Member Waller then asked what procedure should be
used if they feel they should go in a different direction.
Would it be based strictly on seniority, or do they have
' the discretion to phase out one kind and then bring in
another.
The City Manager indicated all agreements for use are
revocable in thirty days. There is nothing signed
indicating the users have the use forever. There is a
statement at the bottom of the form of application and
permit which indicates the City reserves the right to revoke
the permit at any time subject to thirty day notice.
Council Member Connors pointed out the.boxing club does not
have that kind of a permit, with the City Manager responding
that they have permission from the Council to use it until
May at this time on a temporary basis.
Page 1
Beaumont City Council
March 30, 1987
Answering a question from Council Member Russo, the City
Manager advised the boxing club is using the room now. They
have submitted proof of insurance which is good for a year.
The Council is to give them an answer regarding their future
use on May 11.
The first facility listed in the report is the gymnasium,
with Item No. 1 being Jazzercise. The City Manager
indicated they pay a full fee based on the fees establised
in 1983.
Council Member Waller inquired if the fees were in line with
the cost of utilities, etc., and was advised they were
probably not adequate since there has been no increase since
1983. He also wanted to know if Jazzercise has a business
license, and was advised that she does.
Council Member Russo stated he was not interested in the
details of who is using the building and how they use it, as
much as he is interested in taking a look at whether we have
enough facilities, want to expand the facilities, and want
to raise the fees. Usage of the facility should be left up
to the individuals applying, and taking a look at the fee
schedule and saying to themselves, "do I want to rent space
in this building for what they want ". Iie would rather take
the approach that the Council be concerned about just the
building and if it is enough space to provide activities for
the community as they need it, and what the fees should be
by the City to cover our expenses to operate the building
and the staff, and that is the issue as far as he is
concerned.
So far as who is using it, it should be on the basis of who
is willing to pay the fees, and meet the insurance
requirements, and it is available for them.
Council Member Russo continued with the statement that it is
nice to have all these details, but he is not as interested
in that as he is the fees and the insurance and the
liability problems, and usage for the community. A well
rounded facility for usage, and he feels that is what they
should base their discussion on today - whether or not this
facility is adequate as it presently stands, whether or not
we make additions to it, or upgrade it, or whatever it might
be, and if the Council feels that is the case, they should
discuss what they plan to do with that, and then talk about
what it is going to cost for people to use it, and that
should be the issues.,
Council Member Waller felt it should be discussed and
decided whether the City is going to - and has the money to
- get into the operation or the providing of programs
ourselves, or whether we are going to co -op with Parks and
Recreation Department.
Council Member Shaw asked if there were any conflicts in the
use of the building. The City Manager indicated when
someone asks to use the building, it is coordinated with all
other uses already scheduled.
Council Member Waller indicated the present scheduling may
be preventing other programs that we might want to use it.
Mayor Partain said he is not opposed, from the standpoint of
the - City, of the City establishing programs, but when you
Page 2
Beaumont City Council
March 30, 1987
are indicating at this point what we offer, we offer nothing
at this time. We offer the building, and that is all. From
there if the Council decides they want to look into the
feasibility of starting its own programs within the City,
that would be fine, but we don't offer anything now.
Council Member Russo pointed out that if they were going to
talk about doing that, they should also talk about funding a
position for somebody to manage it, because you cannot
expect the City Manager, his secretary, or present staff to
start a recreation department in this City. Ile is not
opposed to the concept, but it should be determined where
the funding is going to come from to manage the position,
and you are going to need one. You cannot burden the City
Manager and his secretary with the recreation program. He
emphasized he is not saying we don't need it, he thinks it
is a great idea, but the first approach that should be taken
is facilities, fees and whether we want to get into the
business of the whole scheduling process. He doesn't feel
the Council wants to get into that. The staff is here to do
that. He doesn't feel the Council wants to get into the
business of determining who is going to use it or who isn't.
It should be based upon the fact of whether or not they want
to pay the fees.
Council Member Connors said that she would like to see the
Council be able to solve the problem of the half fees, the
full fees and-the' no fees, and the equipment stored on the
floor of the gym. All of which seems fairly uncomplicated
to her. They do need to talk about Room 12 as they have a
deadline on Room 12. And that is what she feels are the
kinds of things they should be discussing.
Council Member Russo stated the whole issue is to establish
a fee for all use of the building.
Council Member Connors pointed out we have fees. What she
meant about being uncomplicated is that everyone should pay
the same fee.
Council Member Russo agreed with that, and is willing to
have discussion centered on that issue of fees, but not on
who is going to use it and who is not going to use it.
Mayor Partain said he personally agrees that we should look
at the fees. The fees are the issue primarily. One reason
he had suggested they take them one at a time was so they
could have the opportunity to see the difference in the fees
that are paid. However, if they have all done their
homework, they can see the difference in everything. He
also agreed that, from the standpoint of the Council, thev
do not want to get into the scheduling aspect. They should
not be involved in that. He also believes if a recreation
district is established within the City, that is an
altogether different thing.
Council Member Waller - suggested we also have the
availability of co -oping with the present Parks and
Recreation District, who seem to have an easier way of
insuring their programs than what the City has.
Mayor Partain indicated he did not understand - why would
the Park and Recreation District have an easier time of
insuring their programs.
Page 3
Beaumont City Council
March 30, 1987
The City Manager clarified the City self- insures up to
.$25,000,_ and_over that we.are insured for all facilities or
programs.
Attention was then directed to the current fee schedule,
with the City Manager pointing out that Room 5, 6 and 11 are
no longer available for rental purposes.
Council Member Shaw asked if these fees are adequate to take
care of the maintenance, cleaning up, etc. Will the City go
into the red, or break even. He doesn't want the City to
make any money, but he doesn't want the City to have to
subsidize these activities in order to come out even. Just
have the people pay what is necessary to maintain the
facilities.
Council Member Russo said the small rooms should rent for
$15.00 an hour, since you can't rent a small room for
meetings anywhere else for $15.00.
Council Member Shaw felt the City should differentiate
between services the City can render, and outsiders coming
in to use the facilities.
Council Member Connors wanted clarification that the fee
proposed would be $15.00 an hour for Room 12 whether there
were people in it, or whenever it is tied up.
Council Member Waller said it should be whenever it is tied
up, as it couldn't be used for any other purpose.
Council Member Russo stated that under certain circumstances
where equipment is necessary, and needed to be stored on a
regular basis, that perhaps a lease agreement could be
negotiated on an annual basis. That would set a rate for
the use of the room, and that rate should be consistent with
the same kind of space out in the community.
Council Member Connors agreed with this, stating that if you
went $15.00 an hour for the entire time the Civic Center was
open, it would be ridiculous.
Council Member Russo did feel it should be comparatively the
same as space for rent outside, warehouse space, or
whatever. If they wanted to charge commercial space, that
would be another story.
Council Member ConnoAs asked if the Council wanted to open
Room 12 to the whole community to see if anyone else wants
to rent it, other than on an annual basis.
c
Answering a question from Council Member Russo, it was
determined that Room 12 contains over 1400 sq.ft., not
counting the supply room.
At 25 cents a sq.ft. that would calculate to $350.00 a
month. Warehouse space is going for 25 to 40 cents.
Council Member Connors wondered if $15.00 an hour was an
appropriate fee. The City Manager calculated the $350.00 a
month figure into a daily figure, resulting in $11.66 a day.
Council Member Russo said whenever you rent a room on an
hourly basis, $15.00 is not a lot of money for two or three
hours.
Page 4
Council Member Connors indicated the
because under Proposition 13 the City
a profit, and she wondered if that
without making a profit.
Beaumont City Council
March 30, 1987
reason she is asking is
is not allowed to make
covered the expense
The City Manager said it would be very difficult to cover
the total expense including, down the road, repairs that
have to be made to the rooms that are being rented out. The
traffic would not bear the amount of money that it would
cost for you to ever make money.
Council Member Russo raised the question, if someone said
they wanted to rent a room, technically the room is empty.
They say we need three tables, we need 200 chairs. We have
to provide people to set the tables up, set the chairs up,
set the room up. When it is finished, we go in and clean it
up. The City could have two hours plus in labor involved in
one meeting.
The City Manager agreed that we do this to a certain extent
at this time. The way our fees are now, the user is
supposed to leave it clean. In most cases, we get a
cleaning deposit, and we retain that deposit if they don't
clean it up. The regular users are not charged this
deposit. Jazzercise, for instance, is no problem. They
treat the facility better than anyone else, so we don't
charge.them for cleaning.
The fees
charged by..the Recreation
and Parks District
were
brought
up, and the City Manager
pointed out their
fees
include a
fee for a staff member.
It figures out that
you
are paying
a facility fee plus staff
for the first hour,
and
then you
are paying for staff only for
all additional hours.
It was pointed out by the City Manager that you could not
have the boxing club in Room 12 and have anybody else rent
it, so the issue is are you going to charge the boxing club.
Mayor Partain disagreed, saying that you still need to set a
small room fee before you do anything else.
The City Manager said if they are to use it, they are going
to be a special case in a small room.
Council Member Connors replied
statement saying, unless the City
everyone for usage of it, and the
like everyone else. . Maybe they
Maybe a lot of different groups
different times. Maybe they won't
to the City Manager's
accepts applications from
boxing club applied just
won't be the one using it.
will be renting it at
want to rent it at all.
Mayor Partain said that is the whole thing. He doesn't know
what the Council is going to decide, but a basic fee needs
to be set, because the Council does not know if the boxing
club is going to be interested in it if the Council decides
they are going to pay a fee.
Council Member Russo then suggested $15.00 for the first
hour, $25.00 for two hours, and then $5.00 for every hour
after that. So if you have the room for four hours, you pay
$35.00, or $55.00 for an eight hour day.
Responding to a question from Mayor Partain, it was
determined the square footage in the Council Chamber is 1173
square feet, therefore, it is smaller than the boxing room,
Page 5
Beaumont City Council
March 30, 1987
and these are the only two rooms we have except for the
gymnasium, so, basically, the proposed fee should apply to
both rooms.
Council Member Russo then suggested that it just be called
room fee, $15.00, $25.00, $5.00 for each additional hour.
We only have the two rooms anyway. That could be the per
hour and day fee. Then you could have a second fee, long
term usage fee would be 25 cents per sq.ft. where the room
is going to be tied up, or where there is going to be
storage space. And if the gymnasium equipment needs to be
stored, they should be charged a storage fee according to
the amount of space they use.
Council Member Connors pointed out there isn't any storage
space in the gymnasium.
Council Member Russo clarified what he is saying is we come
to the gymnasium, and they set a fee on the gymnasium, and
we say either they cannot store equipment there, or they
can. That has to be decided too. And that will have to be
across - the -board for everybody. Or you say if you have
equipment you have to store, it is going to cost you 35
cents a sq.ft., or whatever you are going to charge. That
is what they are talking about - fees.
The City Manager brought out that one of the things to
remember is that the gymnastic equipment does not belong to
the instructor. It belongs to the Pass area through the
Laura Stewart fund. And according to the Laura Stewart
Committee it cannot be removed from the Pass area.
Mayor Partain asked that the discussion return to
consideration of the fee for small rooms.
ESTABLISHING A FEE SCHEDULE FOR RENTAL OF ROOM 12 AND
COUNCIL CHAMBERS:
Motion by Council Member Russo, second by Council Member
Waller, to set the fees for the rooms that are available for
rent, excluding the gymnasium, at $15.00 for the first hour,
$25.00 for two hours, and $5.00 for each additional hour.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo
and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None. }
ABSENT: None.
Let the record show, that after the motion, but prior to the
vote, Council Member Waller indicated that during labor
negotiations at the school district, they used the Council
Chamber during the day, and were not charged. The City
Manager advised we have a reciprocal agreement with the
school district, and Council Member Waller asked what the
City received in return. The City Manager said he didn't
know exactly, but felt that would include the City using the
school district's gym. And if that is not the case, then
the school district should be charged. So far as the labor
negotiations, if they are charged, then it would be half to
the school district, and half to the union.
The City Manager requested that
be restricted to meeting type of
other activities of this type.
Page 6
use of the Council Chamber
use, not dances, sports or
Beaumont City Council
March 30, 1987
There was additional discussion, and it was determined that
the Council Chamber would not be suitable for any other type
of use other than meetings.
In response to a question from Council Member Connors, there
was general discussion regarding who pays and who does not
pay. It was pointed out all private groups pay. Those who
do not pay are usually other local government agencies, the
County, the school district, and groups who are providing a
service to the community, such as the Conservation District.
Mayor Partain felt that any group, regardless of its
affiliation, should be charged a clean up fee if we have to
clean up after them, and Council Member Russo stted
everyone should be charged.
Council Member Connors did not feel there is a problem with
the Council Chambers. The discretion that has been used is
fine: It is the gymnasium -that seems to be out of whack.
Mayor Partain agreed with this. It was pointed out that
certain uses such as the Drug Abuse Council have members
from the City governments of both Beaumont and Banning, and
when they meet in Banning, there is no charge. Council
Member Russo also agreed that he had no problem with the way
the Council Chamber has been rented out, and the decision as
to who,pays and who does not. There has to be some give.
.Council Member Waller had questions concerning the
differences in the total amount paid by different groups,
and was advised this is determined by the number of hours it
is used by the different groups.
The City Manager did feel that something needs to be
established regarding non - profit.
It was brought out at this time that the Council needed to
set an effective date for these fee changes, as it would not
be fair to change them without notice to the regular users,
as well as those who have already scheduled facilities for
the next couple of months.
ESTABLISHING EFFECTIVE DATE FOR NEW FEE SCHEDULE:
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Russo, that the new fee schedule will go into effect at the
beginning of the 1987 -88 fiscal year, or July 1, 1987.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
The City Manager requested that at the next meeting
scheduled for discussion of the use of the facilities,
the Council discuss those that will be charged, and those
that will not be charged or are exempt.
It was also brought out at this point, that the Registrar of
Voters pays a fee to other polling places in the City,
therefore, they should be charged a fee for the use of the
two City facilities they use as polling places, which are
the Council Chamber and the Fire Station.
It was determined that additional policies and procedures,
such as the additional charge for use after 10:00, or on a
weekend, when City staff is not normally in the building,
would be discussed at the next meeting.
Page 7
Beaumont City Council
March 30, 1987
Council Member Russo requested additional discussion on the
concept of long term usage based on a square foot charge.
Council Member Waller asked how much it would be to rent the
boxing room based on that concept, and was advised it would
be $350.00 a month.
Council Member Russo stated he didn't know if the City
wanted to get into the business of saying we will lease a
room out, since the only room we have is Room 12. That is
the only room, besides the Council Chamber, that we have
available for meetings, to allow the community to use. The
Senior Center has taken the whole side of the building and
the rest of the offices are used by the City. So, if the
boxing room stays there, then we have only one other room
for all other organizations - when the City and the Planning
Commission or whoever else, isn't using it - we have only
one room available to people in the community to use. That
is not fair for a community of our size.
Council Member Russo went on to say if someone wants to tie
up a room, then we give them a break on the fee if we are
going to do that, 25 cents a square foot is a break on the
fee from the hourly rate. We either say this will be the
fee, or we just don't establish that, and we say everything
has to be rented by the hour. That will run the boxing club
right out of business, if we say it must be done by the
hour, which is not fair.
Council Member Waller suggested perhaps they could take
their equipment down, and he still thinks that can be done.
Council Member Russo said what he has thought about many
times was if they could charge those kids participating in
their program $10.00 a month, they could raise enough money
to pay their space rental. Or perhaps find sponsors within
the community. There certainly hasn't been enough of that
to support the on -going program. For special events there
has been a lot of support. Council Member Shaw has
supported them in the past, and a lot of other people as
well, but not on an on -going basis. If it is a viable
program, therd should be other people who would provide some
funds to support it.
Council Member Shaw indicated he thought there were only six
or seven people who have been supporting it.
Council Member Russo felt there could be more if they made
an effort. If the City is going to say the boxing club, or
whoever, might want to tie up a room, then there ought to be
a fee associated with it. Fie really didn't feel it was fair
to the community to tie up a room with one group. That is
the first question.
Council Member Shaw said in the past no one ever wanted to
use the facilities. Now, all of a sudden, we are getting
requests from everyone. He really doesn't want to kick them
out.
Council Member Russo asked if he thought it was fair to set
a square footage fee, and allow them an opportunity to do
it.
Council Member Shaw indicated he would be amenable to
something like that. If that is what it is going to take,
Page 8
Beaumont City Council
March 30, 1987
we will have to do it. But to just exclude the Boxing Club
- the Council should make it some way that they can do it.
Mr. Shaw went on to say these youngsters don't come from an
affluent_ society. They are kids whose parents are ecking
out an existence. They don't make enough to foot a bill
like that. That is why he has been donating all this time,
because if these kids didn't have that, you would never
know what they would be out doing - stealing, or whatever -
it keeps them off the street.
Council Member Waller asked about the middle class youngster
that would not join the boxing club. Does that mean that he
is deprived use of the room.
The question regarding the mobility of the ring was brought
up. again, and.it was indicated the ring in Room 12 was not
portable. There is a portable ring under the stage in the
gym.
Council Member Waller said he didn't think they had really
looked into it enough. He doesn't think they want to look
into the possibility of finding something that can be
collapsible in a short amount of time. He hasn't seen any
initiative on their part to find something. All you hear is
no, it can't be done. He wondered if they expect the City
to go out and find something for them, or what.
Council Member Russo commented he would like to see both
rooms spruced up, painted, purchase enough chairs and
tables, so we could provide good meeting space in the
community. He is not really hot on the idea of renting on
long term to any one group or individual. If we have to
make a concession, it has to be by square footage. He
thinks we have two issues before us. First issue, do we
want to tie up any of these facilities on a long term to any
one particular group or individual.
The City Manager pointed out they will also be dealing with
another group or groups in the future, and that will be boy
and girl scouts.
Council Member Russo said he would be willing to concede on
the square footage basis if we have to do it.
Council Member Connors indicated she was not interested in
doing it either. She feels the room should be turned back
into a room and renped out to the public just like the
other.
- Council Member Waller stated we are not actually saying that
it couldn't be used by the boxing if there was a means of
them putting up and taking down their ring, with Council
Member Russo emphasizing "on an hourly basis ".
Council Member Connors asked if he meant without bolting
things to the floor. And will they clean it up and leave it
for the next person that wants to rent it. She doesn't see
that happening.
Council Member Russo pointed out if that were the case they
wouldn't want to use Room 12, they would want to use the
gym.
The City Manager said you would be looking at more money
then. There is 5,000 square feet without the stage.
Page 9
Beaumont City Council
March 30, 1987
Council Member Russo clarified that whatever the fee for the
gymnasium would be, would be their fee for usage.
Council blember. Connors stated if they used the gym they
couldn't leave all their equipment sitting around the edges.
Mayor Partain brought the discussion back to the issue of
whether or not they want to make a motion to establish a
square footage fee. He has seen no interest by anybody to
do that, so he assumes they have come to a decision as far
as the rooms are concerned, they will be strictly on an
hourly basis. It would seem to him that under the
guidelines they have set down, that in order for the boxing
club to remain there they will have to pay at least $55.00
for eight hours, or $1,650.00 a month.
The Council is to give the boxing club an answer concerning
the use of Room 12 on May 11, 1987.
The discussion was now directed to the gymnasium fee
schedule.
Council Member Russo pointed out the gymnasium is a very
large facility, and the normal cost to rent space such as
the gymnasium for a wedding reception is $500.00, or more.
He used the Catholic Youth Hall as an example, which is not
as large as our gymnasium.
The City Manager reminded the Council that most of these
facilities have a kitchen, which we do not, and that makes a
difference.
Council Member Russo then stated if we take off for a
kitchen, it would be a minimum of $200.00 a night, which is
$50.00 an hour. There are two issues - one the party issue,
which requires more clean -up - and the other is
athletic events - and the fee should be set up separately
for each, keeping in mind those events having food would
require even more clean -up.
The Council directed their attention to athletic events
usage as the first item to be considered for a fee schedule.
It was the concensus of the Council that the fees were too
low, but on the other hand they did not want to increase the
fee to the point it would shut people out.
Council Member Connors said the gymnastics group is a profit
making group, and are only paying half, while the volley
ball team just uses it to play volley ball, and they pay the
full amount. In addition the gymnastics is paying half, but
their equipment is taking up part of the floor, taking up
the room so the volley ball team cannot utilize the entire
floor. She feels some thought should be given to that, and
they should consider whether we are renting it to
professionals, or to the general public who just wants to
use it for a little bit.
Council Member Shaw said in essence, she is saying the more
affluent they are, the more we charge them.
Council Member Connors indicated she thought certainly that
Jack LaLane should pay more than Dionne Greene.
Council Member Shaw was in total agreement with this.
Page 10
Beaumont City Council
March 30, 1987
Council Member Connors said the difference would be they are
part of this community, they are not professionals coming
in for a profit, with Council Member Waller stating the
service is being offered to the community.
Council Member Russo felt the City has to be careful about
how the determination is made. Are we going to require a
financial statement from everybody who wants to rent the
gym. What we should say is either inside or outside of the
community. That would be the best way to do it. Resident
or non - resident fees.
Council Member Shaw agreed, stating that taxpayers within
the City should get some kind of break. Let the non-
resident pay a little more.
Mayor Partain asked what if the person renting the facility
is a non - resident, but everyone using the class is a
resident. What do you do then.
Council Member Russo said it was very simple - set the fee,
and suggested $30.00 for the first hour, $45.00 for two
hours, $10.00 for each additional hour for athletic events.
Discussion followed concerning these suggested fees,
including a comment from Council Member Connors that this
should. also mean we are renting the entire gymnasium, not
just the part that doesn't have equipment stored on it. If
we don't have the facility to store something, then we
shouldn't rent it to them.
ESTABLISHING A FEE SCHEDULE FOR RENT OF GYMNASIUM FOR
ATHLETIC AND FINE ARTS EVENTS:
Motion by Council Member Russo, second by Council Member
Connors, to establish the following fees for athletic and
fine arts events for use of the gymnasium:
$30.00 for the first hour.
$45.00 for two hours.
$10.00 per hour for each additional hour.
With the new fees to be effective July 1, 1987.
During discussion following the motion, Council Member
Waller asked- if there would be a reduced fee for youth
programs. The gymnastics class was used as an example due
to the fact the City -,gave them a reduced rate to help them
get established, or see if they could make a "go" of the
program. They are now established, and this should no
longer apply to them, as the students taking part in the
program pay a fee. Council Member Russo said if the City
were to sponsor something for the youth, we would provide
the facilities. It is a separate issue. It is not fair for
someone to come in, say we are doing this for the youth, and
expect the City to charge no fee, when they are charging a
fee to the kids.
VOTE TAKEN ON MOTION:
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo
and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Page 11
Beaumont City Council
March 30, 1987
Council Member Waller brought the issue of insurance up, and
was advised by the City Manager that it is his personal
opinion that unorganized groups, such as volley ball, would
be unable to get insurance. Other groups, such as school
districts., have insurance and can make the City an
additional insured on their policy. If there is a wedding
reception, or a shower, unless you were very affluent, you
would not be able to get a one day insurance policy. If the
Council considers requiring every group to have insurance,
they might just as well say only organized groups can use
the facility.
Council Member Shaw questioned in the event they don't have
insurance, and something happens, is the City liable, with
the City Manager replying it would be the same thing as the
parks, the swimming pool - we are liable everytime someone
walks out there. If we don't allow anyone to use a City
facility unless they have insurance, we would have to close
the parks, the swimming pool, and anything else in the City
that might be used by the public. We have insurance which
covers this type of liability.
The City Manager continued, saying what should take place is
those who can purchase insurance at a reasonable rate be
required to do so whenever possible.
The Council then discussed fees for use of the gymnasium for
social events, with Council Member Russo suggesting $50.00
for one hour, $80.00 for two hours and $20.00 per hour for
each additional hour.
The question was brought up if this would apply to all
social events, since there are a variety of uses from pot
lucks to wedding receptions.
Mayor Partain suggested the fee be the same, but charge more
for the clean -up deposit.
Council Member Waller also
required for set -up and cl,
commenting it takes at least
half the time they are going
decorated or set -up, no one
no one else can use it until
pointed out additional time is
san -up, with the City Manager
two hours to get ready, almost
to use it. Once they have it
else can use the facility, and
it has been cleaned up.
There was discussion regarding charging a larger cleaning
deposit for certain uses, but no specific fee was set.
3
ESTABLISHING A FEE SCHEDULE FOR RENT OF GYMNASIUM FOR SOCIAL
EVENTS:
Motion by Council Member Russo, second by Council Member
Waller, that the fees for the gymnasium usage for social
gatherings, wedding receptions, all social events, will be
$50.00 for the first hour, $80.00 for two hours, $20.00 per
hour for each additional hour, effective July 1, 1987, this
fee to include set up and cleaning.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo
and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
The Council now considered fees for the use of the pavilion
in Stewart Park.
Page 12
Beaumont City Council
March 30, 1987
All Council Members agreed the fees being charged for the
pavilion were not sufficient.
There was general discussion concerning the use of the
facility, cleaning of the facility, and the lesser cost to
the City of maintaining the facility.
ESTABLISHING A FEE SCHEDULE FOR RENT OF PAVILION:
Motion by Council P,Iember Shaw, second by Council Member
Russo, to establish the fees for use of the pavilion as
follows:
$20.00 Minimum for first two hours.
$5.00 per hour for each additional hour.
$25.00 cleaning deposit.
$5.00 key deposit.
To become effective July 1, 1987.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo
and Mayor Partain.
NOBS: None'.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
The City Manager presented an oral report concerning the
current use of the ballfields and arrangements for special
uses, indicating we are charging for use of the lights only.
Groups do reserve the use of the park, but they are not
charged unless they use the lights.
Let the record show Council Member Shaw was excused from the
meeting at 7:07 P . A9.
ESTABLISHING FEE FOR USE OF BALL PARKS:
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Connors, to establish a fee of $15.00 for use of the lights.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Waller, Russo an(I
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Shaw.
It was determined that the City Manager will come back to
the Council with recommendations regarding group use of the
swimming pool, policies and procedures, i.e., cancellation,
t no -show, etc., and a report concerning those who are not
paying fees for a determination by the Council as to whether
or not this should continue. Council Member Waller also
asked for additional discussion regarding eliminating the
equipment that is stored on the gym floor. In this regard,
it was suggested those groups having equipment that needs to
be stored should look for other locations.
The discussion concerning the use of the facilities will
continue at the next regular Council meeting.
On motion by Council Member Waller, the meeting was
adjourned at 7:16 P . i1.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert J. Bounds,
City Clerk
Page 13
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
ADJOURNED MEETING OF MARCH 30, 1987
(Adjourned from March 23, 1987)
The Beaumont City Council met in an adjourned meeting at 4:32
P.M., on Monday, March 30, 1987, in the City Manager's Conference
Room, that meeting having been adjourned from the regular meeting
of March 23, 1987, with Mayor Partain presiding.
On Roll Call the following Council Members were present:
Connors, Shaw, Russo and Mayor Partain. Let the record show
Council Member Waller arrived at 4:50 P.M, during the
demonstration of the Beaumont Police Department K -9.
The meeting was recessed at 4:32 to observe a demonstration of
the Beaumont Police Department K -9, reconvening at 5:00 P.M.
1. Clerk's Affidavit of Posting.
The Clerk's affidavit of posting the agenda was read into
the record by the Deputy City Clerk.
2. Adjustments to Agenda.
There were no adjustments to the agenda.
3. Consideration of Use, Fee Structure and Needs of all City
Facilities.
Mayor Partain opened the discussion of the use, fee
structure and needs of all City facilities, by suggesting
the report from the City Manager concerning use of City
facilities for the past two years be reviewed item by item.
Council Member Waller asked what the purpose of the meeting
is. Are they going to establish guidelines or rules for the
use of City facilities. Will they be eliminating or opening
up other possibilities, and are they talking about the
building.
Council Member Russo asked who is managing the use of the
building, with the City Manager indicating his office is
responsible for the scheduling.
Council Member Waller then asked what procedure should be
used if they feel they should go in a different direction.
Would it be based strictly on seniority, or do they have
the discretion to phase out one kind and then bring in
another.
The City Manager indicated all agreements for use are
revocable in thirty days. There is nothing signed
indicating the users have the use forever. There is a
statement at the bottom of the form of application and
permit which indicates the City reserves the right to revoke
the permit at any time subject to thirty day notice.
Council Member Connors pointed out the boxing club does not
have that kind of a permit, with the City Manager responding
that they have permission from the Council to use it until
May at this time on a temporary basis.
Page 1
Beaumont City Council
March 30, 1987
Answering a question from Council Member Russo, the City
Manager advised the boxing club is using the room now. They
have submitted proof of insurance which is good for a year.
The Council is to give them an answer regarding their future
use on May 11.
The first facility listed in the report is the gymnasium,
with Item No. 1 being Jazzercise. The City Manager
indicated they pay a full fee based on the fees establised
in 1983.
Council Member Waller inquired if the fees were in line with
the cost of utilities, etc., and was advised they were
probably not adequate since there has been no increase since
1983. He also wanted to know if Jazzercise has a business
license, and was advised that she does.
Council Member Russo stated he was not interested in the
details of who is using the building and how they use it, as
much as he is interested in taking a look at whether we have
enough facilities, want to expand the facilities, and want
to raise the fees. Usage of the facility should be left up
to the individuals applying, and taking a look at the fee
schedule and saying to themselves, "do I want to rent space
in this building for what they want ". Ile would rather take
the approach that the Council be concerned about just the
building and if it is enough space to provide activities for
the community as they need it, and what the fees should be
by the City to cover our expenses to operate the building
and the staff, and that is the issue as far as he is
concerned.
So far as who is using it, it should be on the basis of who
is willing to pay the fees, and meet the insurance
requirements, and it is available for them.
Council Member Russo continued with the statement that it is
nice to have all these details, but he is not as interested
in that as he is the fees and the insurance and the
liability problems, and usage for the community. A well
rounded facility for usage, and he feels that is what they
should base their discussion on today - whether or not this
facility is adequate as it presently stands, whether or not
we make additions to it, or upgrade it, or whatever it might
be, and if the Council feels that is the case, they should
discuss what they plan to do with that, and then talk about
what it is going to cost for people to use it, and that
should be the issues.
Council Member Waller felt it should be discussed and
decided whether the City is going to - and has the money to
- get into the operation or the providing of programs
ourselves, or whether we are going to co -op with Parks and
Recreation Department.
Council Member Shaw asked if there were any conflicts in the
use of the building. The City Manager indicated when
someone asks to use the building, it is coordinated with all
other uses already scheduled.
Council Member Waller indicated the present scheduling may
be preventing other programs that we might want to use it.
Mayor Partain said he is not opposed, from the standpoint of
the City, of the City establishing programs, but when you
Page 2
Beaumont City Council
March 30, 1987
are indicating at this point what we offer, we offer nothing
at-this time We offer the building, and that is all. From
there if the Council decides they want to look into the
feasibility of starting its own programs within the City,
that would be fine, but we don't offer anything now.
Council Member Russo pointed out that if they were going to
talk about doing that, they should also talk about funding a
position for somebody to manage it, because you cannot
expect the City Manager, his secretary, or present staff to
start a recreation department in this City. Ile is not
opposed to the concept, but it should be determined where
the funding is going to come from to manage the position,
and you are going to need one. You cannot burden the City
Manager and his secretary with the recreation program. He
emphasized he is not saying we don't need it, he thinks it
is a great idea, but the first approach that should be taken
is facilities, fees and whether we want to get into the
business of the whole scheduling process. He doesn't feel
the Council wants to get into that. The staff is here to do
that. He doesn't feel the Council wants to get into the
business of determining who is going to use it or who isn't.
It should be based upon the fact of whether or not they want
to pay the fees.
Council Member Connors said that she would like to see the
Council be able to solve the problem of the half fees, the
full fees and the no fees, and the equipment stored on the
floor of the gym. All of which seems fairly uncomplicated
to her. They do need to talk about Room 12 as they have a
deadline on Room 12. And that is what she feels are the
kinds of things they should be discussing.
Council Member Russo stated the whole issue is to establish
a fee for all use of the building.
Council Member Connors pointed out we have fees. tdhat she
meant about being uncomplicated is that everyone should pay
the same fee.
Council Member Russo agreed with that, and is willing to
have discussion centered on that issue of fees, but not on
who is going to use it and who is not going to use it.
Mayor Partain said he personally agrees that we should look
at the fees. The fees are the issue primarily. One reason
he had suggested they take them one at a time was so they
could have the opportunity to see the difference in the fees
that are paid. However, if they have all done their
homework, they can see the difference in everything. He
also agreed that, from the standpoint of the Council, they
do not want to get into the scheduling aspect. They should
not be involved in that. He also believes if a recreation
district is established within the City, that is an
altogether different thing.
Council Member Waller suggested we also have the
availability of co -oping with the present Parks and
Recreation District, who seem to have an easier way of
insuring their programs than what the City has.
Mayor Partain indicated he did not understand - why would
the Park and Recreation District have an easier time of
insuring their programs.
Page 3
Beaumont City Council
March 30, 1987
The City Manager clarified the City self- insures up to
$25,000, and over that we are insured for all facilities or
programs.
Attention was then directed to the current fee schedule,
with the City Manager pointing out that Room 5, 6 and 11 are
no longer available for rental purposes.
Council Member Shaw asked if these fees are adequate to take
care of the maintenance, cleaning up, etc. Will the City go
into the red, or break even. He doesn't want the City to
make any money, but he doesn't want the City to have to
subsidize these activities in order to come out even. Just
have the people pay what is necessary to maintain the
facilities.
Council Member Russo said the small rooms should rent for
$15.00 an hour, since you can't rent a small room for
meetings anywhere else for $15.00.
Council Member Shaw felt the City should differentiate
between services the City can render, and outsiders coming
in to use the facilities.
Council Member Connors wanted clarification that the fee
proposed would -be $15.00 an hour for Room 12 whether there
were people in it, or whenever it is tied up.
Council Member Waller said it should be whenever it is tied
up, as it couldn't be used for any other purpose.
Council Member Russo stated that under certain circumstances
where equipment is necessary, and needed to be stored on a
regular basis, that perhaps a lease agreement could be
negotiated on an annual basis. That would set a rate for
the use of the room, and that rate should be consistent with
the same kind of space out in the community.
Council Member Connors agreed with this, stating that if you
went $15.00 an hour for the entire time the Civic Center was
open, it would be ridiculous.
Council Member Russo did feel it should be comparatively the
same as space for rent outside, warehouse space, or
whatever. If they wanted to charge commercial space, that
would be another story.
Council Member Connors asked if the Council wanted to open
Room 12 to the whole community to see if anyone else wants
to rent it, other than on an annual basis.
Answering a question from Council Member Russo, it was
determined that Room 12 contains over 1400 sq.ft., not
counting the supply room.
At 25 cents a sq.ft. that would calculate to $350.00 a
month. Warehouse space is going for 25 to 40 cents.
Council Member Connors wondered if $15.00 an hour was an
appropriate fee. The City Manager calculated the $350.00 a
month figure into a daily figure, resulting in $11.66 a day.
Council Member Russo said whenever you rent a room on an
hourly basis, $15.00 is not a lot of money for two or three
hours.
Page 4
Beaumont City Council
March 30, 1987
Council Member Connors indicated the reason she is asking is
because under Proposition 13 the City is not allowed to make
a profit, and she wondered if that covered the expense
without making a profit.
The City Manager said it would be very difficult to cover
the total expense including, down the road, repairs that
have to be made to the rooms that are being rented out. The
traffic would not bear the amount of money that it would
cost for you to ever make money.
Council Member Russo raised the question, if someone said
they wanted to rent a room, technically the room is empty.
They say we need three tables, we need 200 chairs. We have
to provide people to set the tables up, set the chairs up,
set the room up. When it is finished, we go in and clean it
up. The City could have two hours plus in labor involved in
one meeting.
The City Manager agreed that we do this to a certain extent
at this time. The way our fees are now, the user is
supposed to leave it clean. In most cases, we get a
cleaning deposit, and we retain that deposit if they don't
clean it up. The regular users are not charged this
deposit. Jazzercise, for instance, is no problem. They
treat the facility better than anyone else, so we don't
charge.them for cleaning.
The fees charged by the Recreation and Parks District were
brought up, and the City Manager pointed out their fees
include a fee for a staff member. It figures out that you
are paying a facility fee plus staff for the first hour, and
then you are paying for staff only for all additional hours.
It was pointed out by the City Manager that you could not
have the boxing club in Room 12 and have anybody else rent
it, so the issue is are you going to charge the boxing club.
Mayor Partain disagreed, saying that you still need to set a
small room fee before you do anything else.
The City Manager said if they are to use it, they are going
to be a special case in a small room.
Council. Member Connors replied
statement saying, unless the City
everyone for usage of it, and the
like everyone else. Maybe they
Maybe a lot of different groups
different times. Maybe they won't
to the City Manager's
accepts applications from
boxing club applied just
won't be the one using it.
will be renting it at
want to rent it at all.
Mayor Partain said that is the whole thing. He doesn't know
what the Council is going to decide, but a basic fee needs
to be set, because the Council does not know if the boxing
club is going to be interested in it if the Council decides
they are going to pay a fee.
Council Member Russo then suggested $15.00 for the first
hour, $25.00 for two hours, and then $5.00 for every hour
after that. So if you have the room for four hours, you pay
$35.00, or $55.00 for an eight hour day.
Responding to a question from Mayor Partain, it was
determined the square footage in the Council Chamber is 1173
square feet, therefore, it is smaller than the boxing room,
Page 5
Beaumont City Council
March 30, 1987
and these are the only two rooms we have except for the
gymnasium, so, basically, the proposed fee should apply to
both rooms.
Council Member Russo then suggested that it just be called
room fee, $15.00, $25.00, $5.00 for each additional hour.
We only have the two rooms anyway. That could be the per
hour and day fee. Then you could have a second fee, long
term usage fee would be 25 cents per sq.ft. where the room
is going to be tied up, or where there is going to be
storage space. And if the gymnasium equipment needs to be
stored, they should be charged a storage fee according to
the amount of space they use.
Council Member Connors pointed out there isn't any storage
space in the gymnasium.
Council Member Russo clarified what he is saying is we come
to the gymnasium, and they set a fee on the gymnasium, and
we say either they cannot store equipment there, or they
can-. That has to b�e decided too. And that will have to be
across -the -board for everybody. Or you say if you have
equipment you have to store, it is going to cost you 35
cents a sq.ft., or whatever you are going to charge. That
is what they are talking about - fees.
The City Manager brought out that one of the things to
remember is that the gymnastic equipment does not belong to
the instructor. It belongs to the Pass area through the
Laura Stewart fund. And according to the Laura Stewart
Committee it cannot be removed from the Pass area.
Mayor Partain asked that the discussion return to
consideration of the fee for small rooms.
ESTABLISHING A FEE SCHEDULE FOR RENTAL OF ROOM 12 AND
COUNCIL CHAMBERS:
Motion by Council Member Russo, second by Council Member
Waller, to set the fees for the rooms that are available for
rent, excluding the gymnasium, at $15.00 for the first hour,
$25.00 for two hours, and $5.00 for each additional hour.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo
and Mayor Partain.
NOES: -None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Let the record show, that after the motion, but prior to the
vote, Council Member Waller indicated that during labor
negotiations at the school district, they used the Council
Chamber during the day, and were not charged. The City
Manager advised we have a reciprocal agreement with the
school district, and Council Member Waller asked what the
City received in return. The City Manager said he didn't
know exactly, but felt that would include the City using the
school district's gym. And if that is not the case, then
the school district should be charged. So far as the labor
negotiations, if they are charged, then it would be half to
the school district, and half to the union.
The City Manager requested that
be restricted to meeting type of
other activities of this type.
Page 6
use of the Council Chamber
use, not dances, sports or
Beaumont City Council
March 30, 1987
There was additional discussion, and it was determined that
the Council Chamber would not be suitable for any other type
of use other than meetings.
In response to a question from Council Member Connors, there
was general discussion regarding who pays and who does not
pay. It was pointed out all private groups pay. Those who
do not pay are usually other local government agencies, the
County, the school district, and groups who are providing a
service to the community, such as the Conservation District.
Mayor Partain felt that any group, regardless of its
affiliation, should be charged a clean up fee if we have to
clean up after them, and Council Member Russo stted
everyone should be charged.
Council Member Connors did not feel there is a problem with
the Council Chambers. The discretion that has been used is
fine. It is the gymnasium that seems to be out of whack.
Mayor Partain agreed with this. It was pointed out that
certain uses such as the Drug Abuse Council have members
from the City governments of both Beaumont and Banning, and
when they meet in Banning, there is no charge. Council
Member Russo also agreed that he had no problem with the way
the Council Chamber has been rented out, and the decision as
to who.pays and who does not. There has to be some give.
Council Member Waller had questions concerning the
differences in the total amount paid by different groups,
and was advised this is determined by the number of hours it
is used by the different groups.
The City Manager did feel that something needs to be
established regarding non - profit.
It was brought out at this time that the Council needed to
set an effective date for these fee changes, as it would not
be fair to change them without notice to the regular users,
as well as those who have already scheduled facilities for
the next couple of months.
ESTABLISHING EFFECTIVE DATE FOR NEW FEE SCHEDULE:
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Russo, that_the new fe_e, schedule will go into effect at the
beginning of the 1987 -88 fiscal year, or July 1, 1987.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
The City Manager requested that at the next meeting
scheduled for discussion of the use of the facilities,
the Council discuss those that will be charged, and those
that will not be charged or are exempt.
It was also brought out at this point, that the Registrar of
Voters pays a fee to other polling places in the City,
therefore, they should be charged a fee for the use of the
two City facilities they use as polling places, which are
the Council Chamber and the Fire Station.
It was determined that additional policies and procedures,
such as the additional charge for use after 10:00, or on a
weekend, when City staff is not normally in the building,
would be discussed at the next meeting.
Page 7
Beaumont City Council
March 30, 1987
Council Member Russo requested additional discussion on the
concept of long term usage based on a square foot charge.
Council Member Waller asked how much it would be to rent the
boxing room based on that concept, and was advised it would
be $350.00 a month.
Council Member Russo stated he didn't know if the City
wanted to get into the business of saying we will lease a
room out, since the only room we have is Room 12. That is
the only room, besides the Council Chamber, that we have
available for meetings, to allow the community to use. The
Senior Center has taken the whole side of the building and
the rest of the offices are used by the City. So, if the
boxing room stays there, then we have only one other room
for all other organizations - when the City and the Planning
Commission or whoever else, isn't using it - we have only
one room available to people in the community to use. That
is not fair for a community of our size.
Council Member Russo went on to say if someone wants to tie
up a room, then we give them a break on the fee if we are
going to do that, 25 cents a square foot is a break on the
fee from the hourly rate. We either say this will be the
fee, or we just don't establish that, and we say everything
has to be rented by the hour. That will run the boxing club
right out of business, if we say it must be done by the
hour, which is not fair.
Council Member Waller suggested perhaps they could take
their equipment down, and he still thinks that can be done.
Council Member Russo said what he has thought about many
times was if they could charge those kids participating in
their program $10.00 a month, they could raise enough money
to pay their space rental. Or perhaps find sponsors within
the community. There certainly hasn't been enough of that
to support the on -going program. For special events there
has been a lot of support. Council Member Shaw has
supported them in the past, and a lot of other people as
well, but not on an on -going basis. If it is a viable
program, there should be other people who would provide some
funds to support it.
Council Member Shaw indicated he thought there were only six
or seven people who have been supporting it.
Council Member Russo felt there could be more if they made
an effort. If the City is going to say the boxing club, or
whoever, might want to tie up a room, then there ought to be
a fee associated with it. He really didn't feel it was fair
to the community to tie up a room with one group. That is
the first question.
Council Member Shaw said in the past no one ever wanted to
use the facilities. Now, all of a sudden, we are getting
requests from everyone. He really doesn't want to kick them
out.
Council Member Russo asked if he thought it was fair to set
a square footage fee, and allow them an opportunity to do
it.
Council Member Shaw indicated he would be amenable to
something like that. If that is what it is going to take,
Page .8
Beaumont City Council
March 30, 1987
we will have to do it. But to just exclude the Boxing Club
- the Council should make it some way that they can do it.
Mr. Shaw went on to say these youngsters don't come from an
affluent society. They are kids whose parents are ecking
out an existence. They don't make enough to foot a bill
like that. That is why he has been donating all this time,
because if these kids didn't have that, you would never
know what they would be out doing - stealing, or whatever -
it keeps them off the street.
Council Member Waller asked about the middle class youngster
that would not join the boxing club. Does that mean that he
is deprived use of the room.
The question regarding the mobility of the ring was brought
up again, and it was indicated the ring in Room 12 was not
portable. There is a portable ring under the stage in the
gym.
Council Member Waller said he didn't think they had really
looked into it enough. He doesn't think they want to look
into the possibility of finding something that can be
collapsible in a short amount of time. He hasn't seen any
initiative on their part to find something. All you hear is
no, it can't be-done. He wondered if they expect the City
to go out and find something for them, or what.
Council Member Russo commented he would like to see both
rooms spruced up, painted, purchase enough chairs and
tables, _so we could provide good meeting space in the
community. He is not really hot on the idea of renting on
long term to any one group or individual. If we have to
make a concession, it has to be by square footage. He
thinks we have two issues before us. First issue, do we
want to tie up any of these facilities on a long term to any
one particular group or individual.
The City Manager pointed out they will also be dealing with
another group or groups in the future, and that will be boy
and girl scouts.
Council Member.Russo said he would be willing to concede on
the square footage basis if we have to do it.
Council Member Connors indicated she was not interested in
doing it either. She feels the room should be turned back
into a room and renped out to the public just like the
other.
Council Member Waller stated we are not actually saying that
it couldn't be used by the boxing if there was a means of
them putting up and taking down their ring, with Council
Member Russo emphasizing "on an hourly basis ".
Council Member Connors asked if he meant without bolting
things to the floor. And will they clean it up and leave it
for the next person that wants to rent it. She doesn't see
that happening.
Council Member Russo pointed out if that were the case they
wouldn't want to use Room 12, they would want to use the
gym.
The City Manager said you would be looking at more money
then. There is 5,000 square feet without the stage.
Page 9
Beaumont City Council
March 30, 1987
Council Member Russo clarified that whatever the fee for the
gymnasium would be, would be their fee for usage.
Council Member Connors stated if they used the gym they
couldn't leave all their equipment sitting around the edges.
Mayor Partain brought the discussion back to the issue of
whether or not they want to make a motion to establish a
square footage fee. He has seen no interest by anybody to
do that, so he assumes they have come to a decision as far
as the rooms are concerned, they will be strictly on an
hourly basis. It would seem to him that under the
guidelines they have set down, that in order for the boxing
club to remain there they will have to pay at least $55.00
for eight hours, or $1,650.00 a month.
The Council is to give the boxing club an answer concerning
the use of Room 12 on May 11, 1987.
The discussion was now directed to the gymnasium fee
schedule.
Council Member Russo pointed out the gymnasium is a very
large facility, and the normal cost to rent space such as
the gymnasium for a wedding reception is $500.00, or more.
He used the Catholic Youth Hall as an example, which is not
as large as our gymnasium.
The City Manager reminded the Council that most of these
facilities have a kitchen, which we do not, and that makes a
difference.
Council Member Russo then stated if we take off for a
kitchen, it would be a minimum of $200.00 a night, which is
$50.00 an hour. There are two issues - one the party issue,
which requires more clean -up - and the other is
athletic events - and the fee should be set up separately
for each, keeping in mind those events having food would
require even more clean -up.
The Council directed their attention to athletic events
usage as the first item to be considered for a fee schedule.
It was the consensus of the Council that the fees were too
low, but on the other hand they did not want to increase the
fee to the point it would shut people out.
Council Member Connors, said the gymnastics group is a profit
making group, and are only paying half, while the volley
ball team just uses it to play volley ball, and they pay the
full amount. In addition the gymnastics is paying half, but
their equipment is taking up part of the floor, taking up
the room so the volley ball team cannot utilize the entire
floor. She feels some thought should be given to that, and
they should consider whether we are renting it to
professionals, or to the general public who just wants to
use it for a little bit.
Council Member Shaw said_in essence, she is saying the more
affluent they are, the more we charge them.
Council Member Connors indicated she thought certainly that
Jack LaLane should pay more than Dionne Greene.
Council Member Shaw was in total agreement with this.
Page 10
Beaumont City Council
March 30, 1987
Council Member Connors said the difference would be they are
part of this community, they are not professionals coming
in for a profit, with Council Member Waller stating the
service is being offered to the community.
Council Member Russo felt the City has to be careful about
how the determination is made. Are we going to require a
financial statement from everybody who wants to rent the
gym. What we should say is either inside or outside of the
community. That would be the best way to do it. Resident
or non - resident fees.
Council member Shaw agreed, stating that taxpayers within
the City should get some kind of break. Let the non-
resident pay a little more.
Mayor Partain asked what if the person renting the facility
is a non - resident, but everyone using the class is a
resident. What do you do then.
Council Member Russo said it was very simple - set the fee,
and suggested $30.00 for the first hour, $45.00 for two
hours, $10.00 for each additional hour for athletic events.
Discussion followed concerning these suggested fees,
including a comment from Council Member Connors that this
should• also mean we are renting the entire gymnasium, not
just the part that doesn't have equipment stored on it. If
we don't have the facility to store something, then we
shouldn't rent it to them.
ESTABLISHING A FEE SCHEDULE FOR RENT OF GYMNASIUM FOR
ATHLETIC AND FINE ARTS EVENTS:
Motion by Council Member Russo, second by Council Member
Connors, to establish the following fees for athletic and
fine arts events for use of the gymnasium:
$30.00 for the first hour.
$45.00 for two hours.
$10.00 per hour for each additional hour.
With the new fees to be effective July 1, 1987.
During discussion following the motion, Council Member
Waller asked if there would be a reduced fee for youth
programs. The gymnastics class was used as an example due
to the fact the City4gave them a reduced rate to help them
get established, or see if they could make a "go" of the
program. They are now established, and this should no
longer apply to them, as the students taking part in the
program pay a fee. Council Member Russo said if the City
were to sponsor something for the youth, we would provide
the facilities. It is a separate issue. It is not fair for
someone to come in, say we are doing this for the youth, and
expect the City to charge no fee, when they are charging a
fee to the kids.
VOTE TAKEN ON MOTION:
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo
and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Page 11
Beaumont City Council
March 30, 1987
Council Member Waller brought the issue of insurance up, and
was advised by the City Manager that it is his personal
opinion that unorganized groups, such as volley ball, would
be unable to get insurance. Other groups, such as school
districts, have insurance and can make the City an
additional insured on their policy. If there is a wedding
reception, or a shower, unless you were very affluent, you
would not be able to get a one day insurance policy. If the
Council considers requiring every group to have insurance,
they might just as well say only organized groups can use
the facility.
Council Member Shaw questioned in the event they don't have
insurance, and something happens, is the City liable, with
the City Manager replying it would be the same thing as the
parks, the swimming pool - we are liable everytime someone
walks out there. If we don't allow anyone to use a City
facility unless they have insurance, we would have to close
the parks, the swimming pool, and anything else in the City
that might be used by the public. We have insurance which
covers this type of liability.
The City Manager continued, saying what should take place is
those who can purchase insurance at a reasonable rate be
required to do so whenever possible.
The Council then discussed fees for use of the gymnasium for
social events, with Council Member Russo suggesting $50.00
for one hour, $80.00 for two hours and $20.00 per hour for
each additional hour.
The question was brought up if this would apply to all
social events, since there are a variety of uses from pot
lucks to wedding receptions.
Mayor Partain suggested the fee be the same, but charge more
for the clean -up deposit.
Council Member Waller also
required for set -up and cl
commenting it takes at least
half the time they are going
decorated or set -up, no one
no one else can use it until
pointed out additional time is
Zan -up, with the City Manager
two hours to get ready, almost
to use it. Once they have it
else can use the facility, and
it has been cleaned up.
There was discussion regarding charging a larger cleaning
deposit for certain uses, but no specific fee was set.
ESTABLISHING A FEE SCHEDULE FOR RENT OF GYMNASIUM FOR SOCIAL
EVENTS:
Motion by Council Member Russo, second by Council Member
Waller, that the fees for the gymnasium usage for social
gatherings, wedding receptions, all social events, will be
$50.00 for the first hour, $80.00 for two hours, $20.00 per
hour for each additional hour, effective July 1, 1987, this
fee to include set up and cleaning.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo
and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
The Council now considered fees for the use of the pavilion
in Stewart Park.
Page 12
Beaumont City Council
March 30, 1987
All Council Members agreed the fees being charged for the
pavilion were not sufficient.
There was general discussion concerning the use of the
facility, cleaning of the facility, and the lesser cost to
the City of maintaining the facility.
ESTABLISHING A FEE SCHEDULE FOR RENT OF PAVILION:
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council member
Russo, to establish the fees for use of the pavilion as
follows:
$20.00 Minimum for first two hours.
$5.00 per hour for each additional hour.
$25.00 cleaning deposit.
$5.00 key deposit.
To become effective July 1, 1987.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo
and I�:ayor Partain .
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
The City Manager Presented an oral report concerning the
current use of the ballfields and arrangements for special
uses, indicating we are charging for use of the lights only.
Groups do reserve the use of the park, but they are not
charged unless they use the lights.
Let the record show Council Member Shaw was excused from the
meeting at 7:07 P.N.
ESTABLISIIING FEE FOR USE OF BALL PARKS:
Motion by Council !Member Waller, second by Council ,!ember
Connors, to establish a fee of $15.00 for use of the lights.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Waller, Russo and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Shaw.
It was determined that the City Manager will come back to
the Council with recommendations regarding group use of the
swimming pool, policies and procedures, i.e., cancellation,
s no -show, etc., and a report concerning those who are not
paying fees for a determination by the Council as to whether
or not this should continue. Council Member Waller also
asked for additional discussion regarding eliminating the
equipment that is stored on the gym floor. In this regard,
it was suggested those groups having equipment that needs to
be stored should look for other locations.
The discussion concerning the use of the facilities will
continue at the next regular Council meeting.
On motion by Council Member Waller, the meeting was
adjourned at 7:16 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert J. Bounds,
City Clerk
Page 13
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
APRIL 13, 1987
The Beaumont City Council met in a regular meeting at 7:36 P.M.,
on Monday, April 13, 1987, in the City Council Chambers, with
Mayor Partain presiding.
On Roll Call the following Council Members were present:
Connors, Shaw, Waller and Mayor Partain. Council Member Russo
was excused.
The Invocation was given by Brother Robert Podvin, Church of
Christ.
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Council Member Waller.
1. Clerk's Affidavit of Posting.
The Clerk's affidavit of posting the agenda was read into
the record by the Deputy City Clerk.
2. Adjustments to Agenda.
The City Manager advised the Council that, after closing the
agenda, it was brought to his attention that the electrical
circuit in the east end of the Civic Center Building is
overloaded, and it is necessary to add an additional 100
amps of service to this portion of the building. It is a
serious problem which needs immediate attention, therefore,
he is requesting this item be added to the agenda as an
emergency item.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Shaw, to add Agenda Item No. 20 to consider authorizing the
City Manager to have appropriate electrical work done in the
Civic Center, with this item to be considered prior to
Agenda Item No. 19.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously
with one absent.
3. RESOLUTION N0. 1987 -22 - A Memorial Tribute to Laurence
(Larry) Gordon.
Resolution No. 1987 -22 was read in its entirety by the
Deputy City Clerk.,
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Waller, to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -22.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Russo.
Resolution No. 1987 -22 was presented to Mr. Gordon's widow,
Dovie Gordon, by Mayor Partain.
4. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -23 - A Memorial Tribute 'to Clarence
"Pappy Lewis.
Page 1
Beaumont City Council
April 13, 1987
Resolution No. 1987 -23 was read in its entirety by the
Deputy City Clerk.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Waller, to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -23.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Russo.
Resolution No. 1987 -23 was presented to Mr. Lewis' son, Paul
Lewis, by Mayor Partain.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATION:
There was no one requesting to speak under oral
communication.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - 7:30 P.M.
6. REQUEST FOR PERMIT TO OPERATE A TAXICAB SERVICE in the City
oo Beaumont. Applicant: Dorothy Boullion.
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:50 P.M.
Mr. Richie Boullion, 845 E. 6th Street, representing the
applicant, addressed the Council as a proponent of this
request.
Mr. Boullion: I am the manager of the taxi service. The
owner could not be here tonight because she came down with
the flu, so her husband came in her place. We were told
that you wanted to know why we wanted a taxi service in
Beaumont. Because we have a lot of customers who depend on
us to be there when the buses can't run. And we do have a
lot of customers. It has been around for years and years.
Mayor Partain: Is there anything further that you wish to
state?
Mr. Boullion: No, I think that about covers it.
Mayor Partain: Do we have any questions. Mrs. Connors, Mr.
Shaw, Mr. Waller. No, okay. Thank you very much. Anyone
else wishing to speak for. Anyone else wishing to speak.
How about opposed. Anyone here wishing to speak in
opposition. No one wishing to speak in opposition.
The Public Hearing was closed at 7:51 P.M.
t
Consideration of Issuance of Permit to Dorothy Boullion to
Operate a Taxicab Service in the City of Beaumont.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Waller, to issue a permit to Dorothy Boullion to operate a
taxicab service in the City of Beaumont.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously
with one absent.
7. APPEAL - of Planning Commission Denial of General Plan
Amendment 86 -GP -4 and Zone Change 86- RZ -5., Applicant:
Beaumont CKS Partnership - FCE Associates. Location:
Northwest corner of 14th and Beaumont Avenue.
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:55 P.M.
Page 2
Beaumont City Council
April 13, 1987
Mr. Ed Curriden, 10432 Russell Road, La Mesa, California,
addressed the Council as a proponent.
Mr. Curriden: I am in ownership on the property with my
wife Kathryn, in the audience, and we have had considerable
experience in the development area. We have worked closely
with cities. We have developed projects in communities
where we have gotten awards for those projects because of
their uniqueness. We developed an all solar project which
received quite an extensive award. We are currently working
in conjuction with the Redevelopment Council in San Diego
to, more or less, take a twenty acre project, comprised of
multiplicity between the multi - residential, commercial and
the various ancillary office groups, etc.
So we have a great affinity for Beaumont. We love the City.
We have been working with planning on and off, and Mr. Elahl
has been working practically on a daily basis for, I am
going to say, six to eight months. There was a lot of
confusion at the last Planning Commission meeting, and at
this time I would like to address - I have put this in color
to make this a little more simple, a little more visible.
The property in question. We own this section here
consisting of approximately 17 acres. This portion is
commercial. It is directly across the street from the
existing Alpha Beta Shopping Center. The line here is
Marshall Creek, which was a problem in the property, and
required a tremendous amount of engineering. We have that
problem solved in conjunction with the flood control
facility in Riverside, and we feel that is locked down. Mr.
Elahl will speak in that behalf very shortly.
The element in question tonight is this area, which is in
accordance with your General Plan. We are in compliance
with your General Plan. We have, as your General Plan calls
out, we could have a PUD, which would allow us to build
twenty units per acre on that site. The reason we were
requesting a change to the General Plan is we do not wish to
go to that high a density. What we would like to do is have
approval of a plot plan, set this as an R -3, and go for a
more beautification, the amenities - we have tennis courts,
all this is integral within the site - we have swimming
pools, spas, tennis courts, and a real upgraded multi -
residential situation. As you notice, you have two high
velocity intersections. Your first is 6th and Beaumont.
Your second is 14th and Beaumont, and I commend you also on
your plan, because you have taken into consideration that
you do want your clusters and densities at these
intersect points. And you don't want to string out and spot
zone, an apartment here, an apartment there. It would be
really spot zoning to put houses here when you are
surrounded by both County and your own CUP zoning.
Now, currently, we have planned for medium density in this
area, which is far less than what is allowed. In a
technical sense, PUD, the derivative of PUD, you come in
with a specific plan which allow for as much as 32 units an
acre. We don't want it, and I am sure Beaumont doesn't
want it. What we want to build is something that will
attract -- also, it is a great enhancement that you have got
about 300 acres of a very fine industrial base, which is
starting to move in terms of people coming to town with
their medium - industrial, and light - industrial. This will
provide a nice living quarters for some of the middle
management, as some of the other people are coming to town
Page 3
Beaumont City Council
April 13, 1987
where there is a critical shortage right now in that type
property.
But again, I wanted to emphasize we do have the commercial
here, this is the PUD in accordance with your plan. We are
not, we are not adverse to your plan, we fall within that
plan, and what we are requesting is that rather than a high
density, 32 units per acre, or even 20 as the PUD calls out,
if we have 40% of the property as commercial, the PUD calls
out we could have 20 units per acres. We are about 45%
ratio of the commercial, therefore, we could be given some
bonus, but we are not asking for that. We just want merely
the 144 units. I have a site plan for that, but it isn't
proper to present it at this time, even though it is
potential.
At this time I would like to introduce Mr. Elahl, our
engineer, who can give you some of the unique problems at
the site, and why it is a very expensive site to develop.
Mr. Francois C. Elahl, 7250 Magnolia Avenue, Riverside,
addressed the Council as a proponent.
Mr. Elahl: I would like to address some of the features of
the so- called potential project that we have here. As the
area that we have, which is the creek at the present time,
and I don't know if any of you, your honor, or any of the
City Council Members, have gone under the bridge of
Beaumont, and the house that is bordering that property.
You see that the bridge is really silt up to 60% of it, and
that is due to the fact that the creek, right now, which is
going through the property, is not maintained properly.
What we have, we have gone to the flood control agency in
Riverside and with them we devised the approach for
improving the channel. For one, give it real relief from
under Beaumont and the property above. And that is on
building a trapezoidal channel on a ten foot base, with
eleven foot, six inches on either side, seven feet, six
inches high. This is the way to maintain a proper flow of
the water, and that will be sufficient even for the 100 year
flood history.
Second, that will be maintained on either side also by
having the fencing on either side. One side of commercial,
and the for the beauty section. (Note,
there is noise overriding Mr. Elahl's presentation in the
preceding sentence, therefore, about three words have been
left out). The second point on that is just that you have
the surface engineering. 14th Street is a very busy avenue.
That intersection here would be devised in a sense that
maybe a traffic signal would be put in. Second, an
underbridge underneath 14th Street to accommodate the flood
channel, from under 14th Street all the way to the other
side which is the opposite side of 14th Street.
Third, and most - we have run a survey in the City of
Beaumont. We have been working for a great length of time
on that project, which is almost six months. We have found
out that in the City of Beaumont, going through several
complexes, one of them which is - if you will allow me to
say the name of the complex - that is Mountain View. You
have on a one - bedroom, eight months of waiting list. On the
two - bedroom, you have up to a year and a half of waiting
list. People want to move in, and there is no vacancies.
Page 4
Beaumont City Council
April 13, 1987
On the three - bedroom, up to two years. And, you know, the
rates that they are charging on these units are, to my
understanding, is very high. We are proposing something a
lot nicer for that intersection, showing exactly - and as
the City Attorney has told me not to show the plot plan
because it might be influencing and would be in conflict
with the Brown Act. Vie do not want that, but, you know, all
the amenities that would be for the future, improvement for
fees, would be class A, either for recreation,
saunas, facilities for exercising, swimming pools, laundry
facilities, and security gates on the - we have worked also
with the Fire Department to have the frequency for the Fire
Department to be different from the tenants - if, as we say
in there right now, potentially, we just - secondly, now, we
are not really - as in my profession for twenty -three years,
I have been a civil engineer, we are following exactly what
the General Plan spells out. Exactly, the PUD will say that
if your property is about 35% used for commercial, which we
have a good 46.7% of it is used for commercial, then we are
allowed to present our plot plan for approval. And because
we are still within the zoning, and still with the General
Plan, which has 22 -32 units per acre. We do not want that
density, it is too crowded. We want something to look
nice. All that we need is 12 -16 units, and this is a medium
density, and we have come up with almost nine acres of
property clear. I mean I am talking about net, nine acres,
coming up in the neighborhood of 140 to 144 units.
If anyone would like to ask any questions, I would be more
than pleased to answer them.
Council Member Connors: I would think that you showed the
same things to the Planning Commission that you are showing
to .us .
Mr. Elahl: No we didn't.
Council Member Connors: You didn't.
Mr. Elahl: No, I have not. A Planning Commissioner
commented that this is spot zoning, and my own understanding
of the definition of spot zoning, this property falls into
the same category as that property, on Cougar Way, further
north, and their comment was that they want to keep a good
relationship with the next door neighbor, Cherry Valley.
This is a lot further close in to Cherry Valley than this
site. And that one is called in for eight units per acre,
and has been approved for medium density, while this one
spells out for 20 to 32, and was denied, and this is why we
are here to explain it to you. We did not have the chance,
exactly, to go over these points with the Planning
Commission, as we are doing today with the City Council.
Mayor Partain: Okay. Anything further.
Council Member Waller: As I see it there, and also on my
map, your property line borders on the edge of Marshall
Creek, is that correct.
Mr. Elahl: This is it. This is Marshall Creek. And that
is the entire property, 17.4 acres.
Council Member Waller: Now a trapezoidal channel will -
what is that considered, probably one of the better?
Mr. Elahl: That is the best. If you can imagine one seven
Page 5
Beaumont City Council
April 13, 1987
feet, six inches high, on each bank, and this is
trapezoidal, which is the basis, and then it goes further,
you know, just the triangular will be eleven point six feet
from that base which is the fartherest point. I could, if
you will allow me, I could show you exactly - -
Council Member Waller: I was just wondering. Are there any
other places in Beaumont that have that.
Mr. Elahl: No, none.
City Engineer: Noble Creek.
Mayor Partain: Thank you. Mr. Lee, I haven't forgotten
you. Come forward please.
Perry Anastopoulos, FCE Associates, 7250 Magnolia,
Riverside, addressed the Council as a proponent.
Mr. Anastopoulos: I want to talk about the quality of the
units we are going to put up. Can we pass this out to you.
The units, from scratch, are designed by registered
architects and engineers. It is nothing just thrown up.
Here is an elevation view of the units.
City Attorney: No.
Mayor Partain: I don't think we can have those. We cannot
look at those, and I am assuming these are the same thing,
Mr. Bounds.
Mr. Anastopoulos: Okay. We also wanted to say the
development itself is being built on its own merits,
because we surveyed, and there was very little vacancy rates
around, and a lot of the units that have any whatsoever, and
in talking with the different landlords, where people manage
apartments, they say within one month or two the units are
re- rented.
Another thing I wanted to say, is if we don't get the medium
density zoning, and are forced to put homes on that
particular piece of land, and remember there is a wash
coming through this piece of property, and that means there
will be additional costs, and a residential project may not
be able to absorb that cost, which will not permit this land
to be developed.
Another thing I wanted to say, is some of the reasons why
this was not shown to the Planning Commission is we were
somewhat baffled because they got into the word spot zoning,
and everybody has their own definition of that, so this way
that is why we are a little bit more prepared on this. And,
in dealing with the wash, the County already had a study,
and I personally read through this study, and that is where
we got all the trapezoidal channel from that, so we are
working with them on that.
That is about all. The only thing I can think of is to say
is that the homes that are selling in the lower part of the
district here, are selling at between $70 and $80,000, and
anybody who is going to spend more on a home are going to go
further north up to-Cherry Valley. So if we are forced with
residential housing, like I said, we may be priced out for
anything to be developed. Another thing, our project is
working well with the Noble Creek Community Center. That is
Page 6
Beaumont City Council
April 13, 1987
only about 2/10 a mile away. And that was another thing,
the Park Commissioner was here. He was asking for
parks, etc., etc., and at the time I didn't realize to point
out - we are working with what is already there. I guess I
would like to close with Mr. Curriden.
Mr. Curriden: Thats fine. I think everything has been
said.
Mayor Partain: Thank you very much. Mr. Lee.
Mr. Bernard Lee, 249 F. 14th Street, Beaumont, spoke in
opposition.
Mr. Lee: What we have seen in other places, we feel that an
R -1 development would be better for that whole area, and
also, another thing I wanted to bring up was that I believe
we are in a declining water situation, and I wondered how
the high density compares use of water with R -1. That is
all I have to say about it.
Mayor Partain: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak in
opposition to the project. Anyone wishing to speak in
opposition. No one else wishing to speak in opposition, it
is 8:14, we will close the public hearing.
The Public Hearing was closed at 8:14 P.M.
The City Manager summarized the Planning Commission's
action, stating the applicants requested a General Plan
Change from R -PUD _to. RMF, which is medium density
residential, and a zone change from RSF, single family
residential, to RMF. The Planning Commission final action
was to change the General Plan from PUD to RSF, which is
recommending that the General Plan and the Zoning be
consistent with each other. He pointed out further, that if
the R -PUD stays on the property, the potential density is
higher than what is requested.
Council Member Connors felt the request should be looked at
closely, because it was a unanimous vote of the Planning
Commission, and before the Council upholds an appeal they
should think about that as much as anything else.
She then asked if it was valid to say the City has enough
multi - family and change it, when the General Plan states
something else. When asked to clarify her question by the
Mayor, she stated that if the General Plan calls for one
thing, and the Planning Commission wants to change it to
something else giving as one of their reasons that there is
enough multi - family in the City, she is questioning whether
this is a strong enough reason to turn them down.
The City Manager responded to Council Member Connors
question indicating it would appear that you would need to
look at each application from that point on, and if there
were anyone requesting higher density than they had at that
time, the same would hold true. He emphasized he is having
to speculate on this.
Council Member Connors said the City Attorney stated the
zoning is usually changed to match the General Plan, not the
other way, and it would seem like a bad precedent to change
that, and yet there are so many cases where the zoning and
the General Plan are mixed up. She wondered if it really is
Page 7
Beaumont City Council
April 13, 1987
a shaky foundation, legally, to change it to match the zone
rather than the General Plan, asking if that could come back
as a problem that the City did it the other way around.
Deputy City Attorney Robinson stated he did not think it
would.
The City Manager commented the question was asked at the
Planning Commission, to bring the two maps into conformity,
what is required to bring to what, and the City Attorney
answered that the General Plan is "the higher map ", if you
want to call it that, and therefore you would bring the
zoning to it, but the City Manager did not think that he
meant at the same time that you cannot go the opposite way,
but if you were pushed for consistency, you would have to go
toward the General Plan. So he didn't say it is wrong for
you to go from the General Plan back.
Council Member Connors was still concerned about changing
the decision of an entire panel that had voted unanimously,
because the question might come up as to why we have a
Planning Commission if we are just going to change a
unanimous vote.
Council Member Waller thought it was mentioned that not
everything that was presented to the Council tonight was
given to the Planning Commission, and this was a little
unsettling. He does like the type of housing proposed
because it provides housing for people who have the money to
move into Beaumont, and possibly add quite a bit to the City
itself.
He was concerned, however, as Mrs. Connors is, that it seems
the Council is not listening to the Planning Commission.
He is aware there was a problem with spot zoning, the
problem being that one or more felt that spot zoning was
taking place, wherein, in fact, if you are changing ten
acres, if he is not incorrect, that in itself should not be
considered spot zoning.
Valerie Beeler, City Planning Director, pointed out that
part of the reason for the General Plan Amendment was due to
what appears to be an inconsistency in our General Plan, in
that all R -PUD has to have a specific plan submitted to the
City, and the City does not have an ordinance for a specific
plan, and specific plans, generally, are considered for
large properties of 50 to 100 acres where they are coming in
and saying they want to accomplish a number of different
things, such as commercial, high density, low density, and
set out open space. Ten acres, cost -wise, did not seem to
warrant a specific plan or establishing an ordinance for a
specific plan, so it was staff's recommendation that the
applicant request a General Plan Amendment to give the City
the opportunity to set a medium density on this property.
The applicants also own the commercial general on the other
side, and they felt the only way they can financially
develop the commercial general, and the other side, because
of the concrete lined channel and the traffic lights, etc.,
would be to go to a.higher density.
So the applicant is here because of staff recommendation, in
an effort to clean up a problem the City hqs with its
General Plan.
Council Member Waller asked the Planning Director if there
has been any change in the feeling of the Planning
Page 8
Beaumont City Council
April 13, 1987
Commission, with the Planning Director replying that the
reason given by the Planning Commission was that the City
has too much high density or multiple family residential,
and that it is the prettiest piece of property in Beaumont
and should have single family homes on it. She, personally,
does not know if those are substantial findings or not, that
is a determination the Council will have to make. Whether
they have changed their minds or not, she has not heard.
Council Member Connors indicated the spot zoning was not a
part of the Planning Commission motion voted on by the
Commission, and the different explanation of what spot
zoning is was explained to them before they voted, so she
does not think spot zoning was the issue anymore.
a. Consideration of Appeal of Planning Commission
Decision.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Mayor Partain, to
uphold the appeal of the applicant.
AYES: Council Member Waller and Mayor Partain.
NOES: Council Member Connors and Shaw.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Russo.
After the motion was made, but prior to the vote, Mayor
Partain agreed that -the percentage for single family within
the area is too low, however, in this case, he is concerned
that if in fact the City allows that area to develop, with
Marshall Creek going down the center of it, the cost
involved in making Marshall Creek safe, and meeting the
County requirements, would raise the cost of development of
the area beyond what could be recaptured in single family
housing, and this is the reason he seconded the motion.
MOTION FAILED DUE TO A TIE VOTE, resulting in the appeal
being denied.
b.. Consideration of Adoption of Negative Declaration 87-
ND-2.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Connors to adopt Negative Declaration 87 -ND -2.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw and Waller.
NOES: Mayor Partain.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Russo.
C. RESOLUTION
Change th
Development
Bringing it
CC- GP -1.1).
Associates.
NO. 1987 -24 - Amending the General Plan to
a Zoning from Residential Planned Unit
(PUD) to Residential Single Family (RSF)
into Conformance with the Zoning Map. (87-
Applicant: Beaumont CKS Partnership - FCE
Location: 14th and Beaumont Avenue.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Shaw, to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -24.
AYES: Council Member Connors and Shaw.
NOES: Council Member Waller and Mayor Partain.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Russo.
MOTION FAILED DUE TO TIE VOTE.
Page 9
Beaumont City Council
April 13, 1987
8. PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE. Applicant:
American Hous ng Corporation. Location:. N�E Corner of
Beaumont Avenue and Cougar Way. A proposed General Plan
Amendment from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Residential
Multi- Family (RMF) and proposed Zone Change from Residential
Single Family (RSF) to Residential Multi- Family (RMF). 87-
CC-GP-1.2, 87- RZ -1).
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:40 P.M.
Mr. Michael Heaman, 924 Westwood Boulevard, Los Angeles,
California, Executive Vice President of American Housing,
addressed the Council as a proponent of this project.
Mr. Heaman: All we are saying in support of the proposal is
that it has gone through the Planning Commission with
unanimous support, the Planning Director and staff were very
helpful. We think it is a very straightforward, upscale
apartment project. I want to underscore, because I know
there are members of the audience who will ask that
question, as well they should, it is not a government
subsidized housing program. It has nothing to do whatsoever
with welfare mothers, or anyone else you may not want to
have as tenants in Beaumont. This is an upscale project
with a full package of amenities similar to the types you
have heard in the prior proposal. Tennis courts, spa, pool,
recreation room, kitchen, exercise room, the whole gambit of
amenities that you would expect to find in a very upscale
apartment project.
We expect to rent these units to the marketplace at the
highest rents the market will bear. This is not a
charitable project, nor is it a low- income project per se.
Under the terms of the tax exempt bond program, under which
the units will be financed, the bonds to be issued by the
Riverside County Housing Authority, they require under those
bonds that 10% of the units, or in this case sixteen
apartment units, be rented at certain rent. Today those
rents would be $280.00 for the one - bedroom and $345.00 for
the two- bedroom. I expect in a year, when we have these
ready for occupancy, that will be up perhaps $30.00 per
month. Only on those sixteen units does that rent come into
effect. Everything else goes by the normal market
procedure. People come, the rents that we can get we will
charge, as they rent up we will probably raise the rents.
So we encourage your support of it, and we stand ready to
answer any questions you might have.
Mayor Partain: Thank you. Any other proponents wishing to
speak in favor of the project.
David Sumner, representing the firm of Sandborn and Webb,
the engineer on the preliminary studies for American
Housing, addressed the Council as a proponent.
Mr. Sumner: The project as far as we are concerned has been
in the technical area. I am familiar with the project. It
is near other developments close by, and it would be in
conformance with the kind of development I think you are
planning. There are no flood problems there, and you do
have circulation on Beaumont Avenue and Cougar, Way, with
access on both streets, should it be designed that way. We
are not in the design stage, but topographically and the
Page 10
Beaumont City Council
April 13, 1987
basic problems you might encounter are non - existent for the
most part, and the sewer, as you know, is in an assessment
district close by, which they would have to purchase in to
because they are not part of the current sewer assessment
district. But they do have sewer nearby, water is
available, circulation is good, and the zoning and the
General Plan would be in conformance with the other
projects. Any questions.
Mlayor Partain: Mrs. Connors, Mr. Waller, Mr. Shaw? Okay,
thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak to Item No. 8.
Anyone else wishing to speak for - any other proponents.
How about anyone wishing to speak in opposition, please come
forward, state your name and address, and if you represent a
firm, please state that.
Donna Bell, 11543 Beaumont Avenue, spoke in opposition to
the project.
Mrs. Bell: I am opposed to it because, like the man said,
there are sixteen low- income units going in there. We
already have some of those down behind Alpha Beta, and I
have seen what is living in there. There is drug problems
down there and stuff. I don't want that across the street
from me. There is no traffic signal there. When high
school gets out it is hard to even get out of my driveway.
A lot of times I almost get rear - ended. I have seen my
daughter's school bus almost get rear - ended. I don't know
how close the sewers are to there. I know we don't have
sewer, of course we are in the County.
I am concerned with the crime rate if there is low- income,
or a lot of high density population there. I am also
concerned about overcrowding in our schools. I know one
reading class at Palm School has forty children in it. I
think that is too much. Put a housing project in, a
multiple family housing project, I am afraid it is going to
put more children in our schools that is already crowded. I
don't think we need that. I don't see any plans for new
schools. It would be nice to have more population for
shopping, we need that. But I would like to see us stay at
housing. That is all I have to say.
Mayor Partain: Mrs. Bell, wait a minute. We have a copy of
your letter, and the one thing that is being addressed right
now is the zone change, not the project itself. Not any
proposed project.
Mrs. Bell: I want it to stay the same. I want it to stay
single family.
Mayor Partain: The questions that you have raised, as far
as in your letter is concerned, those are questions that are
raised if and when a project comes before the City, and the
study is done at that time. Of course, when that is done,
the question regarding the schools, and the water, are
things that are put to the school district, and to the water
district - the Beaumont - Cherry Valley Water District.
Mrs. Bell: I didn't know how the system works.
Mayor Partain: I wanted you to know for your information.
When any project comes up those are things that are put
forth.
Page 11
Beaumont City Council
April 13, 1987
Mrs. Bell: What happens if it is approved, and then - they
just can't do it if the school district can't handle it.
Mayor Partain: That have to mitigate. If the school
district says, yes, this is going to cause overcrowding, in
order to mitigate this we have to have so much money, or
whatever, and they have to pay that so they can build
schools or classrooms, or whatever. But those are questions
that are addressed when the project is presented to them.
Mrs. Bell: My basic thing is I am opposed to the zone
change.
Mayor Partain: Okay. I just wanted you to know. Anyone
else that wishes to speak in opposition. Anyone else
wishing to speak.
The Public Hearing was closed at 8:47 P.M.
Valerie Beeler, Planning Director, presented a staff report
concerning this proposed project. This report is a matter
of record in the Clerk's file.
Council Member Waller, Shaw and Connors had no comments or
questions.
a. Consideration of Adoption of Negative Declaration 87-
ND-4.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Waller, to adopt Negative Declaration 87 -ND -4.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Russo.
b. ORDINANCE NO. 637 - FIRST READING - Approving Zone
Change 7 -RZ-� from Residential Single Family (RSF) to
Residential Multi- Family (RMF). Applicant: American
Housing Corporation. Location: N/E Corner of Beaumont
Avenue and Cougar Way.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Shaw, to pass Ordinance No. 637 at its first reading.
The Ordinance was read in its entirety by the Deputy City
Clerk.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Russo.
C. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -25 - Amending the General Plan to
Change Zoning from Punned Unit Development (PUD) to
Residential Multi- Family (RMF). Applicant: American
Housing Corporation. Location: N/E Corner of Beaumont
Avenue and Cougar Way.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Connors, to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -25.
Page 12
Beaumont City Council
April 13, 1987
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Russo.
9. PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT - Applicant: Jasper Stone -
Ron Whittier. r. ^Location: __N 7_E of 6th and Illinois, approx.
350' north of 6th Street adjacent to City limits. A
Proposed General Plan Amendment from High and Low Medium
Density Residential -to General Commercial. (87- CC- GP -1.3).
The Public Hearing was Opened at 8:56 P.M.
David Sumner, representing Ron Whittier, addressed the
Council as a proponent.
Mr. Sumner: There is nothing unusual about the project. It
is in a commercial area as you know, next to the Rusty
Lantern. We have done preliminary engineering on the
project, and it does have some things to address but nothing
unusual. No flooding, you do have utilities and
circulation. It is three lots merged into one project with
several things to consider. Nothing overwhelming about it.
I think the City Engineer, perhaps, will address the joint
relationship concerning the sewer, but at this time I won't
get into detail. We are proposing that it is a good plan
for what is needed out there. Are there any questions.
Mayor Partain: Anyone else wishing to speak in favor of the
General Plan Amendment. Anyone wishing to speak against it.
Any opponents here. No one wishing to speak against.
The Public Hearing was closed at 8:58 P.M.
There were no questions or comments from members of the
Council.
a. Consideration of Adoption of Negative Declaration 87-
ND-5.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Waller, to adopt Negative Declaration 87 -ND -5.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously,
with one absent.
b. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -26 - Amending the General Plan to
Change Zoning from Iiigh and Low Medium Density
► Residential to General Commercial (CG). Applicant:
` Jasper Stone - Ron Whittier. Location: N/E of 6th and
Illinois, approx. 350' north of 6th Street adjacent to
City limits.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Shaw, to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -26.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Russo.
Page 13
Beaumont City Council
April 13, 1987
10. PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT - To Amend the Circulation
Element to Provide for the Extension of Palm Avenue between
14th Street and Brookside Avenue, and to Remove the
Extension of Orange Avenue and Michigan Avenue from the
Circulation Element. Applicant: City of Beaumont. (87 -CC-
GP-1.4).
The City Manager presented his staff report concerning this
proposed amendment to the Circulation Element, outlining the
reasons why the extension of Palm Avenue rather than Orange
or Michigan would be more beneficial for the City and
provide better circulation in this area.
The Public Hearing was opened at 9:06 P.M.
Mr. Eugene Gabrych, 2006 Highway 395, Fallbrook, a landowner
in the area being discussed, spoke in opposition.
Mr. Gabrych: I own the 40 acre parcel on Cougar, where
Palm Avenue is going to come across. As I looked at the map
that was sent to me, it seems to me everybody along there is
pretty much going to benefit except me, because this is
going to switch the bridge on to my property. The first
question I have got is who is going to pay for the bridges.
Will that be a condition of me developing the land to have
to put in those bridges.
Mayor Partain: Are you talking about the bridge across
Marshall Creek.
Mr. Gabrych: That would be a condition of me developing,
right. Well, my understanding now is that Flood Control is
going to require Marshall Creek to be a trapezoidal channel,
cement lined. Is that correct.
City Manager: As of this morning there is no direction that
way. I just talked with the District Engineer.
Mr. Gabrych: In other words, they don't know.
City Manager: They want to now meet with me, for a change.
Mr. Gabrych: What I was going to say, if it is going to be
lined, the width is going to be approximately the same, and
it is going to have to have a new bearing, because it is
going to be straight, if it becomes cement. It is possibly
going to change from where it is now, and it will be the
same width crossing the existing Orange as it would be on my
land. One of the reasons I understand it was switched over
there is because Marshall Creek is narrower on my land where
Palm Avenue would cross. So it would then be about the same
width, so I can't see where it would make much difference
whether it crossed on the existing Orange, or up on my land.
And then, the other thing, is - where it comes from
underneath those power lines, they could swing it right back
on to Orange, and if it came up Orange - one of the reasons I
want to see it go up Orange is that there are four property
owners there and each one would share the cost of the
bridge. If the bridge goes on to my land alone, then I am
stuck with the whole cost. Which is going to make it pretty
much impossible to develop and it will just sit there. So,
I think if they came from where the power line is, or even
before that, and swung over back to Orange, you could use a
configuration and take out some of the big sweep. Now the
Page 14
Beaumont City Council
April 13, 1987
reason, I was told, that they didn't do that is because they
wanted to cross the power lines at a right angle. But the
adopted rule of Orange right now wiggles all the way
through, so I don't know when they adopted that.
Anyhow, you are going to go for a negative declaration
tonight, so I would like somebody to tell me what the effect
will be on Marshall Creek. The erosion, the effect that it
is going to have on this road. Have they got a copy of the
Negative Declaration here.
Mayor Partain: The Negative Declaration has to do with the
circulation element, not with the street.
Mr. Gabrych: Oh, I see. I thought it was for the - -- I
wouldn't be against it if there was someway we could finance
the cost of the bridges across the existing Marshall Creek,
or if there was some way I wouldn't be damaged if I try to
put a map down on that piece of property. It seems that to
have to stand the cost of the bridges by myself is unfair.
Mayor Partain: Do you have anything else. Okay. We have
Mr. Bob Meacham. Would you please come forward.
Mr. Bob Meacham, 650 E. 14th Street, representing the First
Baptist Church, addressed the Council as a proponent.
Mr. Meacham: We would like to say that we support the move
to change the circulation element to what is proposed. It
only makes sense to us to put a four -lane highway, or four -
lane street into another four -lane street. I might say that
we are not totally opposed to leaving Orange the way you
were if you want to do that. But it just makes sense to us
to change it so that the traffic coming out - I hear
comments of 150 units and things like that up there in that
area. You have got to do something with it. You can't dump
them on a two -lane street. That is all I have.
Mayor Partain: Thank you. Mr. Shelton.
Mr. Tom Shelton, 11622 Seacrest Drive, Garden Grove,
addressed the Council as a proponent.
Mr. Shelton: My wife and I own the 40 acres on the
southeast corner of Cougar Way and Beaumont Avenue. We have
been under final plan preparation to utilize this site for a
mobile home site. We do need to get this matter resolved in
order to progress from the point we presently are at. I
would like to compliment your City Engineer in the job of
his plan preparation. I believe I agree with the gentleman
from the Southern Baptist Church to run four travel lanes
into two lanes through a developed residential area is not
good traffic planning certainly, and it might be a hazard to
the residents who live there. We would like to proceed with
our project, at least on the engineering standpoint, and we
would appreciate if this matter gets resolved tonight.
Thank you, gentlemen.
Mayor Partain: Thank you. Mr. Hostetler.
Mr. John Hostetler, 19861 Saltwater Circle, Huntington
Beach, General Manager of DEVCORP, addressed the Council as
a proponent.
Page 15
Beaumont City Council
April 13, 1987
Mr. Hostetler: We hold an interest in properties that are
actually bisected by the proposed route, which is currently
in our area, orange Avenue. our present holdings total
somewhere in the range of approximately 70 acres, something
a little short of that. We will be probably expending a
considerable amount of money to be installing the streets as
designed, or proposed, in this particular layout, and we
certainly want to speak in favor of the proposal as drawn.
Certainly it is most important that we look ahead to the
future, and that we plan for growth in the future.
Certainly it would be shortsighted if we didn't look at
these areas of improving the traffic pattern for the future,
the growth of the community, so on that note I would just
simply like to say, yes, we are very much in support of the
design as drawn. Thank you.
Mayor Partain: Do we have anybody else who wishes to speak.
Would you please come forward and state your name, address,
and if you are speaking in opposition or favor of.
Mr. Tony Boyd, 30384 Point Marina Drive, Canyon Lake,
representing the Cougar Mountain Apartments on Cougar Way,
addressed the Council as a proponent.
Mr. Boyd: We would like to go on record in support of this
proposed change. We are fully aware of the financial and
physical impact that this change will have on our site, and
we do support it. Thank you.
Mayor Partain: Anyone else wishing to speak either in favor
of or against.
Mr. David Sumner, Sandborn and Webb, representing Howard
Ryan of Telite, the owner of property in the area, addressed
the Council in opposition.
Mr. Sumner: Mr. Ryan has a strange piece of property
located up there. In my testimony I will probably speak
with some mixed emotion because in the basis of that it is a
good project. Tying a four -lane road into a four -lane
existing, and straightening up all the problems with the
flood control in general. However, my client, Telite, has
some concerns, he has a strange piece of property that
touches on Cherry Avenue, 14th and Michigan, and he is
bisected right in the middle with those power lines. He is
not a developer, he is an owner, and his prime concern is
economic and not whether or not the road goes through there.
He is not in the position to pay for any economic
development. The power line problem is an absolute loss to
him. You can't do anything but drive under it. You can't
develop it, or I don't think even park under it. I
understand that if you have anything inflammable you cannot
park it under those lines, and that includes automobiles.
Therefore, my concern, to represent the client is, is there
going to be an economic impact on him as an owner, and not
as a developer, regarding that road. Will he have to pay
for the development, or will be there be an assessment
district to pay for it for him, and will there be a joint
venture to pay for it under the power lines, which is of no
value to him as an investment. Questions? I am not
throwing a complete negative at you, but these are questions
he has. If he were to sell and a developer come in with
some sort of a plan, then you could address it, but at this
time we can't.
Page 16
Beaumont City Council
April 13, 1987
Mayor Partain: Mr. Bounds, is there anything you would like
to address. Are you asking the question now, Mr. Sumner.
Mr. Sumner: It would be nice to have some kinds of a
response if it is appropriate, Mr. Mayor.
City Manager: Anytime that a street is planned, and has
been approved as a designated route, any number of owners of
property in which there is some economic hardship or
benefit, may band together and form an assessment district,
a. Mello -Roos financing district, that is the two better ones
right this minute, to pay for all of the improvements, part
of the improvements, or whatever. The requirements under
that have to do with the number of people involved, and the
amount of valuation on their land. Whether the valuation on
the land would uphold that, and things like that, along that
line. All of those, I am sure, would be acceptable to the
City. As I understand it, if the Council should pass this,
as a circulation element, amendment to the circulation, it
would not be required by anybody owning property Ito do
anything to the street at this time. Therefore, if aperson
who owns property for the purpose of selling the property at
a, hopefully, a profit, then he has no problem as far as
there being a cash flow drain at that time, unless he found
that -in trying to sell the property that it became a
financial or a fiscal problem, and the cost of the
improvements outweighed the benefits of the property, once
they were on it as far as what could be built on it at that
time. I am not sure if that answered your question,. but,
financing is available for those that desire to be financed.
j
Mr. Sumner: So in the event the owner agreed to dedicate
that 92 feet, then he would not be required to improve the
road.
City Manager: The owner would not be requested to dedicate
anything at this time.
Mr. Sumner: How far would you expect that to be. Perhaps
within a year.
City Manager: If he did not do anything to the property, I
don't see the City requiring him to pay for the street
unless he became a part of a financing tool. I have not
heard the Council, in any of our discussions, say the .street
shall be put in within eighteen months, or whatever. So, by
that, I presume they are saying that as development comes,
the street will be put in.
Mr. Sumner: Well, then, a different view, Mr. Manager,
there is no question you will need that street with the
improvement of properties to the north, you need another
circulation. From that point of view even my plient
recognizes that. He simply wanted his position on the
economics stated. Thank you.
Mayor Partain: Anyone else wishing to speak either for or
against.
Mr. Skip Elam, 803 California, speaking neither as a
proponent or in opposition, asked if they were going to tear
out the grass medium on Palm. That was what he was curious
about, because that is one of the few things that Beaumont
has that is attractive.
Page 17
4
Beaumont City Council
April 13, 1987
Mayor Partain: As a matter of fact, the extension of Palm,
as proposed, does have a medium in it. You can see it�there
on the plan. Anyone else wishing to speak.
The Public Hearing was closed at 9:24 P.M.
There were no comments or questions from the Council. '
a. Consideration of Adoption of Negative Declaration 87-
ND-7.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Connors, to adopt Negative Declaration 87 -ND -7. 4
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously
with one absent.
Let the record show the City Manager read into the record a
letter from the Beaumont Unified School district stating no
objections to the proposed change, but asking they be kept
advised concerning traffic control at the intersection of
Cougar Way and Palm Avenue if the extension becomes a
reality.
b. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -27 - Amending the Circulation
EE. —ement of the General Plan to Provide for' the
Extension of Palm Avenue between 14th Street and
Brookside Avenue, and to Remove the Extension of Orange
Avenue and Michigan Avenue from the Circulation
Element. Applicant: City of Beaumont.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Shaw, to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -27.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Russo.
11. APPEAL of Planning Commission Conditions of Approval for
P of Plan 87 -PP -5. Applicant: Dura Plastic Products, Inc.
Location: North of 3rd Street, South of So. Pacific
Railroad Tracks between Chestnut and Maple.
The Public Hearing was opened at 9:29 P.M.
i
Dr. A. S. Randhawa, Abbey Animal Hospital, 754 E', 3rd
Street, addressed the Council: I want to emphasize one
F thing. I am not against the project, but I have been there
many years, and the ML zoning of the City calls; that
anything coming new should be conforming with the harm®nious
situation, and so on. I requested during the Planning
Commission that there should be a wall built surrounding my
place. There was a number of things, one was soundproofing,
number two was main one, once I knew they were going to put
the recreation area surrounding me where 100 and, some
employees will eat. That will be very, very unprivate
situation for my family, and you know that I am the 'first
generation came here. All my children are here - will you
stand up please - and cultural differences there - and if
they see somebody kissing there, which is normal to
American, it will be a terrible thing to my family. That is
the main thing - and also now Dura Plastic also pointed out
Page 18
Beaumont City Council
April 13, 1987
that there is a danger that some wash from my place will go
to their recreation place, and may introduce some infection
from the hospital, which is not true because all my patients
are inside, and their disposal goes into the sewer. °? Now
whatever is outside, there will be a little bit due to my
two residential dogs, which is allowed in any residence.
But if they want to prevent that, then that wall built in
will definitely drain the whole water from my place to the
east, and then it will go on the right way. And that will
be another good benefit for that. Otherwise, I am in "favor
of that project, and we have no problem.
Mayor Partain: Thank you. Okay, do we have anybody who
wishes to speak in favor of the appeal.
Joe Fahrlender, representing Dura Plastic Products, 533 E.
3rd Street, addressed the Council as a proponent.
Mr. Fahrlender: To start off, we will go more or "less,
because I think this is real critical that we cover; this
point by point, so I will more or less read from what i have
here. I will give you a short history of Dura Plastics, I
don't know how many of you are acquainted with us or� not.
We have been there approximately eighteen years. We started
out with a 20,000 sq.ft. facility, and have shown a steady
growth from that facility and presently encompass 47,000
sq.ft. approximately at our current facility. This growth
is necessitated more or less by the industry that we are in.
We manufacture PVC fittings much as you find in your front
yard sprinkler system, on up to large irrigation systems,
and things of that nature.
Growth is necessary for us, not just because we have !money
we want to throw, or we want to capture a sufficiently
large part of the market. Essentially, it is a matt r of
survival. We are in a market where in order to insure
continual service to our existing customer base, and in
order to get enough capital up to increase our market
offerings, as far as our product range and things of, that
nature, we have to capture a sufficiently larger share of
the market. And that is what really necessitates building
in this site we have chosen.
We come before the Council more or less seeking approval of
a project. Like I say, we have been here for eighteen years
and in that time, as near as I can tell, we have never
really come to the Council asking for anything,4 any
concessions, or demanding anything. And we really don't do
that this time. We just ask for approval of a facility that
we guarantee will be aesthetically pleasing, functional and
more or less of benefit, overall, to the whole community.
The only objection that we have really reached so far is Dr.
Randhawa with his wall, and indirectly the planning
department in the City requesting that we put curb and
gutter and resurface with a one inch cap in front of Dr.
Randhawa's place of business, being Abbey Medical Clinic.
Essentially, the rationale behind that is that since our
property wraps around his property, for aesthetics for the
City they want us to do that.
Dr. Randhawa is in a light industrially zoned area there.
He is a businessman within the community. He owns a viable
business within the community. There is some speculation
that originally within his conditions to build there was
most probably a rider requiring that he install the curb and
Page 19
i
Beaumont City Council
April 13, 1987
gutter, and that he put the road back on the property at
such a time when the rest of the property adjacent to it was
developed. Unfortunately, the original minutes' and
conditions to build are not available to us, and we have got
no way of going back and proving this one way or another.
Our contention is we have no problem whatsoever with
installing curb and gutter, capping the street - I.
spoke with Mr. Bounds, and he raised some concern .about
possible light destruction of the street, or destruction is
probably not a very apropo word, maybe a little scarring of
the street adjacent to and even including the frontage of
Dr. Randhawa is possible because of the wraparound of our
property there. And we want to express to the Council that
we have every intention of leaving this site in better
condition than we originally found it. If such instance
does occur, then we will most certainly go in, fit the
expense, and repair the street.
As far as Dr. Randhawa's request for a wall around his
property goes, I think, the first thing he expressed a
concern about was the noise pollution, and I think you
addressed it in your last meeting in relationship tb the
business across the street from Dr. Randhawa, and th� fact
that as far as soundproofing goes, in his original
conditions to build as a condition imposed upon him because
of the nature that he does and the possible noise
pollution from the animals that he might keep there, teat he
would build his facility soundproof. I am not sure ejactly
who it was that pointed out, but I heard that someon has
pointed out that if it is soundproof one way, theoretically,
it is soundproof the other.
Also, in answer to that, we have - what we are shooting for
here is an unlimited building, so we are required to have 60
foot setbacks on all yards at the corners of the building.
We are also going to insulate the facility ceiling and
walls. If you were to go to our existing facility youwould
notice - if I might - we have basically three areas within
our factory. We have this area here which will be'used,
essentially, be used for machine shop and production. Here
is Dr. Randhawa's facility, right down here. This area will
be used for warehousing, and this will be used for shipping
and warehousing. Truck traffic will enter here off Of 3rd
Street, come around well away from his property, around the
back to the back loading dock. Any noise pollution' that
would be coming from the area would be coming from the
production area, which would be facing Yates, which also
employs machinery as loud or louder than ours. Wed have
conducted a noise survey in our areas, and there is no
appreciable noise pollution. I don't believe the City has
an Ordinance in this industrial zone limiting the amount of
noise pollution that a person can produce. So, we really
don't foresee any problem as far as that goes - as far as
the necessity for a wall.
Council Member Shaw:- Here is a question I must ask. A lot
of people have asked me - several people have asked me In
this addition, are you going to produce anything that" will
generate hazardous materials to their health, because they
are quite concerned about it. So, to alleviate theirfears
I wish you would make a statement as to what you intend to
do. 3
Mayor Partain: If I may interrupt. It is my understanding,
and I don't want to get way out of line here, but this
Page 20
Beaumont City Council
April 13, 1987
public hearing is based on the appeal of three specific
items. I think we need to be careful, because I am afraid -
and maybe I am out of line, and the attorney can help us
here, but I think we are addressing everything but the three
specific items so far, haven't we.
City Attorney: Yes, you need to limit it.
Mayor Partain: What we are doing, we are getting out of
line. As I understand it, and this is what I would like to
address, and this is what we need to be concerned with this
evening, are the three items that you are appealing, and
that would be, as I understand it, and let me see if I have
this right, the Planning Director can help me here - that is
Items a, e and g, is that not correct. Of Item No. 3. So
what I would like to do here, in order to get this thing
going, I have let it get out of hand. I would like those
items addressed, which you have already done somewhat, and
let's go from there.
Mr. Fahrlender: The reason we seem to be straying so
far is because there has been specific allegations made
against our company, our operation, the way we plan to put
the facility in there, what we plan to do with it, and I
think that since that letter is a matter of record, and
someone has been allowed to speak in dissension against our
project, and raise those specific points, I should be
allowed to address those points, and you should hear our
side. What I will do, I will run through these three
points, and address them, and then at that time, if I may, I
will go back and I will answer Dr. Randhawa's accusations.
Would that be presentable to the Mayor.
Mayor Partain: But your time, you are running way over.
What we need to do is get these - - -
Mr. Fahrlender: Okay, I will expedite it then, the
street, like I say, the street, the resurfacing, the curb
and gutter, we are more than happy, in the direct frontage
of our property, to do it. We feel that whatever
differences the City and Dr. Randhawa have, and however that
is resolved, should not be our place to have to incur the
expense of putting the curb and gutter and street
resurfacing, if there is no damage from our particular
project to the street, in front of Dr. Randhawa's business.
Secondly - the power poles is more or less something -
the Planning Commission meeting got more out of hand than
this - was, more or less, an oversight. They removed the
condition to install sidewalks, and with the removal of that
condition, the power poles will remain in their current
place. In fact, if at all possible, we intend to run
underground utilities in the area, depending on the
finances, and things of that nature. But we want to do
whatever possible to facilitate making an aesthetic setup as
well as a functional factory.
The third one was the curb and gutter in front of Yates.
There is approximately 55 feet from Yates fence line that
was not included in their conditions to build on their last
approval for their office structure. Essentially, I guess,
because Palm Avenue, or Chestnut, at the time, was not
abandoned. It has come to my attention now, that Yates,
will be, in the near future, filing for new conditions to
build on another expansion there. And we would like to
Page 21
Beaumont City Council
April 13, 1987
ask the Council to, in some way, make Yates responsible for
their own curb and gutter in front of their property. �,;e
don't really feel, with the building that they are doing, we
should incur the costs for their curb and gutter either.
Mayor Partain: Okay. Any questions. Thank you.
Mr. Fahrlender: Just a few more minutes to address Dr.
Dr. Randhawa's - I really --
Mayor Partain: What specific about Dr. Randhawa's.
Mr. Fahrlender: Edell, specific, as far as the wall, the
drainage.
Mayor Partain: I need to apologize to you. I should never
have let that be brought up. Make it brief please.
Mr. Fahrlender: I will just run down through his
letter, I guess, is the easiest way to do it. Our employees
do not throw trash, to be best of my knowledge, and
certainly not an inordinate amount of trash, anymore than
any normal car traffic would throw. If you look at our
property, and our existing facility, look at the surrounding
land, you will see that we are a fairly clean facility. I
don't think it is fair for him to assume that the trash is
coming from us. The street, because there is so little
development on it, sees quite a bit of transient traffic,
people from other areas coming in and parking, and I think
that attributes to quite a bit of the litter problem.
As far as the wall goes, like I say, he is legally allowed
for the natural drainage. The fall from rainwater. The
flow of water across his property. He is not, to the best
of my knowledge anyway, allowed the flow of water drawn from
the water system essentially, coming out
of a hose just to blatently wash everything across his
concrete and on to our property.
And, finally, as far as the harrassment in our eating area
goes, I feel that is rather presumptious too, his not
knowing our employees, it being an industrial zoned 'area,
not a residential zoned area. For the record I just don't
feel that is an accurate representation of the type of
people that we employ at Dura Plastics. Thank you.
Mayor Partain: Anyone else wishing to speak either for or
against. Anyone else wishing to speak.
The Public Hearing was closed at 9:44 P.M.
t The City Manager advised the Council that Condition 3.e,
having to do with moving of power lines, was an oversight on
staff's part, and he recommended that Condition 3.e be
deleted from the conditions.
Regarding 3.a, he felt very strongly that the condition
having to do with the curb and gutter in front of Yates
remain a condition against Dura Plastics. If Yates builds
and does their curb and gutter prior to Dura Plastics, the
City will require them to do it, but there is a problem in
the fact that Dura Plastics is proposing a pressure pump for
storm drain water, and if we have an area of curb and gutter
that would be to the east of the pressure pump,.the pressure
Page 22
N
M
Beaumont City Council
April 13, 1987;
is going to go against anything that is there, and if there
is no curb and gutter, there is the capability of placing
water on to Yates, and then finally, possibly, back on to
Dura Plastics. His recommendation was that the curb and
gutter in front of Yates has to be there regardless d?f who
puts it in, and the best way to get it in is to leave it as
a condition here, and when Yates comes in it will be�put in
as condition on theirs as well, and whoever gets; there
first is required to put it in. If it is not in, then the
storm drain pump at Dura Plastics shall not be turned on
until the curb and gutter is there. The City cannotaccept
the liability of putting water on somebody else.
So far as the curb and gutter in front of Dr. Randhawa's
property is a determination for the Council to make. It is
the aesthetic value, the completion of a street, and the
street will probably never be completed if somebody does not
complete it now. No business should have been allowed to
build without it.
Without the curb and gutter being put in, the street dill be
very piecemeal, and will remain that way for a number of
years.
The City Manager concluded with the statement that the
desire of staff was to try to bring the Council thei best
project they could, realizing there were problems, and
conditions were placed to try to eliminate the problems so
the Council could make the decision as to how far they City
should go.
The City Engineer asked to make one additional point
relative to setting the condition for capping the street in
front of the property. A condition of approval of this
nature is in recognition of the extreme amount of traf is of
heavy equipment that will be brought into this site Turing
construction. This is going to cause an enormous amount of
damage to a road that is already aging. It is predicable,
therefore, the requirement is that after they have fi ished
abusing the street, build it up, strengthen it up, cp it,
and leave it in better or equal condition as it was; when
they started.
Council Member Waller referred to the light manufacturing
section of Title 17, and pointed out there were many' uses
allowable in that zoning which could be much more off nsive
than that which Dura Plastic is proposing, suc as,
ambulance service, automobile repair garage, freight ng or
trucking terminal, fertilizer, motorcycle repair - 11 of
these could in some way be adverse to Dr. Randhawa's l *king,
or create too much noise. Because he is living there in the
light manufacturing, it is possible he would want all of
these eliminated because he doesn't like them.
Council Member Connors asked weren't the issues befo e the
Council the conditions of approval that Dura Plastic is
appealing, rather than Dr. Randhawa's opinion of the plant,
which he actually didn't say he was against.
Mayor Partain verified there were three conditions of
approval to be considered under the appeal, and those are
the issues.
a. Consideration of Adoption of Negative Declaration 87-
ND -3.
Page 23
Beaumont City Council
April 13, 1987
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Waller to adopt Negative Declaration 87 -ND -3.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously
with one absent.
b. Consideration of Denial of Appeal OR Approval of Plot
Plan 87 -PP -5 with New or Amended Conditions of
Approval.
Let the record show Council Member Shaw was excused at 9:50
P.M., returning to his seat at 9:55.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Connors, to approve Plot Plan 87 -PP -5, with Amended
Conditions of Approval to include Conditions 3.a an 3.91,
with Condition 3.e deleted.
AXES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Walled and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Russo.
END PUBLIC HEARINGS
The meeting was recessed -at 10:00 -P.M., reconvening at 10:1k P.M.
S
12. Request from A. S. Randhawa, D.V.M., for Reevaluaton of
Business License Issued to Sand Blasting Business Locaed at
238 Maple Avenue. (Continued from March 23, 1987).
Members of the audience addressing the Council asking ior a
reevaluation of the business license issued to $urton
Sandblasting were as follows: I
Dr. A. S. Randhawa, Jenie Shaw, Mrs. Harriet Kilgore, Pir. S.
Elam and Happy Randhawa.
A letter from R. T. Williams and Joanie Williams in
opposition to the sandblasting business was noted fot the
record.
The City Manager reported that staff was in error in issuing
a business license to Burton Sandblasting. As long as
sandblasting is done on site, a conditional use permit is
required. If the sandblasting was not done on site,i then
the business could be classified as a contractor's equipment
and storage yard, which would require a plot plan* In
either case, action by the Planning Commission will be
required.
The procedure which Mr. Burton will have to follow is to
file either an application for a plot plan or a conditional
use permit, whichever Mr. Burton desires to do.
Mayor Partain asked for clarification that Mr. Burton, at
this time, is not in compliance, with the City Manager
responding that is correct. Mayor Partain then asked if the
Council takes no action, what would then happen, aA the
City Manager indicated Mr. Burton's business license would
have to be revoked. Mr. Burton would then need to` make
application to the Planning Commission. '
a
kM1
Page 24
a
13.
fl
Beaumont City Council
April 13, 19871
Council Member Connors asked why, when this was first
brought to the City's attention, the business license was
not revoked at that time. The City Manager indicated the
matter was brought to the City Council by Dr. Randhawa,
rather than to him. If it had been brought to him, he would
have taken action immediately, but when it is presented
directly the Council, it must be given consideration )y the
Council..
Council Member Connors then
interpretation of residential uses
City Manager indicated that then,
needed tonight, because there is no
to take. Eventually, the Council
tonight.
This matter was returned to staff
the Council.
inquired about the
in an ML zone, and the
is no interpretation
action the Councils needs
might have to, but not
with no action takLn by
4
A
Request from Mr. Keith Burton, Burton Sandblasting,, for
Review of Business License Issued to Abbey Animal Hospital.
(Continued from March 23, 1987).
The issue of the complaint by Mr. Burton concernin dogs
barking at night was addressed by the City Mager,
indicating that all dog owners are responsible for keping
their dogs quiet, and if they do not, the police department
should be contacted. The police department will then ave a
record of the number of complaints and can issue a nuisance
citation if it is warranted.
a
Mayor Partain summarized that apparently there is no problem
with the business license and the barking dogs pre a
different problem completely, and Mr. Burton has been
advised of the action to take concerning this problem.
Mr. Hardy Rost, Palm Desert, addressed the Council asking if
public health is part of the license issue. He indicated
that Abbey Animal Hospital has no clarifier, and everything
is being dumped into the sewer. He also indicated th t Dr.
Randhawa had a rental property and a residence on the' same
property as a hospital and asked if this was permisoible.
In Dr. Randhawa's conditions to build, he was shown 'ow to
hook the sewer up, but it was cheaper for him to hook them
all in one, and that is what he did - took the house the
rental and the hospital and routed it out across: Dura
Plastic's property. He felt that was illegal, at least as
far as their property was concerned.
Direction was given to the City Manager to prepare a keport
addressing the issues raised, and bring it back to the
Council at their next regular meeting of April 27, 1987.
The issues raised by Mr. Rost were clarified as being:
a. He does not feel the hospital is being operated
according to codes for hospitals.
b. The hospital should have a clarifier so the City can
monitor what he is putting into the sewer.
C. The rental property and residential property should not
be located on the same lot as the hospital.
Page 25
14.
Beaumont City Council
April 13, 1987
d. The rental property, residence and hospital should not
all three be hooked into one sewer.
e. lie hoses the property off at least three times a month,
dumping the residue from the animals on everybody
else's property without their consent, and part of the
property in question is his, and he does not consent to
this at all.
Consideration of Proposed Budget Presented by 75th
Anniversary Steering Committee.
Mr. Fred Hicks, Chairman of the 75th Anniversary Steering
Committee presented the committee's proposed budget for
Council consideration.
Council Member Connors questioned the 20 people provided for
under the Mayor's luncheon category. Mr. Hicks indicated it
was for the visiting mayors, and was advised that all
visiting mayors pay for their own lunch.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Connors, to approve the 75th Anniversary Steering
Committee's budget of $11,500, with expenditures through the
month of July, which includes the previously tentative
budget authorized for fireworks, and the money shall be
placed in a trust fund to be used by the 75th Anniversary
Steering Committee, with the funds to be taken from the
General Government Promotion Fund, Account No. 1450 -4096.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
d
ABSENT: Council Member Russo.
15. Report from City Attorney, and Discussion Relative to
Concepts for the Amendment of the Mobile Home Rent Review
Ordinance. (Continued from March 23, 1987).
The Deputy City Attorney presented his report to the
Council. This report is a matter of record in the Clerk's
file.
Council Member Connors asked for clarification of the number
of days shown on Page 6 which indicates from the time of
appointment of the arbitrator they have 30 days within which
to hold a public hearing, 45 days to approve, disapprove,
reduce or increase the rental increase, asking if this was a
total of 75 days, or a total of 45 days, with the City
Attorney confirming it is a total of 75 days.
She then questioned, on Page 5, Item No. 2, whether the
exception for those receiving remuneration meant only
employees, as there was at least one instance when a light
pole was outside of the trailer, and in order to use the
electricity, they took so much off the rent, and she does
not feel this should apply as remuneration.
The City Manager pointed out that, in the past, the owner
has questioned that people receiving Section 8 assistance
with their rent, with the park agreeing to a lesser amount
total from the County, should not be allowed to sign a
petition, and both he and the City Attorney felt this was
not remuneration.
Page 26
Beaumont City Council
April 13, 1987
Mayor Partain indicated he had not had sufficient time to
review the City Attorney's report and needed additional
time.
Let the record show Council Member Waller was excused at
11:05 P.M.
Council Member Connors expressed her concern of just the two
of the them discussing it, since Council Member Waller had
to leave, Council Member Russo is absent, and Council Member
Shaw cannot participate in the discussion due to a conflict,
but also the concern she did not like to see it drag on when
people have stayed through a lengthy meeting to have action
taken.
It was determined that the Council Members will review the
report, make a list of their questions and suggestions, and
give these to the City Attorney at the Council Meeting of
April 27. The City Attorney will then have one week to
prepare a proposed ordinance which will be distributed to
the Council no later than May 5 for their consideration at
their meeting of May 11. It was understood that this would
probably need additional fine tuning, and would probably not
be in final form for Council approval prior to the Council
meeting of May 26.
16. Consideration of Claim for Personal Injuries Filed by Irene
and Jerald Kocal.
The City Manager presented his report to the Council,
pointing out this suit is basically against the Water
District over which the City has no jurisdiction, and
recommended denial.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Shaw, to deny the claim filed by Irene and Jerald Kocal.
There being no opposition, the motion carried 3 ayes, 2
absent.
17. Consideration of Continued Participation in the Urban County
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program for the
Period of October, 1987 through September, 1990.
a. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -28 - Approving Cooperation
Agreement w ti h County of Riverside for Community
Development Block Grant Funds Implementing the Housing
and Community Development Act of 1974 as amended by the
Housing and Urban Rural Recovery Act of 1983 for the
period of October, 1987 through September, 1990, and
Authorizing the :Mayor to Execute Same.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Shaw, to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -28.
There being no opposition, the motion carried, 3 ayes, 2
absent.
18. Consideration of Use, Fee Structure and Needs of all City
Facilities. (Continued from March 30, 1987).
This agenda item was continued to the regular meeting of
April 27, 1987 for the purpose of setting an adjourned
meeting for continued discussion relative to City
facilities.
Page 27
Beaumont City Council
April 13, 1987
20. Request for Authorization to have Electrical Work Done in
the Civic Center.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Connors, to authorize the City Manager to proceed with the
expenditure of $2,800.00, to be charged to Account 1450-
6030, General Government, Capital Expenditure - Building.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Waller and Russo.
19. CONSENT CALENDAR - All items listed under the Consent
Ca—Ien ar are considered to be routine by the City Council
and will be approved by one motion. There will be no
separate discussion of these items unless a Council Member
or Citizen so requests, in which case the item will be
removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a
separate item.
a. Approval of Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of March
23, 1987 and Adjourned Meeting of March 30, 1987.
b. Acceptance of Minutes of Regular Planning Commission
Meeting of March 17, 1987.
C. Approval of Warrants as Audited per Warrant List of
April 13, 1987, in the amount of $234,796.99; Payroll
of March 19, 1987, in the amount of $38,011.39, and
Payroll of April 2, 1987, in the amount of $37,111.28.
d. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -29 - Opposing Assembly Bill 2190
Which Would Make Election by Ward Mandatory in all
Cities in California.
e. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -30 - Setting Fees and Procedures
for Truckload Dumping of Septic Tank and Cesspool
Pumpings at the Wastewater Treatment Plant.
f. Report of Action by Planning Commission at Meeting of
April 7, 1987
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Connors, to approve the Consent Calendar.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw and
Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Waller and Russo.
Mayor
Date Set for Next Regular Study Session, Monday, April 27,
1987, at 6:30 P.M., in the City Manager's Conference Room.
Date Set for Next Regular Council Meeting, Monday, April 27,
1987, at 7:30 P.M., in the City Council Chambers.
There being no further business to come before the Council,
the meeting was adjourned at 11:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
444mvv�
Robert J. Bounds, City Clerk
Page 2&
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
APRIL 27, 1987
The Beaumont City Council met in a regular meeting at 7:32 P.M.,
on Monday, April 27, 1987, in the City Council Chambers with
Mayor Partain presiding.
On Roll Call the following Council Members were present:
Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo and Mayor Partain.
The Invocation was given by Council Member Russo.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Council Member
Waller.
1. Clerk's Affidavit of Posting.
The Clerk's Affidavit of Posting the agenda was read into
the record by the Deputy City Clerk.
2. Adjustments to Agenda.
There were no adjustments to the agenda.
3. ORAL COMMUNICATION:
There was no one requesting to speak during oral
communication.
4. PUBLIC HEARING - 13th YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
FUNDING Request for Input from Community Regard ni g the
Proposed Use of these Funds.
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:35 P.M.
There was no one requesting to speak regarding the use of
13th Year Community Development Block Grant Funds.
The Public Bearing was closed at 7:35:30 P.M.
The Council received a report from the City Manager with his
recommendation that these funds be used for the continued
repair and rehabilitation of fire hydrants within the City.
a. Determination of Use of 13th Year Community Development
Block Grant Funding.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Shaw, to accept the recommendation of the City Manager that
the 13th Year Community Development Block Grant Entitlement
Funds be used for the continued fire hydrant rehabilitation
and replacement program.
AYES: Council Member Connors,
and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Page 1
Shaw, Waller, Russo
1.0
Beaumont City Council
April 27, 1987
Request from Council Member Shaw for Reconsideration of the
Appeal Filed by Beaumont CKS Partnership - FCE Associates.
VOTE TAKEN ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION:
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo
and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Council Member Russo stated he was not at the last meeting,
therefore, he would like to recap for his own information
what he believes this appeal is. He has reviewed the
application and the minutes of the previous meeting, and
apparently this applicant is appealing a decision of the
Planning Commission to allow only single family housing at
this location. His first reaction was to agree, but after
a further review of the lay of the land, and other
conditions in that particular project, he has decided it
would be extremely difficult for that land to be developed
in totally single family. He thinks the proposed changes
would be in the best interests of the City and would allow
the land to be developed in such a manner that it would make
affordable housing available in the City.
a. Consideration of Appeal of Planning Commission
Decision.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Russo, to uphold the appeal filed by Beaumont CKS
Partnership - FCE Associates.
AYES: Council Member Shaw, Waller, Russo and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: Council Member Connors.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
b. Consideration of Adoption of Negative Declaration 87-
ND -2.'
Motion by Council Member Russo, second by Council Member
Shaw, to adopt Negative Declaration 87 -ND -2.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo
and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
d. ORDINANCE NO. 636 - FIRST READING - Approving Zone
Change 6 -RZ -5 Trom Residential Single Family (RSF) to
Residential Multi- Family (RMF). Applicant: Beaumont
CKS Partnership - FCE Associates. Location: Northwest
Corner of 14th and Beaumont Avenue.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Russo, to read Ordinance No. 636 by title only.
AYES: Council Member Shaw, Waller, Russo and Mayor
Partain.
NOES:. Council Member Connors. ,
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Page 2
•
Beaumont City Council
April 27, 1987
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Russo, to pass Ordinance No. 636 at its first reading.
AYES: Council Member Shaw, Waller, Russo and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: Council Member Connors.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
e. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -24 - Amending the General Plan to
Change Zoning from Res dential Planned Unit Development
(PUD) to Medium Density Residential (RMF). Applicant:
Beaumont CKS Partnership - FCE Associates. Location:
Northwest Corner of 14th and Beaumont Avenue. (87 -CC-
GP-1.1).
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Russo, to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -24.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo
and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
6. Request from Mayor Partain for Reconsideration of Appeal of
Planning'Commission Conditions of Approval for Plot Plan 87-
PP-5. Applicant: Dura Plastic Products, Inc. Location:
North of 3rd Street, South of So. Pacific Railroad Tracks
between Chestnut and Maple.
VOTE TAKEN ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION:
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo
and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
At the request of the Mayor, the City Manager explained the
three conditions of approval under appeal, pointing out that
Condition No. 3.e is an error, and should have been deleted
at the Planning Commission level when they deleted the
sidewalks. With this in mind, they would be looking at
Condition No. 3.a, having to do with curb and gutter, and
Condition No. 3.g, having to do with the street overlay.
Mayor Partain stated one of the reasons he requested this
reconsideration was it appeared there was a misunderstanding
regarding the 225 feet of curb and gutter in front of the
Abbey Animal Clinic, and the ability of Dura Plastics to be
reimbursed or recover the cost of that curb and gutter, in
fact, they would not be able to recover the cost.
Council Member Russo asked for clarification regarding the
conditions, and was informed that the appeal is that they
have to put curb and gutter in front of somebody else's
property and a street overlay in front of somebody else's
property.
Council Member Russo then questioned why those conditions
weren't required of the animal hospital when it-was built.
He did not feel Dura Plastic should have to put these
improvements in front of the animal hospital at this time.
Page 3
Beaumont City Council
April 27, 1987
Council Member Connors agreed it should have been on the
animal clinic originally, but at the moment it is also in
front of Dura Plastics because there is a building on each
side of the clinic and behind as well.
The City Manager confirmed that Dura Plastics does
"wraparound ", so to speak, the animal clinic.
Council Member Connors felt that, because of this, the wear
on the street would be accelerated by Dura Plastic because
their building will be on either side of the clinic.
Council Member Russo asked for clarification of Council
Member Connors' statement, that since Dura Plastics is on
both sides, her concern is that it should be Dura Plastic's
responsibility to put in the curb and gutter in front of the
animal hospital.
Council Member Connors said it would also be in front of
Dura Plastic's building, theoretically, because the animal
hospital is nestled in the building of Dura Plastic.
Council Member Russo still felt it should be the
responsibility of the landowner to put their own curb and
gutter in, and it should have been done when the building
was built, and if it were researched we would find that it
should have been done.
Council Member Connors said it was not the curb and gutter
that she is speaking of, it is the resurfacing because Dura
Plastics could cause more wear since they are on either side
of the clinic.
Mayor Partain stated another thing they should take into
consideration is the actual damage done to the street
through the time of construction, and he thought they would
find there is the possibility there will be damage done due
to - -the size of the - equipment that has to be moved in, and
the different work. From a personal standpoint, he did not
think that Item "g" is out of line, but he agreed with the
curb and gutter in front of the animal hospital being
excluded.
Council Member Waller asked if they did agree that Dura
Plastic pays for 3.g, the resurfacing of the street, does
that mean that Abbey Animal Clinic will need to comply and
install 3.a, the construction of curb and gutter.
Mayor Partain questioned whether or not this could be
discussed at this time, and was informed by the City
Attorney that to the extent that it is a question for
knowledge sake, it is okay, but there could be no discussion
as to requiring Abbey Animal Clinic to do this. Discussion
of enforcing anything against anyone other than Dura Plastic
and their conditions is out of place.
Council Member Waller restated his question that basically
with the City asking for 3.g to be done, can the City then
ask for 3.a to be done by Abbey Animal Hospital.
The City Attorney advised that only if it were a part of
their original conditions of approval could the City ask for
this as you cannot retroactively change conditions.
Council Member Waller said in that case, if we found that it
were a part of their original conditions, we could then ask
that it be completed.
Page 4
Beaumont City Council
April 27, 1987
Mayor Partain asked if the City Manager could be requested
to investigate this and bring back a report regarding the
curb and gutter, with the City Attorney responding that
would be appropriate.
It was the concensus of the Council to request the City
Manager to bring this report back to them at the next
meeting.
At the request of Council Member Russo, the City Manager
clarified that the appeal is asking that they not be
required to install the 225 feet of curb and gutter in front
of Abbey Animal Hospital, and that they not be required to
resurface the street for the 225 feet in front of Dr.
Randhawa's property. He emphasized that it should be
referred to as the entire ,frontage of Dr. Randhawa's
property, not just the Abbey Animal Hospital.
He also indicated that, as Mayor Partain stated, and as it
was brought up at the last meeting, from time to time the
construction equipment does -cause damage to the street and
this could be a part of the additional conditions to take
care of any damage to that portion of the street.
a. Consideration of Denial of Appeal OR Approval of Plot
Plan 87 -PP -5 with New or Amended Conditions of
Approval.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Russo, to approve Plot Plan 87 -PP -5, with amended conditions
to eliminate conditions 3.a and 3.e.
The City Manager pointed out the appeal is not to the entire
Condition No. 3.a, only to that portion in front of Dr.
Randhawa's property, and if "a" is taken out it would take
all curb and gutter from the property, including Dura
Plastic's property.
The City Manager again emphasized that it should be
clarified if they are considering removing that portion to
be installed in front of Dr. Randhawa's property, it should
be stated as Dr. Randhawa's property, not the Abbey Animal
Clinic, as there is more property involved than just the
clinic.
MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CONNORS, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER
RUSSO, WERE WITHDRAWN IN ORDER TO REWORD THE MOTION.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Russo, to approve Plot Plan 87 -PP -5, with amended conditions
to eliminate that portion of Condition 3.a relating to the
225 feet in front of Dr. Randhawa's property, and Condition
3.e in its entirety.
Council Member Russo asked if there was enough discussion at
the last meeting, with relationship to Condition No. 3.g,
regarding the issue of the paving.
The City Manager indicated it is in their appeal itself, and
read from the appeal relating to Condition 3.g. (The appeal
is a matter of record in the Clerk's file).
Council Member Russo said he agreed with the philosophy that
the property owner should bear the financial obligation of
Page 5
Beaumont City Council
April 27, 1987
the improvements. There will be an immediate benefit to Dr.
Randhawa if that portion is paved in front of his property.
Ile saw no problem with excluding that portion of the
condition relating to Dr. Randhawa's property.
Council Member Connors pointed out that the additional wear
and tear on the street would be caused by the building of
Dura Plastic, not by extra business at the animal clinic.
She felt that the reason the street is at risk is because of
the added burden of the Dura Plastic project, both building
it and the fact that it is on either side of his clinic.
Council Member Russo asked if the City could legally ask the
existing property owner to pave a portion of a street as the
result of a project being developed around them.
The City Attorney and City Manager both indicated we could
ask for it, and the City Manager also indicated we could
mandate it under their police power providing that they show
a reason for it.
Council Member Russo then reclarified his understanding that
as a result of everything being developed around the
property, the City could ask that someone go ahead and
improve an existing piece of property to be consistent with
the rest of the development.
The City Attorney replied only if the reason is justifiable.
If the reason justifies the police power use.
Council Member Shaw asked if they could be held responsible
for any damage as a result of the construction, and the City
Manager indicated that could be made a part of the condition
if that is what they wanted. Council Member Shaw then
stated he wanted to see some clout in the motion so that if
there is damage they would have to repair it, not pass it
off on someone else.
Motion by Council Member Russo, second by Mayor Partain, to
amend the main motion to include deletion of Condition 3.g.
Answering a question from Council Member Russo, the City
Manager indicated that deleting Condition 3.g in its
entirety would include all paving including that portion in
front of Dura Plastic's property.
Council Member Waller felt the point that Council Member
Shaw brought up could be included in an amendment to the
effect that if there is any damage whatsoever caused by the
construction of the new project, on the portion of the
street in front of the property of Dr. Randhawa, that Dura
Plastic be held responsible for the complete overlay, but
until then, no.
Mayor Partain said they were forgetting there would be a
traffic impaction on the street totally because of the
project due to increased traffic not only from automobiles,
people going to work there, but from trucking their product
out. Not only from construction, but from the continued
impaction over a period of time.
The, City.Manager.inquired if they meant they wanted them to
do Third Street totally from Beaumont to Pennsylvania as it
would be the exact same type of impaction, with Mayor
Page 6
Beaumont City Council
April 27, 1987
Partain indicating he knows it is, however, he feels the
difference is the fact that you are going to have the
situation that you would have two ends and could smooth them
down, and would have one area in between where you are going
to be going back and forth over it. Actually, you would
have four open areas of the street. When you are going to
increase the traffic, the more open area there is, the worse
the street is going to get.
Council Member Connors agreed on the wear and tear part of
it, but pointed out that the 225 feet in front of Dr.
Randhawa's property is also going past Dura Plastic's
property because they are behind Dr. Randhawa and their
building is on either end of it.
VOTE TAKEN ON AMENDMENT TO MOTION:
AYES: Council Member Russo and Mayor Partain.
NOES: Council Member Connors, Shaw and Waller.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION FAILED.
Motion by Council Member Russo to amend the motion to
include deletion of that portion of Condition 3.g of the 225
feet in front of Dr. Randhawa's property. MOTION DIED FOR
LACK OF A SECOND.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Russo, to amend the main motion to include that on Condition
3.g that it be stated they do not need to include the 225
feet in front of Dr. Randhawa's property with the
stipulation that if there is any damage to that they then be
made to comply and repair the street.
AYES: Council Member Shaw, Waller, Russo and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: Council Member Connors.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
AMENDMENT TO MAIN MOTION CARRIED.
A discussion followed for clarification of the main motion
as amended. For the record, the Deputy City Clerk read the
main motion as amended. This motion is as follows:
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Russo, to approve Plot Plan 87 -PP -5 with amended conditions
to eliminate that portion of Condition 3.a relating to the
225 feet in front of Dr. Randhawa's property, and Condition
3.e in its entirety, as amended on motion by Council Member
Waller, second by Council Member Russo, that on Condition
3.g that it be stated they do not need to include the 225
feet in front of Dr. Randhawa's property with the
stipulation that if there is any damage to that they then be
made to comply and repair the street.
Another discussion followed concerning the intent of the
words comply and repair in the motion and whether that meant
in order to comply with Condition 3.g that would mean to
resurface as in the original condition, and does this mean
that if the street is damaged bad enough can Dura Plastic be
made to do the whole thing, or just make them repair it.
Page 7
Beaumont City Council
April 27, 1987
The City Attorney indicated if they establish the
interpretation sufficiently clear as a matter of record, it
should enable the City to enforce the condition.
Council Member Russo said it was his understanding that the
intention of the motion is to repair any minor damage that
might be done to the street as a result of construction, not
that if there was any damage at all they would have to
totally comply with condition 3.g.
Council Member Waller stated it was his intention that it
would be a matter of repairing if there is minor damage,
just as Council Member Russo has stated as his
understanding. That is the exact meaning that he intended.
The City Attorney felt it should be made clear it will be to
the satisfaction of the City.
VOTE TAKEN ON MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED:
AYES: Council Member Shaw, Waller, Russo and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: Council Member Connors.
ABSTAIN None.
ABSENT: None.
MAIN MOTION CARRIED AS AMENDED.
7. Report from City Manager Concerning Issues Raised Relative
to Abbey Animal Hospital.
The City Council received a report from the City Manager
addressing the questions raised at the meeting of April 13,
1987. This report is a matter of record in the Clerk's
file.
There were no questions from the Council, and no action was
necessary.
8. Presentation of Petition and Request from Mrs. Thelma Ward
for Four -Way Stop at 10th and Beaumont Avenue.
Mrs. Helen Ward, 873 Beaumont Avenue, Beaumont, addressed
the Council, stating she had lived at this address for fifty
years and knows the conditions on Beaumont Avenue. She then
stated that when the rate of speed was raised to 35 miles an
hour, and 45 from 11th Street to 14th Street, there have
been a number of accidents. There are children crossing the
street all the time, and people going to the post office
walk across, and it is almost impossible to get across
Beaumont Avenue.
Council Member Connors asked Mrs. Ward whether her petition
was really to make safe the existing speed limit, or to try
to slow down the traffic, with Mrs. Ward responding she
wanted to slow the traffic down.
Council Member Connors then asked if Mrs. Ward has any
reason or any background to believe that a stop sign at this
location would slow the traffic down, and Mrs. Ward replied
she did, she thought it would help a lot from 6th Street to
14th Street. There is a light at 6th Street and a four -way
stop at 14th. She also pointed out the Council had approved
the multiple dwelling project at 14th and Beaumont Avenue,
Page 8
Beaumont City Council
April 27, 1987
and another at Cougar Way, and Beaumont Avenue is a busy
street and will be busier, and she felt the City needs the
stop sign at 10th.
Council Member Waller wanted to know where the people are
crossing the street to go to the post office, with Firs. Ward
indicating they cross at 8th, at 9th, at 10th and she has a
hard time getting across anywhere along Beaumont Avenue.
Mrs. Ward continued saying she felt that to slow traffic and
to save lives a four -way stop should be placed there.
Council Member Connors inquired why she chose 10th Street in
particular for the four -way stop as opposed to 8th or 9th.
Mrs. Ward pointed out there is the post office right there,
and a beauty shop on one corner, the drug store on the other
corner, and people are going across there all the time.
Council Member Connors then asked that it wasn't chosen then
because it was half way between 6th and 14th, with Mrs. Ward
responding in the negative. She just thought it was a good
place for it, and so did the other people who signed the
petition.
Council Member Russo and Council Member Shaw had no
questions.
Mayor Partain indicated that in considering 10th Street, and
already knowing and realizing that traffic is a problem at
the post office, he wondered if by putting the stop sign at
10th Street if there would be the possibility of the traffic
backing up and making it a worse problem.
Mrs. Ward said there were times when it is backed up all the
way from the railroad tracks.
Mayor Partain asked if she had considered that maybe putting
the stop sign at 10th Street would back the traffic up on
the east side of Beaumont Avenue, with the increased
traffic, to make it even worse getting in and out, or
getting across.
Mrs. Ward stated she was not talking about the post office.
That is another subject entirely.
The City Manager was directed to prepare a report for the
Council concerning this request, with Council Member Connors
asking that the following be addressed in the report:
1. Whether a four -way stop sign would impede or affect in
any way the raising or the lowering of the speed on
Beaumont Avenue should there be found a way to do that.
The City Manager indicated the only way that could be
determined would be after the four -way stop was placed there
for a period of time, and then take another survey.
Council Member Connors inquired whether or not we could then
take the stop sign out, with the City Manager replying they
could do anything they wanted to with the stop signs.
Council Member Shaw wanted to know if the Police Department
has any data, and was informed by the City Manager they are
preparing a report at the present time.
Page 9
9.
Beaumont City Council
April 27, 1987
Council Member Connors said she
felt
the post office
would
have to be a consideration in deciding
about placing a
four -
way stop at 10th and Beaumont, so
she
would like to know
how
that figures in as well when the
report
is prepared.
She
did think it is important to have
the
report because of
the
number of signatures contained in
the
petition.
It was agreed that staff will come back to the Council with
a report addressing the problems and what affect it will
have on the speed limit, possibility of problems that could
arise, etc.
The City Manager pointed out the report in two weeks time
may be a preliminary report, and they may want more
information. They will do the best they can in that two
week time frame, but it should be considered a preliminary
report, since there is a lot involved in this type of
report.
Request for Permit to Operate a Mortuary, Funeral Home and
Wedding Chapel.
The City Manager presented his report concerning this
request, which report is a matter of record in the Clerk's
file. It was pointed out the Beaumont Municipal Code
requires City Council approval before a business license may
be issued.
Council Member Connors stated she was not in favor of a
mortuary, funeral home and wedding chapel at the corner of
Edgar and 6th, with a residence in it as indicated on the
business license application. It appears you do not have to
submit very much to start something like this.
Council Member Shaw was concerned about the amount of
traffic on 6th Street, and the impact a funeral procession
would have on this traffic.
Mayor Partain asked if it was proper zoning, and was
informed that it was by the City Manager.
Council Member Connors said she understood on another
project that if the Council simply didn't like it they
didn't have to vote for it, and she wondered if this could
be the case here.
The City Attorney stated that in issuing a license, if the
requirements are met, and there are no findings of fact to
indicate that it would be an inappropriate use in that
particular location, or that particular business, or some
other type of problem, the Council cannot act arbitrarily or
capriciously in denying a business license to an individual
in the City.
Council Member Shaw_ asked -if the finding of it being a
traffic hazard would have a bearing on the decision, and
Mayor Partain asked if it was properly zoned for that area
then that was something that was considered in the zoning
process.
The City Attorney answered these questions stating not
necessarily, in particular, because he believes a funeral
home can go in most any zone. They are included almost
everywhere, so the potential traffic impact can be
considered as one of the factors as to whether or not that
is an appropriate location.
Page 10
Beaumont City Council
April 27, 1987
Council member Connors brought up the fact there was a case
once before where more than one business was being conducted
in one building requiring two business licenses, and it
appeared to her that a funeral home and a wedding chapel are
two different businesses, so shouldn't they have two
business licenses. She also inquired if they were allowed
to have two or three business, along with a residence, in
one building, at that corner, and whether are not these are
businesses being run out of a residence.
A recap of the questions raised by the Council were as
follows:
1. How the traffic impaction would be.
2. The number of business licenses required.
3. Whether you can have the businesses and the residence
in the same building.
4. Check their State License number for mortuaries to make
sure it is still active and valid and has no problems
against it.
The City manager brought out the fact he felt this matter
should.be referred to the Planning Commission.
The City Attorney concurred, stating, under the CG Zone, it
would appear that no building will be erected, reconstructed
or structurally altered, nor shall any building or land be
used for any purpose except as specified. No uses are
permitted without requiring specific planning approval. The
following uses are permitted subject to approval of a plot
plan. Plot plan approval may include conditions requiring
fencing and landscaping the parcel to insure the use is
compatible to the surrounding area. more than one use shall
be permitted on a lot. Commercial uses in the zone include
all uses which can be characterized as providing any variety
of goods or services, providing adequate traffic
circulation, improvements, parking facilities for customers,
having operating hours, examples, but not limited to,
include clothing stores, grocery stores, hotels, general
department stores, and those activities as determined by the
Planning Director to be substantially similar.
In light of the above, the City Attorney said the Council
definitely at least need some type of specific planning
approval, and it should be referred to the Planning
Commission, or advise the applicant that in addition to a
business license, he needs specific planning approval.
The City Manager asked if this meant the Commission or the
Planning Department.
The City Attorney indicated it states specific planning
approval and submission of a plot plan, so the place to
start is the planning office, meeting with the planning
director. All the Council has at this time is an
application for a business license. There has been no
specific planning approval, no plot plan submitted.
It was the concensus of the Council that the business
license has not been issued because there hab not been
specific planning approval as required by the CG zoning when
there is a change in use.
Page 11
Beaumont City Council
April 27, 1987
10. Consideration of Applications Received to Fill Existing
Vacancy on Planning Commission.
Motion by Council Member Russo, second by Council Member
Connors, to appoint Dennis Ingrao to fill the unexpired term
of Larry Gordon which expires December 31, 1988.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo
and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
11. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -32 - A Resolution of Intention to Order
Abandonment of a Port on of Egan Street.
The City Manager presented his report relative to this
proposed abandonment,' a copy of which is a matter of record
in the Clerk's file.
Council Member Shaw wanted to know why this abandonment was
being requested, and the City Manager advised the City
didn't want to have to maintain the section which doesn't go
anywhere, and Baldi would have more control and security
over the property since their business is on each side of
it.
There was no further discussion, questions or comments.
Motion by Council Member Russo, second by Council Member
Connors, to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -32.
With Council Member Waller opposing, the motion carried with
four ayes and one no.
12. ORDINANCE NO. 637 - SECOND READING - Approving Zone Change
87 -RZ -1 from Residential Single Family (RSF) to Residential
Multi- Family (RMF). Applicant: American Housing
Corporation. Location: N/E Corner of Beaumont Avenue and
Cougar Way.
Motion to Read Ordinance No. 637 by title only.
Motion by Council Member Russo, second by Council Member
Shaw, to read Ordinance No. 637 by title only.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo
and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
r ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
The Ordinance was read by title only by the Deputy City
Clerk.
Motion to Adopt Ordinance No. 637 at its Second Reading.
Motion by Council Member Russo, second by Council Member
Connors, to adopt Ordinance No. 637 at its second reading.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
Page 12
Beaumont City Council
April 27, 1987
13. ORDINANCE NO. 638 - FIRST READING - Repealing Sections
17.20.300 through 17.20.310, and 17.20.115 -9 and 17.65.105 -3
of the Beaumont Municipal Code and Adding Sections 17.20.300
through 17.20.310, 17.20.115 -9, 17.65.105 -3, 17.20.210 -11
and Dealing with Certain Requirements for Residential Zones.
Council Member Shaw questioned the allowable height of
buildings and was advised the height is being reduced from
50 feet to 35 feet.
Mayor Partain specifically questioned the provision for a
5,000 sq.ft. lot, feeling we are continually reducing the
size of the lots, and he is opposed to it.
The City Manager explained the reasoning of the Planning
Commission was that they felt 5,000 sq.ft. lots for single
family homes in a subdivision in RHD was better than 32 to
the acre. In the RHD there is now the added treatment of
usuable open space which we did not have before; there are
lot line provisions that are tougher; and in the case of the
lot itself 7,000 sq.ft. instead of 6,000 for apartment
buildings.
Mr. John Hostetler, of DevCorp, presented a drawing to show
the Council how a house can fit on a 5,000 sq.ft. lot with
the ten foot unobstructed and the five foot opposite side,
and the special designs that are utilized.
Let the record show Council Member Shaw was excused at 9:31,
returning to his seat at 9:36 P.M.
Motion to Read Ordinance No. 638 by title only.
Motion by Council Member Russo, second by Council Member
Waller, to read Ordinance No. 638 by title only.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Waller, Russo and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Shaw.
The Ordinance was read by title only by the Deputy City
Clerk.
Motion to Pass Ordinance No. 638 at its first reading.
Motion by Council Member Russo, second by Council Member
Connors, to pass Ordinance No. 638 at its first reading.
i
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller, Russo
and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
14. ORDINANCE NO. 639 - FIRST READING - Adding Subsection C to
Section 8.20.190 of the Beaumont Municipal Code Making
Violations of Chapter 8.20 Infractions.
Motion to Read Ordinance No. 639 by title only.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Shaw, to read Ordinance No. 639 by title only.
Page 13
Beaumont City Council
April 27, 1937
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller, i :
Beaumont City Council
April 27, 1987
g. Report of Action by Planning Commission at Meeting of
April 21, 1987.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Shaw, to approve the Consent Calendar.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Date set for next regular Study Session, Monday, Hay 11,
1987, at 6:30 P.M., in the City Manager's Conference Room.
Date set for next regular Council Meeting, Monday, May 11,
1987, at 7:30 P.M., in the City Council Chambers.
On Notion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Waller, the meeting was adjourned to 4:00 P.�.. on Wednesday,
May 6, 1987, in the City Manager's Conference Room.
Meeting Adjourned at 9:50 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert J. ounds,
City Clerk
Page 15
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
ADJOURNED MEETING OF MAY 6, 1987
(Adjourned from April 27, 1987)
The Beaumont City Council met in an adjourned meeting at
4:10 P.M., on Wednesday, May 6, 1987, in the City Manager's
Conference Room, with Mayor Partain presiding.
On Roll Call the following Council Members were present:
Connors, Shaw and Mayor Partain. Let the record show Council
Member Waller arrived at 4:30 P.M.
1. Clerk's Affidavit of Posting.
The Clerk's affidavit of posting the agenda was read into
the record by the Deputy City Clerk.
2. Adjustments to Agenda.
There were no adjustments to the agenda.
3. Continued Discussion of Use of All City Facilities.
At the request of Mayor Partain, the City Manager opened the
discussion of use of City facilities by presenting his
report on the items as requested by the Council at their
last adjourned meeting covering the following topics:
1. Group Use of the Swimming Pool.
2. Groups or individuals who are not paying a fee or
paying a reduced fee.
3. Eliminating equipment stored on the gym floor.
The City Manager than presented his proposal for fees and
policies concerning private swimming parties.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Connors to adopt the City Manager's recommendation as
follows:
1. Minimum rental of two hours.
2. Fee - $8.00 per hour per lifeguard.
3. Cancellation must be 72 hours in advance. City
will refund 75% of the fee. Cancellation less
than 72 hours, no refund.
4. Number of Lifeguards required:
Minimum of 30 people 2 lifeguards
30 to 50 people 3 lifeguards
50 to 100 people 4 lifeguards
There being no opposition, the motion carried with three
ayes, one absent.
The City Council then reviewed the current form of
application being used, as well as the policies and
procedures contained within that application, as well as the
recommendation of the City Manager pertaining to certain
changes.
Page 1
Beaumont City Council
May 6, 1987
The first suggestion relating to certain changes in the
wording of Paragraph No. 3 of the application was acceptable
to the City Council, with the determination that no motion
was necessary to make this change.
There was discussion concerning the security guard
requirements, with the City Manager outlining the procedure
we are using at this time. It was agreed these requirements
and other policies and procedures will be a form separate
from the application form.
The question of the age limit for the responsible person
signing the application was brought up, with Council Member
Shaw, Connors and Mayor Partain agreeing there is more
fiscal responsibility at 21 years of age than at 18 years of
age. Council Member Waller asked that the record show he
feels 18 year olds should be considered responsible for
signing for use of a facility.
The proposed cancellation policy was outlined by the City
Manager, with a concensus of the Council this policy should
be initiated.
It was suggested a statement be included in the application
to the effect the applicant has read the policies and agrees
to abide by these policies.
The Council were all in agreement that all the changes
should be made as recommended effective immediately.
Attention was called to the fact when the motion was made
concerning the private party use of the swimming pool, no
effective date was set.
Since Council Member Waller was not present during the
discussion concerning the swimming pool, he was given a
briefing regarding the recommendations made by the City
Manager. He asked that the term lifeguard be used rather
than guard. He also suggested that an additional $1.00 be
added to the fee to be earmarked for the cost of solar
heating. It was pointed out we only had one group using the
pool last year, so unless the use increased considerably,
there would not be enough money realized for a number of
years.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Shaw, that the previous motion on the swimming pool proposal
be effective immediately.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
The City Manager submitted his report on groups not paying
for facilities, with the Council reviewing it section by
section.
It was the concensus of the Council that the City Manager
should take a survey to find out if other cities charge the
Election Department for the use of city facilities as a
polling place, and if other cities are doing this, then the
Election Department- should be asked to pay for use of the
Council Chamber and Fire Department during elections.
Council Member Waller felt the Council should set some type
of criteria on which to base a fee exemption rather than
just considering each agency individually.
Page 2
Beaumont City Council
May 6, 1987
He suggested this criteria should include:
1. If the use has intrinsic value or benefit to the
community.
2. Any organization, group or agency that pays
facility fees to other agencies in Riverside
County.
3. Overuse or abuse.
4. A non - profit organization.
Mayor Partain asked that each agency presently using the
facilities at no fee be reviewed, measuring their use
against the criteria suggested by Council Member Waller.
Council Member Waller thought the criteria should be
established before any of the agencies are reviewed.
The discussion was then directed specifically -to the school
district's use of City facilities, and the possibility of
overuse or abuse since no fee is charged, with Council
Member Waller pointing out it was feasible the school
district could use the facilities every day or night for
various activities.
Mayor Partain felt this could be controlled by the
scheduling. But he did state he finds it hard to understand
why they are using these facilities when they have the high
school available. It appears to be an administrative
problem at the high school, and that is not right, because
the school district facilities should be available for all
school activities.
Council Member Connors asked if it would be more feasible to
pay the school district at any time we needed to use one of
their facilities, and then charge the school district when
they used ours.
The City Manager was directed to talk with the school
district about the problems enumerated, informing them that
our gymnasium is much in demand, and scheduling is becoming
more and more difficult, and asking why it is necessary for
San Andreas and Mountain View Jr. High to use our facilities
for athletic events such as basketball, since the school
district does have their own facility. Additionally, asking
if they cannot work out a scheduling that will help relieve
the City of Beaumont.
The issue of the school district will be held in abeyance
until a report is received from the City Manager.
There were no other problems with those listed under Pass
Area Governments and Social Agencies.
Under the miscellaneous listing, the following groups will
be discussed at the next scheduled adjourned meeting:
Cherry Valley AARP.
SHARE distribution.
Beaumont Unified School District Employee's Association.
Page 3
Beaumont City Council
May 6, 1987
It was the concensus of the Council that the Elks Lodge Hoop
Shoot will be requested to pay a facility fee in the future.
The Cherry Queen Pageant practice will be requested not to
schedule on the Monday or Tuesday a Council meeting or
Planning Commission meeting is being held.
The balance of the uses under miscellaneous were considered
to be acceptable as fee - exempt uses. For the record these
groups were:
Cherry Queen practice (with the stipulation concerning
scheduling days).
Cherry Queen Pageant.
International Track Meet Trust Fund Dance.
Police /Firemen's Ball.
San Gorgonio Hospital Foundation.
City employees and Fire Department pot lucks.
75th Anniversary Steering Committee.
The City Manager advised the Council of the School
District's request to use the Council Chamber once a week
beginning May 7 for their negotiations. These negotiations
would continue until a settlement is reached. It was the
concensus of the Council to allow them to continue to use
the facility with no fee charged until the City Council has
made their final determination about the use.
At this time, Council Member Connors and Waller asked that
the use of Room 12 by the Pass Boxing Club be discussed,
since the Council had indicated they would be given an
answer by May 11.
Council Member Shaw spoke in opposition to charging the Pass
Boxing Club a fee, giving his reasons for this position.
Council Members Waller and Connors gave their reasons for
the necessity of charging the fee, including abuse of the
facility, the facility not being available for use by any
other groups or individuals, and no activity on the part of
the Pass Boxing Club to have fund raisers to help pay for
their costs.
Mayor Partain felt the criteria established earlier in the
meeting should apply to the Pass Boxing Club, and he does
not see where they are meeting this criteria.
Let the record show no additional discussion will be
included in the minutes as apparently the microphone being
used was inadvertedly disconnected. The balance of the
minutes will be the action taken as reflected in the Clerk's
notes.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Connors, to charge the Pass Boxing Club $85.00 per day, six
days per week, effective July 1, 1987.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Waller. and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: Council Member Shaw.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Page 4
Beaumont City Council
May 6, 1987
Direction was given to include an agenda item on the May 26
agenda to set a date for an adjourned meeting for continued
discussion of use of all City facilities.
Respectfully Submitted,
Weo�w 9-'-A5�
Ro ert J."-,Bounds,
City Clerk
Page 5
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
MAY 11, 1987
The Beaumont City Council met in a regular meeting at 7:38 P.M.,
on Monday, May 11, 1987, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor
Partain presiding.
On Roll Call the following Council Members were present:
Connors, Shaw, Waller and Mayor Partain.
The Invocation was given by City Manager Robert J. Bounds.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Council Member
Shaw.
1. Clerk's Affidavit of Posting.
The Clerk's affidavit of posting the agenda was read into
the record by the Deputy City Clerk.
2. Adjustments to Agenda.
There were no adjustments to the agenda.
3. ORAL COMMUNICATION:
There were no requests to speak during oral communication.
4. PUBLIC HEARING - 7:30 P.M. - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 22284 -
Applicant: Francis M. Dowling. Location: 809 E7.-=4th
Street (S /E Corner 14th and Palm). A proposed Division of
an existing parcel into two lots. (87- PM -3).
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:40 P.M.
There were no proponents or opponents requesting to speak to
this Tentative Parcel Map.
The Public Hearing was closed at 7:41 P.M.
There were no questions or comments from the City Council.
a. Consideration of Adoption of Negative Declaration 87 -ND-
8.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Shaw, to adopt Negative Declaration 87 -ND -8.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
b. Consideration of Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 22284.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Shaw, to approve Tentative Parcel Map 22284.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Page 1
Beaumont City Council
May 11, 1987
5. Review and Consider First Reading of Proposed Ordinance No.
640 Repealing Chapter 13.16 and Adding Chapter 13.16 to the
Beaumont Municipal Code Establishing a Mobile Home Rent
Review Procedure.
OR
Review and Consider First Reading of Proposed Ordinance No.
640 repealing Chapter 13.16 of the Beaumont Municipal Code.
The City Attorney presented his report concerning the two
proposed ordinances. This report is a matter of record in
the Clerk's file. The City Attorney's recommendation was
that the Council continue this agenda item to allow
sufficient time for Council review.
Mr. Allan Hacker, Vice - President, Valley Mobile Homeowners
and Renters Association, addressed the Council stating his
understanding of the proposals before the Council is that
one would repeal Chapter 13.16, and replace it with a more
workable ordinance, and the other alternative of repealing
the ordinance in its entirety.
Mr. Hacker asked the Council not to repeal the ordinance,
and read a section from Ordinance No. 602 which refers to
the fact that mobile homeowners are in a unique position in
that they have made a substantial investment in a residence
for which space is rented or leased, and that removal of
that residence from a park space is accomplished at
substantial cost to the mobile homeowner, and may cause
damage to the mobile home.
He said they have worked with the City for two and one -half
years in trying to make the ordinance work, and would lose
all that effort if the ordinance is repealed, in addition to
the protection the ordinance gives.
He again asked that they not consider repealing the
ordinance. Correct it, make it a workable thing that can be
used that is fair and just, but don't repeal it.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Connors, to accept the recommendation of the City Attorney
and hold this agenda item over until the next regular
meeting.
There being no opposition, the motion carried with three
ayes and Council Member Shaw abstaining.
6. Appointment to Fill Existing Vacancy on Senior Citizen
Advisory Commission.
The City Manager presented his.report to the Council, with
the recommendation of the Advisory Commission.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Connors, to appoint Mr. Earl L. Merrill to fill the
unexpired term of Ruby Thomas on the Senior Citizen Advisory
Commission, which term expires January 13, 1988.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
7. Consideration of Claim Filed by Barbara Masters for Personal
Injury.
Page 2
Beaumont City Council
May 11, 1987
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Connors, to deny the claim filed by Barbara Masters, based
on the findings as set forth by the City Manager.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
8. RESOLUTION NO... 1987 -33 - Resolution Of Intention to Order
A an onment _37 Port on of Michigan Avenue and 8th Street.
Applicant: Neal Baker. Location: S/E Corner of 8th and
Michigan.
Motion by Council - Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Waller, to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -33.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
9. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -34 - Establishing Procedures and
Requirements--for Consi eration of Development Agreements
Under Government Code, Sections 65864 - 65869.5.
The City Attorney presented his report concerning this
resolution. This report is a matter of record in the
Clerk's file.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Connors, to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -34.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
Before leaving this agenda item, the City Attorney requested
that a date be set for a joint meeting of the City Council
and Planning Commission to discuss development agreements,
.and other planning matters. It was the concensus of the
Council that Saturday, June 13, 1987, be set for this joint
meeting, with the City Council meeting of June 8 being
adjourned to this date.
10. ORDINANCE NO. 636 - SECOND READING - Rezoning Certain
Property from Residential Single Family (RSF) to Residential
Multi- Family (RMF). Applicant: Beaumont CKS Partnership -
FCE Associates. Location: N/W Corner of 14th and Beaumont
Avenue. (86- RZ -5).
Motion to Read Ordinance No. 636 by title only.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Shaw, to read Ordinance No. 636 by title only.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
The Ordinance was read by title only by the Deputy City
Clerk.
Motion to Adopt Ordinance No. 636 at its second reading.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, -second by Council Member
Waller, to adopt Ordinance No. 636 at its second reading.
AYES: Council Member Shaw, Waller and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: Council Member Connors.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Page 3
Beaumont City Council
May 11, 1987
11. ORDINANCE NO. 638 - SECOND READING - Repealing Sections
tiFroug=7.20.310, and 17.20.115 -9 and 17.65.105 -3
of the Beaumont Municipal Code and Adding Sections 17.20.300
through 17.20.310, 17.20.115 -9, 17.65.105 -3, 17.20.210 -11
and Dealing with Certain Requirements for Residential Zones.
Council Member Connors requested that the record show she
does not like indoor recreation /activity rooms being
considered usable open space, and that she would like to see
it removed from the ordinance.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Waller, to move Ordinance No. 638 be considered for first
reading with the following deletions:
1. Subsection ll.A of 17.20.310. Delete first sentence in
second paragraph, "Enclosed recreation or multi - purpose
activity rooms may be credited as "usable open Space "."
2. Subsection ll.C.1.d of 17.20.310. Delete entire
paragraph.
3. Subsection ll.A of 17.20.210. Delete sentence stating
"Enclosed recreation or multi - purpose activity rooms
may be credited as "usable open space "."
4. Subsection ll.C.1.d. Delete entire paragraph.
AYES: Council Member Connors and Waller.
NOES: Council Member Shaw and Mayor Partain.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
MOTION FAILED.
Motion to Read Ordinance No. 638 by title only.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Mayor Partain,
to read Ordinance No. 638 by title only.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
The Ordinance was read by title only by the Deputy City
Clerk.
Motion to Adopt Ordinance No. 638 at its second reading.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Connors, to hold the second reading of Ordinance No. 638 to
the next meeting, to allow Council sufficient time to study
the ordinance, and to strike the previous motion to read by
title only.
AYES. Council Member "Connors, Shaw and Waller.
NOES: Mayor Partain.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
12. ORDINANCE NO. 639 - SECOND READING - Adding Subsection C to
Section 8._'f0.M of the Beaumont Municipal Code making
violations to Chapter 8.20 infractions.
Page 4
Beaumont City Council
May 11, 1987
Motion to Read Ordinance No. 639 by title only.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Shaw, to read Ordinance No. 639 by title only.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
The ordinance was read by title only by the Deputy City
Clerk.
Motion to Adopt Ordinance No. 639 at its second reading.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Shaw, to adopt Ordinance No. 639 at its second reading.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
13. Consideration of Increase in Budget for City Council -
Travel, Training and Meetings, Account No. 1050 -4035, from
$6,000.00 to $6,750.00 for FY 1986 -87.
The City Manager stated he felt it very important for at
least one member of the Council to attend the upcoming
League of California Cities Legislative Update for Council
Members, as there are a number of very important issues to
be discussed. In order for a Council Member to attend, it
is necessary to increase the City Council budget account for
travel, training and meetings.
Council Member Connors indicated she would like to attend
this conference, citing legislation to be discussed which
she felt was important.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Mayor Partain, to
increase Budget Account 1050 -4035 from $6,000.00 to
$6,750.00.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
14. Request from Council Member Connors and Council Member
Waller for Consideration of the Vacant Seat on the City
Council.
Council Member Waller made the following statement:
It is my feeling that the public would want to know our
feeling concerning the appointment or election of a Council
Member, and I have done some personal polling by calling
members - I have got an infamous list of 100 people around
Beaumont - just to call them to see how they feel. I didn't
make it to the 100, but I got a good representation, and
most of them don't even know Matt is gone. The other ones
didn't really have a burning desire one way or the other,
but it is something I think should be dealt with - either
say yes, appoint, or no, wait. I don't know if we are in
agreement or not, but I do feel it should be right out in
public.
Page 5
Beaumont City Council
May 11, 1987
Council Member Connors made the following statement:
I think that what we really need for them to have is not so
much our opinion, which the Gazette asked us for, but for us
to discuss among ourselves. It is a major decision, and I
think they deserve to have it discussed, rather than us just
ignoring it as though it weren't a major decision. I
personally favor making an appointment because we will have
an election anyway. And I think we should have a five
member Council, and I think item eleven might have pointed
up some of the problems we have because we have a four
member Council. Some of these things would not be happening
with a five member Council. It was designed to be a five
member Council for a reason. Since it would not take away
any of the rights of the voting public, I think we should
give them a five member Council.
Council Member Shaw made the following statement:
I am against appointing wholeheartedly. I believe this is
an elected position, and I think in all due respect to the
citizens of the community, I think they are entitled to vote
for who they want to sit on this Council. I went through
this with three members before, and believe me, it was hell
to work with people that haven't been elected by the public.
I am wholeheartedly against appointing anybody. I want it
to go by election.
Council Member Waller stated further:
It would be better to have a five member Council instead of
having even numbers; -to be able to make a decision. (You
have heard my statement concerning the 75th celebration
committee, where I thought that really shouldn't make any
difference whether it was odd or even. I guess we will have
to consider that one now - now that is going to be an even
number). I am concerned about the person being appointed
not being able to take it as seriously as we are, because we
are - some of us - are up for re- election. And every vote
that we make will affect our political future, whether we
want to be elected or not, it will affect us. The problem I
have, if the person that is in is allowed to have exposure,
that would mean that any person wanting to run against
her /him, whatever, in November, would be at a disadvantage
running against an incumbent. So, my feelings are mixed. I
am not going to make a motion, but I will vote on any motion
that is made.
Council Member Connors made the following additional
statement:
I would prefer to think that we would not vote on the basis
of our political future, but on what we believe is right.
My political future is the next one to be voted on, and I
would not vote on that basis. I think anyone running
against an appointed incumbent is going to be at less of a
disadvantage than they would have been had Councilman Russo
stayed. I have someone in mind to appoint, who was
appointed once before, and who did run for re- election and
who lost by a small number of votes, which shows that it
isn't necessarily an advantage, but it also shows that he
did have some support within the community which might make
him a good appointee.
There was continued discussion by the Council, with Council
Member Shaw and Council Member Waller continuing to speak
Page 6
Beaumont City Council
May 11, 1987
against appointment, and Council Member Connors speaking in
favor of appointmept, specifically pointing out there will
be an election in November in any event, and she felt the
Council owed it to the public to give them a five member
Council for this interim period.
Mayor Partain made the following statement:
I am personally not against appointment, however, I am
concerned about the time frame involved, so I would like to
ask some questions if I may. If this Council was to decide
to fill this vacancy by appointment when would it have to be
done.
The City Manager advised it would have to be no later than
the next meeting.
Mayor Partain continued:
The thing that would concern me from the standpoint of
appointment, now, my personal standpoint I feel it would be
an injustice to the community if the Council did not seek
out, if it decided on an appointment, to seek out the best
individual that was willing to serve on the Council. I
think, by so doing, what we would need to do is ask for
people from the community to state their interest in the
position. I know of two, and I am sure there are others. I
am sure if they knew the Council was going to appoint, they
would. come forward and state their interest. If this
Council does appoint, it certainly needs to do that - to
seek out the best individual they possibly can to fill the
vacancy. I am concerned about the time frame, if there is
enough time frame to do that, to fill the vacancy.
There was no action and no direction given concerning this
agenda item.
15. CONSENT CALENDAR - All items listed under the Consent
Ca en ar are considered to be routine by the City Council
and will be approved by one motion. There will be no
separate discussion of these items unless a Council Member
or Citizen so requests, in which case the item will be
removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a
separate item.
a. Approval of Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of April
27, 1987.
b. Acceptance of Minutes of Regular Planning Commission
Meeting of April 21, 1987.
C. Approval of Warrants as Audited per Warrant List of May
11, 1987, in the amount of $50,045.03; and payroll of
April 30, 1987, in the amount of $41,339.60.
d. Ratification of Certification of January 1, 1987
Population Estimate.
e. Request from Cherry Festival Association for Necessary
Permits to hold Cherry Festival.
f. Authorization for City Manager to Carry Over 24 hours
of Vacation.
Page 7
Beaumont City Council
May 11, 1987
g. Report of Action by Planning Commission at Meeting of
May 5, 1987.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Connors, to approve the Consent Calendar.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Prior to adjournment of the meeting, the City Attorney
reported that as a result of the discussion on the Brown Act
at the City Attorney's Conference, and after his discussion
with Ted Prim, the Deputy Attorney General in charge of the
Brown Act enforcement, he feels the Council needs to change
the way in which the study session is being handled, because
of the posting requirements. He, therefore, recommended
there not be a study session scheduled for the next meeting,
and further recommended he be directed to give the Council
input as to how the concept of study sessions might be
handled if the City were to take a different approach.
This will be placed on the agenda for May 26, with the City
Attorney furnishing the Council with a report evaluating the
procedures for study sessions and council meetings.
Council Member Waller requested to be provided with a copy
of the Ordinance setting these procedures, with the City
Manager advising him the evaluation would contain the
necessary information to adopt a resolution setting new
procedures.
Date set for Next Regular Council Meeting, Tuesday, May 26,
1987, at 7:30 P.M., in the City Council Chambers.
There being no further business to come before the Council,
on motion by Council Member Waller the meeting was adjourned
at 9:26 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Page 8
Robert J Boun s,
City Clerk
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
MAY 26, 1987
The Beaumont City Council met in a regular meeting at 7:32 P.M,
on Tuesday, May 26, 1987, in the City Council Chambers, with
Mayor Partain presiding.
On Roll Call the following Council Members were present:
Connors, Shaw and Mayor Partain. Council Member Waller was
excused due to illness.
The Invocation was given by Pastor Richard Ashley, First Baptist
Church.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Council Member
Shaw.
1. ORAL COMMUNICATION:
There were no requests to speak under Oral Communication.
2. Clerk's Affidavit of Posting.
The Clerk's Affidavit of posting the agenda was read into
the record by the Deputy City Clerk.
3. Adjustments to Agenda.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Shaw, to adjust the agenda to continue Item No. 7 to the
next regular meeting due to the fact that Council Member
Waller is ill, and Council Member Shaw is unable to
participate in the discussion or action concerning Item No.
7, resulting in the lack of a quorum for voting purposes
relative to this item.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - 7:30 P.M.
4. NEGATIVE DECLARATION 87 -ND -9. Applicant: City of Beaumont.
Proposed rehabilitation' n and replacement of fire hydrants at
selected locations throughout the City.
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:43 P.M.
There were no proponents or opponents requesting to speak.
The Public Hearing was closed at 7:44 P.M.
Consideration of Adoption of Negative Declaration 87 -ND -9.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Connors, to adopt Negative Declaration 87- DID -9.
The City Manager presented his staff report and
recommendation to the City Council, which is a matter of
record in the Clerk's file.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Waller.
Page 1
Beaumont City Council
May 26, 1987
5. INTENTION TO ORDER ABANDONMENT OF PORTION OF EGAN STREET.
App icant: Ba 1 Bros. Construction. -Locat on: From the
alley to the Southern Pacific Railroad right -of -way.
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:45
There were no proponents or opponents
The Public Hearing was closed at 7:46
The City Manager presented his
recommendation, which is a matter o
file.
RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -35 - Ordering
Vacation of a Portio-Egan Street.
P.M.
requesting to speak.
P.M.
staff report and
E record in the Clerk's
the Abandonment and
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Connors, to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -35.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Waller.
6. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 20501 - Applicant: G. Halbeisen.
Location: Fronting on both Magnolia Avenue and Orange
Street, between 11th and 12th. Proposed Division of .95
acres into three (3) parcels. (87- PM -2).
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:49
There were no proponents or opponents
The Public Hearing was closed at 7:50
The City Manager presented the
recommendation of the Planning Commis
of record in the Clerk's file.
P.M.
requesting to speak.
P.M.
staff report and
sion, which is a matter
a. Consideration of Adoption of Negative Declaration 87 -ND-
10.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Connors, to adopt Negative Declaration 87- ND -10.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously
with - Council Member Waller absent.
b. Consideration of Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 20501.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Shaw, to approve Tentative Parcel Map 20501 as recommended
by the Planning Commission.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously
with Council Member Waller absent.
END PUBLIC HEARINGS.
7. Review and Consider First Reading of Proposed Ordinance No.
640 Repealing Chapter 13.16 and Adding Chapter 13.16 to the
Beaumont Municipal Code Establishing a Mobile Home Rent
Review Procedure.
Page 2
Beaumont City Council
May 26, 1987
No
Review and Consider First Reading of Proposed Ordinance No.
640 Repealing Chapter 13.16 of the Beaumont Municipal Code.
By prior motion, this agenda item was continued to the
regular meeting of June 8, 1987.
8. Report on Traffic Study at Beaumont Avenue and 10th Street
for Possible Installation of Four -Way Stop Signs.
Acting Chief of Police John Funston presented the traffic
report concerning the installation of a four -way stop sign
at 10th Street and Beaumont Avenue.
In addition to their conclusion that the intersection of
10th Street and Beaumont Avenue does qualify for a stop sign
pursuant to the Traffic Manual, they also reported that the
intersection of 8th Street and Beaumont Avenue also
qualifies for the installation of a stop sign, and
recommended that stop signs be installed at both locations,
with 8th Street being priority one, and 10th Street priority
two.
Council Member Connors questioned whether or not the
installation of stop signs at both locations would cause
more rear end accidents, with Chief Funston advising that is
always a possibility when the flow of traffic is stopped.
He stated further that it will change the cause of the
accidents, as the stop signs will not stop all of the
accidents, but will slow the traffic flow and stop the cause
of the present accidents, which are high speed accidents.
Council Member Connors then asked if the stop sign would
back the traffic up at 10th Street, causing a traffic
problem at the post office. Chief Funston said if anything
it would slow them down as vehicles would be traveling at a
slower speed as they approached the post office.
Council Member Connors stated she was not sure it would be
good to have stop signs at both locations, with Chief
Funston replying they felt if the City was going to try it,
they should try it at both locations to start with, and he
can always come back to the Council with a report that it
isn't working.
Mayor Partain asked if a traffic study had been done at 12th
and Beaumont Avenue, with Chief Funston advising there had
not been a study there to his knowledge.
Mayor Partain continued that it appeared to him even if a
stop is placed at 8th and 10th, there would still be a
problem between 10th and 14th with speeders.
Chief Funston indicated, although he did not know where he
would get the people to do it, he would like to redo the
entire Beaumont Avenue speed survey. This would require an
authorization for overtime for the police department.
Mayor Partain then asked both Chief Funston and the City
Manager if the City is trying to slow the traffic down,
in addition to installing the stop signs at both locations,
shouldn't the Council also authorize some overtime for
traffic control, and see if speeding continues to be a
Page 3
Beaumont City Council
May 26, 1987
problem, and if it is, have the officers really enforce
traffic control in the City limits, not just on Beaumont
Avenue, but 6th Street, Pennsylvania and other locations.
Chief Funston concurred, pointing out that even though he
has a small staff, they are doing the best they can, and
their traffic citations average 150 -200 a month.
Council Member Connors pointed out that if another traffic
survey is taken it might increase the speed limit, and she
did not want to see that.
Answering Mayor Partain's question, Chief Funston said he
would like to look at the State's report of our accidents,
determine a couple of high incident bays, and request
authorization for overtime for two days a week for an eight
hour shift during the high incident timeframe. They could
then see what happens. It shouldn't take long for the word
to get out, although they would rotate the days.
Ms. Marcella Coleman, 1068 Euclid, addressed the Council in
favor of the installation of a stop sign at 10th Street.
RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -38 - Establishing Four -Way Stop Signs at
the Intersect ons of 10th Street and Beaumont Avenue and 8th
Street and Beaumont Avenue.
I- lotion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Shaw, to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -38 for the installation
of four -way stop signs at the intersections of 10th Street
and Beaumont Avenue, and 8th and Beaumont Avenue.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously
with Council Member Waller absent.
Authorizing the City Manager to Use Over Budget Overtime for
1986 -87, for the Purpose of Traffic Control as Directed by
the City Manager and the Chief of Police.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Shaw, authorizing overtime which is already over budget for
added traffic control enforcement on Beaumont Avenue in the
vicinity of 8th Street and 10th Street, in addition to the
remainder of the City.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Waller.
9. ORDINANCE NO. 638 - SECOND READING - Repealing Sections
17.20.300 through 17.20.310, and 17.20.115 -9 and 17.65.105 -3
of the Beaumont Municipal Code and Adding Sections 17.20.300
through 17.20.310, 17.20.115 -9, 17.65.105 -3, 17.20.210 -11
and Dealing with Certain Requirements for Residential Zones.
Motion to Read Ordinance No. 638 by title only.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Connors, to read Ordinance No. 638 by title only.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Waller.
Page 4
Beaumont City Council
May 26, 1987
The Ordinance was read by title only by the Deputy City
Clerk.
Motion to Adopt Ordinance No. 638 at its second reading.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Shaw, to adopt Ordinance No. 638 at its second reading.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Waller.
10. RESOLUTION NO. 1987-36 - In Support of Enabling Legislation
for a Ballot Measure to Increase Sales Tax in Riverside
County to Improve Highways and Fund Local Street
Construction and Maintenance.
The City Manager presented his staff report and
recommendation regarding this resolution, which is a matter
of record in the Clerk's file. In addition to his report,
the...City Manager gave a detailed verbal explanation of
exactly what this resolution would accomplish.
Questions from the City Council were then answered by the
City Manager.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Connors, to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -36.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously
with Council Member Waller absent.
11. Discussion Concerning Policy Relative to Deodora Trees on
Beaumont Avenue.
The City Manager indicated at the time he wrote his
memorandum to the Council, he had stated he was searching
for policy. It was brought to his attention today that in
1971 the County Road Department did some work on the future
of Beaumont Avenue between 14th Street and Vineland Avenue
in Cherry Valley. He has now received a copy of the
drawings and proposal by the County, which shows a third set
of deodoras to the west, with the existing most westerly
deodoras being the centerline of a divided street.
Due to the fact these were just received today, it does not
give him time to give the Council his opinion regarding this
plan. At this time he has been unable to find a mutual
agreement between the City and the County, nor has he found
anything indicating a policy adopted by the City regarding
what will take place with the trees.
The City Manager continued, stating he would like the
opportunity to talk with the County on the basis if they
would agree on their General Plan, and the City would agree
with our General Plan, that we propose the third set of
deodoras.
The City Manager felt the Council would want more input on
the entire proposal, including the cost.
He pointed out the Council could still take an action
tonight stating a policy that the deodoras are beautiful,
Page 5
Beaumont City Council
May 26, 1987
and are needed as a continuation of the historical part of
the City, and shall not be touched in any way, which is
their prerogative to do so.
He pointed out there is one plot plan which will be
presented to the Planning Commission fairly shortly, which
does show an entry and exit through the deodoras, therefore,
the City Council should give some direction regarding the
trees.
If this direction is given tonight, the City Manager will
then come back to the Council with a specific plan and the
other type of things that will be needed for future planning
of the street, with the existing deodora trees remaining
untouched.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Connors, that no driveways or roadways be allowed through
the deodora trees on Beaumont Avenue, and that access to
affected land be via a frontage road from Brookside Avenue
and /or Cougar Way.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously
with Council Member Waller absent.
12. Discussion of Report from City Attorney Regarding Study
Sessions and Council Meetings.
The City Attorney presented his report regarding how the new
Brown Act affected the holding of study sessions. This
report is a matter of record in the Clerk's file.
There were questions and discussion from the Council as a
result of the City Attorney's report.
It was the concensus of the City Council that study sessions
will no longer be held. Since this is the case, discussion
was then held concerning the starting time of the regular
Council meeting. It was concluded that the time should be
changed to 6:00 P.M., with the appropriate resolution
adopted to make this change.
The meeting was recessed at 9:00 P.M., reconvening at 9:05
P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -39 - Fixing the Times of the Regular
Meeting of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, and
Repealing all Resolutions in Conflict Herewith.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Shaw, to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -39.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Waller.
13. CONSENT CALENDAR - All items listed under the Consent
Calendar are considered to be routine by the City Council
and will be approved on one motion. There will be no
separate discussion of these items unless a Council Member
or Citizen so requests, in which case the item will be
removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a
separate item.
Page 6
Beaumont City Council
May 26, 1987
a. Approval of Minutes of Adjourned Council Meeting of May
6, 1987, and Regular Council Meeting of May 11, 1987,
as amended.
b. Acceptance of Minutes of Regular Planning Commission
Meeting of May 5, 1987.
C. Approval of Payment of Warrants as audited per Warrant
List of May 26, 1987, in the amount of $181,859.48;
Payroll of May 14, 1987, in the amount of $39,355.25;
and Special Payroll Adjustment of May 8, 1987, in the
amount of $40.64.
d. Consideration of Award of Bid for Paratransit Van.
e. Consideration of Signal Maintenance Agreement with
County of Riverside.
f. Consideration of Agreement for Prosecution Services
with District Attorney's Office.
g. Report of Planning Commission Action at Meeting of May
19, 1987.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Connors, to approve the Consent Calendar, with the minutes
of the regular meeting of May 11, 1987 amended to correct a
typographical error in the signature block of the City
Clerk.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Waller.
14. Set Date for Adjourned Meeting for Continued Discussion of
Use of City Facilities.
After discussion of the availability of members of the
Council for an adjourned meeting, it was the direction of
the Council to add the discussion of use of City facilities
to the agenda of June 8, 1987.
Date Set for Next Regular Council Meeting, Monday, June 8,
1987, at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers.
There being no further business to come before the Council,
the meeting was adjourned at 9:41 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
City Clerk
Page 7
JOINT MEETING
OF
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
AND
BEAUMONT- CHERRY VALLEY RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
JUNE 3, 1987
The Beaumont City Council and Beaumont - Cherry Valley Recreation
and Park District met in a joint special meeting on Wednesday,
June 3, 1987, at 6:10 p.m., with Mayor Partain presiding.
On Roll Call for the Beaumont City Council the following Council
Members were present: Connors, Shaw and Mayor Partain. Let the
record show Council Member Waller arrived at 6:17 P.M.
On Roll Call for the Beaumont- Cherry Valley Recreation and Park
District the following Directors were present: Borynack, Flores,
Russell, MacBride and Chairman Foster.
The Invocation was given by City Manager Robert J. Bounds.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Director Flores.
1. Clerk's Affidavit of Posting.
The Clerk's .affidavit of posting was read into the record by
the Deputy City Clerk.
The following agenda was presented for review and
consideration by the Council and Board:
2. Review laws authorizing park development fees and exactions
to mitigate impacts on the parks and recreational programs
within the City and District.
3. Goals for use of fees to provide for future facilities and
upgrading existing facilities.
a. Use of fees must bear a reasonable relationship to
development.
b. Discuss concept of "Neighborhood" services.
4. Discussion of development and maintenance of new parks by
the District within City boundaries.
5. Discussion of how fees shall be charged, (i.e., single
family homes, multiple dwellings or on parcel and
subdivision maps).
a. Consider voluntary fees or exactions on commercial
and industrial developments.
6. Discussion of potential fees to be collected.
7. Consideration of equitable division of fees between the City
and District.
8. Consideration of when payment of fees is required of
developer.
Page 1
Beaumont City Council
June 3, 1987
Information was presented to the Council and Board by City
Manager Robert J. Bounds, _and General Manager Brien Ross,
concerning all agenda items listed above. There were
questions from the Council and Board, and discussion, with
no action taken.
Council Member Shaw asked the City Manager to provide him
with further information on Agenda Items No. 7 and 8.
Mayor Partain asked for a copy of the Quimby Act, a copy of
the County's Ordinance, and indicated he would like to see
the Recreation and Park District's Master Plan.
The City Manager of the City of Beaumont, and the General
Manager of the Recreation and Parks District were directed
to meet for continued discussion, and bring back a proposal.
They are to determine when they are ready to come back, at
which time a second meeting will be scheduled.
Let the record show all discussion during the meeting is a
matter of record on the tape of the meeting, and is
available for review in the City Clerk's office.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned
at 9:23 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert J. Bounds,
City Clerk
Page 2
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
JUNE 8, 1987
The Beaumont City Council met in a regular meeting at 6:06 P.M.,
on Monday, June 8, 1987, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor
Partain presiding.
On Roll Call the following Council Members were present:
Connors, Shaw and Mayor Partain. Let the record show Council
Member Waller arrived at 6:18 P.M.
The Invocation was given by City Attorney, George Ryskamp.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Council Member
Connors.
1. Clerk's Affidavit of Posting.
The Clerk's Affidavit of Posting the agenda was read into
the record by the Deputy City Clerk.
2. Adjustments to Agenda.
There were no adjustments to the agenda.
3. ORAL COMMUNICATION:
There were no requests to speak during oral communication.
4. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -40 - Approving the Joint Financing
Agreement Between Community Facilities District No. 86 -1
(Sun Lakes) of the City of Banning, City of Banning, City of
Beaumont and County of Riverside.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Connors, to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -40.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
5. Request from 75th Anniversary Steering Committee for
$2,500.00 of their August- November Budget for Special
Purchase of Pens.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Mayor Partain,
to approve the request from the 75th Anniversary Steering
Committee.
AYES: Council Member Connors and Mayor Partain.
NOES: Council Member Shaw and Waller.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
MOTION FAILED.
6. Consideration of Claim Filed by Ralph and Lulu Reindl.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Connors, to deny the claim of Ralph and Lulu Reindl, based
upon the findings.
Page 1
7.
AYES:
Council Member
Mayor Partain.
NOES:
None.
ABSTAIN:
None.
ABSENT:
None.
Beaumont City Council
June 8, 1987
Connors, Shaw, Waller and
ORDINANCE NO. 640 - FIRST READING. Repealing Chapter 13.16
of the Beaumont Municipal Code.
The staff report was presented by the City Attorney.
Mr. Allan Hacker, representing the Valley Mobile Homeowners
and Renters Association, spoke in opposition to repealing
Chapter 13.16.
Mr. Tom Barth, representing the Kozy Trailer Park tenants,
spoke in opposition to repealing Chapter 13.16.
Ms. Marge Gordon, representing the Valley Mobile Home Park,
spoke in favor of repealing Chapter 13.16.
Mr. Matthew Farr, owner of the Valley Mobile Home Park,
spoke in favor of repealing Chapter 13.16.
Letters from Mildred Jones and Raymond J. Lewis, both
tenants of the Valley Mobile Home Park, in favor of
repealing Chapter 13.16, were entered into the record.
Questions were asked by all Council Members participating in
the discussion, and statements were made by Council Member
Connors, Council Member Waller and Mayor Partain, concerning
their findings as a result of the information given to them.
The City Attorney pointed out that if Chapter 13.16 is
repealed, it will not affect any of the actions that are
pending at-this time.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Mayor Partain,
to pass Ordinance No. 640 at its first reading.
AYES: Council Member Connors and Mayor Partain.
NOES: Council Member Waller.
ABSTAIN: Council Member Shaw.
ABSENT: None.
The meeting was recessed at 8:29 P.M., reconvening at 8:38
P.M.
Let the record show that certain agenda items were taken out
of sequence as follows:
Agenda Item No. 11 was considered immediately following Item
No. 7.
Agenda Item No. 12 was considered immediately following Item
No. 11.
Agenda Item No. 10 was considered immediately following Item
No. 12.
Agenda Item No. 9 was considered immediately following Item
10.
The minutes will reflect these agenda items in the sequence
orginally shown on the agenda.
Page 2
Beaumont City Council
June 8, 1987
8. CONSENT CALENDAR - All items listed under the Consent
Calendar are considered to be.routine by the City Council
and will be approved on one motion. There will be no
separate discussion of these items unless a Council Member
or Citizen so requests, in which case the item will be
removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a
separate item.
a. Approval of Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of May
26, 1987.
b. Acceptance of Minutes of Regular Planning Commission
Meeting of May 19, 1987.
C. Approval of Payment of Warrants as Audited per Warrant
List of June 8, 1987, in the amount of $82,604.82; and
Payroll of May 28, 1987, in the amount of $40,029.45.
d. Request that Certain Vehicles and Equipment be Declared
Surplus and Authorize to Sell Said Vehicles and
Equipment by Sealed Bid, or Other Appropriate Means.
e. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -37 - Accepting Offer of Dedication
or a Porti n oFPalm Avenue North, and Ordering
Recordation Thereof with the County Recorder. (Cougar
Mountain Apartments - 86- PP -14).
f. Report of Planning Commission Action at Meeting of June
2, 1987.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Connors, to approve the Consent Calendar.
AYES:
Council Member
Mayor Partain.
NOES:
None.
ABSTAIN:
None.
ABSENT:
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - 7:30 P.M.
Connors, Shaw, Waller and
9. INTENTION TO ORDER ABANDONMENT OF PORTION OF MICHIGAN AVENUE
AND 8TH STREET. Applicant: Nea Baker.! Location: S E
Corner of StFi and Michigan.
The Public Hearinq was opened at 9:09 P.M.
There were no proponents or opponents requesting to speak.
The Public Hearing was closed at 9:10 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -41 - Ordering the Abandonment and
Vacation of a PortioT n of Michigan Avenue and 8th Street.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council P,:ember
Connors, to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -41.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
10. PRE - ZONING DETERMINATION for Annexation Application.
App iaant: De ores Mezori, Sunny Acres Guest Home.
Location: 13140 American Avenue. (87- ANX- 1 -39).
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:58 P.M.
Page 3
Beaumont City Council
June 8, 1987
There were no proponents or opponents requesting to speak.
The Public Hearing was closed at 8:59 P.M.
a. Consideration of Adoption of Negative Declaration 87-
ND-13.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Waller, to adopt Negative Declaration 87- ND -13.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
b. ORDINANCE NO. 641 - FIRST READING - Prezoning 4.19
acres from County R -1 (Residential Single Family) to
City RSF (Residential Single Family). Applicant:
Delores Mezori, Sunny Acres Guest Home. Location:
13140 American Avenue. (87- ANX- 1 -39).
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Shaw, to read Ordinance No. 641 by title only.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Shaw, to pass Ordinance No. 641 at its first reading.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
11. PRE - ZONING DETERMINATION for Annexation Application.
Applicant: V.T.C. Ron Whittier. Location: N/W Corner of
Sunnyslope and Cougar Way. (87- ANX- 2 -40).
The City Manager presented his staff report, advising the
Council that after action was taken by the Planning
Commission it was found they had been given erroneous
information. As a result, his recommendation was the matter
be returned to the Planning Commission to give them an
opportunity to reconsider the pre- zoning determination based
on the correct information.
a. Consideration of Adoption of Negative Declaration 87-
ND-12.
b. ORDINANCE NO. 642 - FIRST READING - Prezoning 4.26
acres from County R -2 (Medium Density Residential) to
City RMF (Medium Density Residential). Applicant:
V.T.C. Ron Whittier. Location: N/W Corner of
Sunnyslope and Cougar Way. (87- ANX- 2 -40).
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Shaw, to return this pre- zoning determination to the
Planning Commission based on the staff report submitted.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
12. CHANGE OF ZONE - A proposed Zone Change of .42 acres from
HDR 7HiTh Density Residential) to CG (Commercial General).
Applicant: Jasper Stone Development Co. Location: North
of 6th Street and East of Illinois Street (behind the Rusty
Lantern).
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:45 P.M.
Page 4
Beaumont City Council
June 8, 1987
Mr. David Sumner, representing the applicant, spoke in favor
of this zone change.
There were no proponents requesting to speak.
The Public Hearing was closed at 8:49 P.M.
a. Consideration of Adoption of Negative Declaration 87-
ND-11.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Shaw, to adopt Negative Declaration 87- ND -11.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
b. ORDINANCE NO. 643 - FIRST READING - Approving Zone
Change 7 -RZ -2 from HDR (High Density Residential) to
CG (Commercial General). Applicant: Jasper Stone
Development Co. Location: .42 acres North of 6th
Street and East of Illinois Street.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Connors, to read Ordinance No. 643 by title only.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Connors, to pass Ordinance No. 643 at its first reading.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
END PUBLIC HEARINGS.
13. Recess to Closed Session Pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(b)(1) to Confer with Its Attorney Regarding Pending
Litigation. The title of the litigation is Calhoun vs City
of Beaumont.
The meeting was recessed to Closed Session at 9:16 P.M.
The meeting was reconvened to Regular Session at 9:24 P.M.
Let the Record Show the Council received a report from the
City Attorney regarding litigation of Calhoun vs City of
Beaumont. Direction was given to the City Attorney, but no
definitive action was taken.
14. Continued Discussion of Use of All City Facilities.
The City Manager presented a verbal report giving the
Council the information they had requested at the previous
meeting concerning groups using City facilities at no fee.
He also advised that a request had been received from a
Japanese study group asking to use the Council Chamber for a
period of approximately one month, and asking for a reduced
fee.
It was the concensus of the Council that the full fee will
be charged to the Japanese study group.
Page 5
Beaumont City Council
June 8, 1987
It was also the concensus of the Council that the following
groups or organizations will be required to pay the full
fee:
a. Jazzercise.
b. Cherry Valley AARP.
C. Beaumont Unified School District Employee Association.
d. School District Negotiations.
The Election Department will be required to pay their normal
fee for polling places for both the Council Chamber and the
Fire Department.
It was the concensus of the Council that the S.H.A.R.E.
Organization would continue to pay no fee.
The City Manager is to bring back an additional report
regarding the San Andreas High School and Mountain View Jr.
High School's use of the gymnasium for basketball games and
practice. No decision was made concerning charging a fee
for school district use of facilities.
Council Member Connors requested that all applicants be
advised that in using a City facility they are not to nail,
glue, bolt or in any other way change the room they are
renting. If this rule were not adhered to, the group would
not be allowed to rent the facility again. This provision
should be included as part of the application /permit form.
The City Manager was directed to include an agenda item on
the agenda for June 22 to set a date for the first budget
hearing. The City Manager advised he would also need a
closed session for a report concerning employee
negotiations.
Date Set for Next Regular Council Meeting, Monday, June 22,
1987, at 6:00 P.M.
There being no further business to come before the Council,
on motion by Council Member Waller, second by Mayor Partain,
the meeting was adjourned at 10:05 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Vity Clerk
Page 6
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
JUNE 22, 1987
The Beaumont City Council met in a regular meeting at 6:04 P.M.,
on Monday, June 22, 1987, in the City Council Chambers, with
Mayor Partain presiding.
On Roll Call the following Council Members were present:
Connors, Shaw, Waller and Mayor Partain.
The Invocation was given by Associate Pastor Steve Harrison, 1st
Southern Baptist Church.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Council Member
Shaw.
1. Clerk's Affidavit of Posting.
The Clerk's Affidavit of Posting was read into the record by
the Deputy City Clerk.
2. Adjustments to Agenda.
There were no adjustments to the agenda.
3. ORAL COMMUNICATION:
There were no requests to speak during oral communication.
4. PUBLIC HEARING - 6:00 P.M. - APPEAL of Planning Commission
Denl—al of Plot Plan 87 -PP -4, a Proposed Solid Waste Transfer
Station. Appellant: E. Ross-Heale. Location: N/E Corner
of 1st and American.
The Public Hearing was opened at 6:09 P.M.
Mr. Gary Koontz, CM Engineering, representing the applicant,
addressed the Council as a proponent of the appeal:
Mr. Koontz: On June 2, 1987 the Beaumont Planning
Commission denied this case, Project No. 87 -PP -4. They made
three findings during that time. What we are dealing with
is a small volume solid waste transfer station. Their
reasons for making the denial involved were:
1. Landfills exist within the general vicinity and can
adequately handle the waste load .
2. The land south of the site is designated as a planned
unit development and may not be a compatible use.
3. The ML zone does not specifically identify a solid
waste transfer station as an allowed use.
We wish to appeal those three findings and ask that the City
Council approve this project subject to the conditions as
submitted by the Planning Department, as submitted to the
Planning Commission.
I would like to go through, briefly, each of the findings,
if I may. The first finding was there are landfills close
by and can handle the waste load. A transfer station - to
give you a quick explanation - is a facility that
Page 1
Beaumont City Council
June 22, 1987
consolidates waste loads. Those consolidated waste loads
are taken from small vehicles, put in larger vehicles, and
taken to the landfill. They essentially supplement a
landfill. They do not do exactly what a landfill does.
Garbage, trash, etc., still ends up in the landfill. What
they are designed to do is provide a convenient facility for
the general public to put their waste. What we are looking
at is taking municipal solid waste - the standard trash, the
yard clippings, things of that sort, that the local resident
would have. He would take that to the landfill if he wished
to do so. What we are doing is providing a convenient
facility. Landfills are very clean, neat, orderly
operations. They are heavily regulated by the County and
State government agencies.
Basically, we are taking cars out of the landfill and
putting them in a transfer station, consolidating those
loads and taking large trucks. Those will all end up in
the landfill. We are proposing to be open on Sundays. We
also are proposing longer operating hours. We are saying
this is being a benefit. We are contributing to the clean-
up of litter, illegal dumping that does occur in the area.
We are also providing recycling operations which we feel
will benefit the community, will increase the landfill life,
and is just, all around, a good aspect of operations of
waste disposal systems these days.
As for incompatible land uses, at the Planning Commission
they got into a long conversation concerning the planned
unit development proposed for the south side of First
Street, immediately adjacent to our project. Today we know
of no project that has been filed with the City. That means
that that project could come in tomorrow, or it could come
in twenty years from now. Under planned unit development
you are looking at a well planned out, multi -use operation
of development procedure. First Street is an arterial
highway. It will be probably one of the main streets
running through the south part of town. In a PUD what you
will probably be finding along First Street, since there
will be noise problems, traffic problems in general, you
wouldn't see a lot of residential development occurring
along that street. They will be backing up with walls for
noise buffers, things of that sort. or else you would find
things such as commercial, business parks, light industrial
uses buffering the industrial area north of First Street and
the residential development further south.
As the area develops, and we are positive it will continue
to develop, you will be looking at increased land values in
the area. What we are looking at now, the site plan before
you is an experiment. All we are doing is testing the
waters to see if people will use a transfer station. This
is a very small, very simple facility. As time goes on, and
there is a need for it, and people begin to use it, we would
expand it. We would enclose the facility. We would provide
all the paving, hook -up to all utilities, do everything that
needs to be done to make A well run, state -of- the -art
transfer station. Right now it is an experiment. We are
not certain whether people will use it. If they don't use
it, and it appears to be economically unfeasible, it will be
closed down and an industrial use put on it at a later date.
As the area grows and the PUD would come in and industrial
areas would develop around it, we would be looking at either
Page 2
Beaumont City Council
June 22, 1987
upgrading it through a new use permit through the City
agencies, the Planning Commission and possibly through the
City Council, or else just closing it down and coming in
with a new use.
The third finding concerns zoning. It is stated the ML zone
does not specifically permit solid waste transfer stations,
and so should not be allowed. Zoning ordinances, in many
ways, provide a guideline. They do not provide very
specific, absolute uses that cannot be - it allows
discretion on the part of the City. A couple of items, in
going through the Ordinance, under Plot Plans for ML zones,
under a plot plan they do allow things such as concrete
batch plants, contractor's storage yards, fertilizer packing
and truck terminals. We are looking at a small scale solid
waste facility which is heavily regulated, and a very clean,
neat operation. We feel that it is a compatible use. Back
in 1984, for example, the Riverside County Board of
Supervisors, in their MSC zone, which is a light industrial
zone very similar to the ML zone, approved a very similar
transfer station up in the Mira Loma area. It is operating
today. It is a very neat, clean facility.
What we are looking at, basically, is we feel we are a
benefit to the community by providing an alternative place
to dispose of waste materials. Providing longer hours. We
feel we are helping in cleaning up the illegal dumping
problems that occur, especially in that area that we are
dealing in. We are, as one of the conditions required,
helping you to maintain some of the road system. First
Street is now a dirt road. We are required to help you
maintain it. We are looking at - we have gone through
every possible evironmental review that you can think of. A
project like this is required to get a variety of other
permits. This is just the first step. After this we are
required to go to what is called the Riverside County Local
Enforcement Agency, which is similar to a Planning
Commission at a County level that deals with nothing but
solid waste matters. We are required to prepare an
operating plan which explains exactly how we are supposed to
run and maintain the facility. All the regulations.
Everything you can think of from a health and safety aspect.
That is reviewed by the Local Enforcement Agency staff
which, for all intents and purposes, is the Riverside County
Environmental Health Services Division, Solid Waste
Management Section. Officially, the County Health
Department is reviewing it.
From that point on it has to go to the California Waste
Management Board in Sacramento. And they must review and
approve the permit before we can operate. All this is
dependent on getting this permit first. We feel there are
adequate regulations. We feel we have got a very clean,
neat facility that will not be a detriment to the community.
We do ask that you override the Planning Commission
recommendation of denial. You approve the project subject
to the conditions as submitteg.
One other question
Commission meeting
It concerns some of
issues of this, and
meeting we did have
Department present.
did come up at the last Planning
- at both Planning Commission meetings.
the health requirements and the safety
the permit process after this. At that
someone from the Riverside County Health
We have asked them again to appear. We
Page 3
Beaumont City Council
June 22, 1987
have, tonight, with us, John Fanning, who is Deputy Director
of Environmental Health, who serves as the Chairman of the
Local Enforcment Agency, and he might like to say a few
words now.
Mr. John Fanning, County of Riverside Health Department,
Chairman of the Local Enforcement Agency, addressed the
Council as a proponent for this appeal:
Mr. Fanning: I would be glad to address any questions the
Council may have regarding those matters which we would be
permitting and reviewing prior to the issuance of the permit
if you felt that there were concerns or considerations
relating to the degradation of the local area because of the
transfer station.
Mayor Partain: Mr. Waller, go ahead.
Council Member Waller: I heard mentioned that there were
some EIRs taking place. How extensive are these
environmental impact reports. Or were you involved in that.
Mr. Fanning: On the EIRs for this project. No, we weren't
involved in that except that we are a reviewing body, and
after that EIR is done and developed it will be part of the
package that we review when they come to us for a permit.
Council Member Waller: Okay, you are beginning at this time
a review of the EIR, is that correct. Or have you started
that.
Mr. Fanning: Let me explain that process to you. Because
we are required to get a State permit, the California
Environmental Quality Act requires that the environmental
assessment performed by your City on this project be sent
through the State Clearinghouse for official State review.
Prior to going to the Planning Commission hearings, the
Planning Director did submit the project with the
environmental review that was done inhouse to the State
Clearinghouse. It was transmitted through a variety of
State agencies and responses were given. Essentially it
cleared all of the State agencies. They had no concerns
about this project.
Council Member Waller: When you say "inhouse ", you mean
that. . .
Mr. Fanning: It was the City's environmental review that
the Planning Director, Valerie Beeler. . .
City Manager: It is called an environmental assessment. It
is not an environmental impact report. You only assess what
is shown to you by the person who is proposing the project,
and look at those things that appear to create more than a
significant impact.
Council Member Waller: So, in other words, this is somewhat
of a screening agency prior to . . .
City Manager: Just a review type. . .
Mr. Fanning: If there had been any sort of significant
impact identified by the agencies, we would have had to come
back and address them with larger studies, or possibly a
full EIR.
Page 4
Beaumont City Council
June 22, 1987
Council Member Waller: I am sure you have had this quoted
to you in the Planning Commission, and I am on Page 107 of
the Title 17, and it is speaking of the ML zoning, and it
states specifically that the following uses are permitted
provided that they are conducted within a completely
enclosed building except for incidental storage, etc. It is
talking about abrasive acids, cleaning compounds. It is
talking about fibre, hair, paper, I guess that is everything
that you have got, right, and more.
Mr. Koontz: In this kind of facility you won't have
hazardous materials of any sort. You are looking at
typical household trash. Yard clippings, or things of that
sort.
Council Member Waller: My daughter has found out that there
is quite a bit of hazardous material under the kitchen sink,
and she has to put on these little stickers that say poison.
Mr. Fanning: Less than 1% of your household trash would be
containing that material which would be hazardous waste,
your drano, your caustics, and so forth and so on. I would
offer the Council that we have permitted two other small
transfer stations like this one proposed through the LEA
process in a semi -rural area. One in Glen Avon, and one
just outside the City limits of Corona. And we, as the
local LEA take those issues in terms of household toxics,
collection centers, and so forth, very seriously. What we
have done with those other two projects is we have made that
a condition of their permit. That they work jointly with
the County Environmental Health Department where we are
going to either cite a permanent household collection
center, or have a rotating place for local small rural
areas, such as this, to deposit your household hazardous
waste material.
We are also looking at a used oil recycling drop center for
areas that these types of small volume transfer stations
serve. The issue of totally enclosing these types of
facilities is a condition that we could put on our permit if
it were warranted. For example, if the volumes get to be at
such a level that they would be justified, or you have a
dust problem or litter and debris blowing problem, we work
with the applicant. We make that condition very up front
with them that should those situations occur, they will go
to additional environmental control measures.
Council Member Waller: Well, this is referring specifically
to the manufacture, assembly and, of course, processing. I
guess processing would be the area in which they would be
involved in. Is that correct.
Mr. Fanning: I am not familiar with your zoning
regulations, but in terms of solid waste - the processing
would not be what you would akin it to in an industrial
operation such as Rohr Industries in the City of Riverside,
or Bournes Industries, where, you do processing on -site of a
large volume of material where you may get into flammable,
hazardous materials, and so forth.
Council Member Waller: Well, isn't it a fact that Riverside
County, in all of the counties, I think I remember reading
this, in all of the counties of the United States has the
worst situation concerning toxic wastes, pollution.
Page 5
Beaumont City Council
June 22, 1987
Mr. Fanning: If you are referencing the Stringfellow Acid
Pits, I would say, yes, the County of Riverside has the
unfortunate claim to fame, if you will, of having that just
outside of the City of Riverside, which is on an EPA clean-
up list. That is correct. That is from a totally different
operation. That was from liquid material deposited in the
ground as compared to this type of an operation, which is a
transfer station that is going to handling residential and
municipal landfill material.
Mayor Partain: Mr. Shaw, do you have any questions.
Council Member Shaw: None whatsoever.
Mayor Partain: Mrs. Connors, do you have any questions.
Council Member Connors: Yes. Right now the facility is
less than 3/4 of an acre. .70% of an acre. There is ten
acres there. Is that ten acres available to you. Would
this thing possibly grow to as large as ten acres.
Mr. Koontz: It theoretically could within the next, say,
twenty years. A twenty acre site for a transfer station is
very, very large.
Council Member Connors: Well there is the possibility that
Beaumont could some day be very, very large.
Mr. Koontz: Definitely.
Council Member Connors: And if one percent of the waste is
the kind of materials that we would prefer not to have
there, and there is a facility that large, that could amount
to quite a bit.
Mr. Koontz: All that waste - what we are looking at now is
a transfer station. The waste will not be stored on -site by
any means. We are required to remove it, normally, within
twenty -four hours of it getting on -site. It is put from a
truck, say a pick -up truck, into a standard rollout bin that
you see at construction sites. When that is filled, it is
covered and it is hauled to the landfill. The waste you are
talking about, your one percent hazardous material, is going
to end up in the landfill one way or another, unless there
is some sort of a household cleanup system that Mr. Fanning
and his group can put together.
We are not going to make a landfill out of the site by any
means. It is simply a transfer facility.
Mr. Fanning: Let me clarify that one percent for you if I
may. Those are the estimates that are coming in now from
the California Waste Management Board. That is the highest,
or the worst case scenario that you would see in your
residential waste. They are doing a study right now to more
closely evaluate that number. How much of our municipal and
local refuse is that hazardous waste. That is why you see
used oil recycling projects going on. Because that is part
of that hazardous waste. That is why you see household
toxic collection day programs going on, like we are getting
involved in a pilot project in Moreno Valley to do that in
one day. I don't mean to do a lot of crystal balling, on
that issue, but I think as our awareness heightens in the
next five to ten years, as it is right now, you will see
Page 6
Beaumont City Council
June 22, 1987
those numbers shrink because we have more and more
responsibility, and more and more laws here in California to
manage and see that those hazardous wastes are handled in
another manner than getting into the standard waste stream.
So that one percent may be high. They are doing a pilot
project in the City of Commerce right now where they are
evaluating that number to see how valid it is. There has
been discussion so far as it being down a half a percent or,
you know, 3/100 of a percent. So when I say one percent,
that is what the latest information out of California Waste
Management Board says that you would expect to find in your
household waste stream coming from the community. But if
you are saying in twenty years, on the twenty acres you
would have more than that one percent there, no, I don't
think that would be a fair extrapolation in terms of what
potential you would have for household or toxic material
being on that site. It wouldn't be permitted for that. We
could set that as a condition that they would be managing
and handling the hazardous material in a separate manner.
So there are safeguards to address that issue.
Council Member Connors: Okay. Thank you. Could I ask Mr.
Koontz a question. You said that you had twenty -four hours
to move these things. Does that mean that you could have
truckloads sitting there overnight.
Mr. Koontz: Theoretically we could, yes.
Mayor Partain: Is that it. Mr. Shaw? Mr. Fanning, could I
ask you one question. Maybe you know, or maybe you don't
know, I noticed in the Press - Enterprise Sunday an article
that the Board of Supervisors were studying a plan to open
some of the waste disposal areas for Sunday. Opening them
on Sundays. Are you familiar with that.
Mr. Fanning: Yes.
Mayor Partain: The article indicated possibly this one here
is being studied. Have you heard anymore other than what
was in the article.
Mr. Fanning: That is going to be on the Board of
Supervisor's agenda tomorrow for Board consideration. They
are going to look at the feasibility of having staff of the
County Waste Management Department operate those landfills
on Sunday. That action will be taken at the Board. Again,
the Board's decision is going to give staff direction, and
then the LEA will have to amend the operating permit to even
put a County landfill, and .coordinate that with the Waste
Management Board to see that it is consistent with their
guidelines. So we would be addressing issues such as noise
and increased traffic on Sunday, and so forth. The County
is looking at it from an operational standpoint.
Mayor Partain: Okay, thank you. Anything else.
Council Member Waller:. I yam just wondering. Is there
anyway that we could be provided, Mr. Bounds, with reports
and Corona and - what is the other City. Mira Loma. So
that, I mean, I think everybody on the Council is for
growth, but we are all - and for balanced growth, including
industry - light industry preferred. I think this is what
the people of the community have asked us to do, but also
Page 7
Beaumont City Council
June 22, 1987
they want safe and clean. I would have to be assured that
it would be safe and clean - well, clean at least. What you
say sounds good, but I don't know exactly what transpired at
Planning Commission, and they must have had some
reservations. In this area, they do know more than I do.
Is there any chance of getting those. They would only be
beneficial if we held this over, right?
Mr. Koontz: I would like to note that
Commission meeting we did submit as e
operating permits that the Local
submitted on both of those projects.
operating permits on those two sites.
record.
at the first Planning
vidence copies of the
Enforcement Agency
They were full, legal
Those are for the
Mayor Partain: Thank you. Okay. Any other proponents.
Dr. Randhawa wishes to speak in opposition.
Dr. Randhawa, 754 E. Third Street, addressed the Council in
opposition to this appeal.
Dr. Randhawa: I am here to represent the whole group who
were here the last time. A lot of them have gone on
vacation this time, so I am not speaking for myself only. A
couple of points. I wish you have all the depositions last
time. The residents give their - eight people spoke, and
the concensus of the people living in that area, 99 %, is
against. Now, one simple reason is that I am here in
Beaumont for nine years and I am waiting for good things to
come, not something like this. Number two, we really don't
need it. We have a County disposal place starting from
Beaumont to Banning within a four to six mile radius. And
the other one of the examples given, they are anywhere from
15 to 20 -30 mile away from those places. So there is really
no need for this type of thing in our place. It will be, as
just said in the rear, that we have to think about what we
want to see in twenty years, and we don't want something
like this which will definitely stop somebody to bring a big
development project like Presley on that side, and we need
something like that, not like this. And, number two, it is
a health hazard. I have asked public health from Loma
Linda, Mr. Fanning, what he is telling you, unfortunately,
they claim they are doing the job, but they are not. EPA
reports is the worst in this County. State report on
environmental health department is worst in Southern
California, and there is an inquiry going on there I know.
One simple thing, for example, this is all open there, and
you know how much wind we have there. I have my hospital
sign resistant to the wind, and I tell you it shakes and it
blows, and I have to work with weed tumbles every year to
move myself when they come to my place. So that is one big
problem there. Number two, we hear that State, County will
take care of the toxic stuffs. Unfortunately, that is not
true. And I wish they would do a better job. For example,
that is all open area. It may take five years for something
good to come there. But people will dump there, all these
chemical, right in front of their door. They are not going
to have a watchman twenty -four hours there, that I know.
And that all will contaminate our soil, ground water, and so
on. And traffic, all those people living there, they have a
big concern on that too. And I think we are going to have a
gooder, hopefully, things in the future on that whole side
Page 8
Beaumont City Council
June 22, 1987
of 4th Street. Even if we have ML zoning on this side, we
still have to keep in mind what we are going to have in the
future on that side. And, as I said, I am one of those who
came here nine years back with the hope that I want to raise
my family in a good, clean environment. It is unfortunate
thing that while the City Administration is recommending
this type of thing when it is not even mentioned in our ML
zoning. We are coming up on that thing later on. So, I am
speaking from the group and the community also. I think we
remember that we kept the prison and the chemical plant away
a few years back. And I hope we have now to do the same
thing here. Any question, I will be glad to answer.
Mayor Partain: Thank you Dr. Randhawa. Anyone else wishing
to speak in opposition. Anyone else. Okay.
The Public Hearing was closed at 6:34 P.M.
The City Manager indicated if there was anything the Council
wished him to expound on relative.to the staff report that
was included in their packet, he would be happy to do so.
Council Member Connors asked how much trouble we were having
now, that we might need this facility. Is an additional
facility needed.
The City Manager said one of the reasons this is being
proposed is that it would be available for both Banning and
Beaumont and Cherry Valley residents. The future, as growth
comes along, if waste disposal sites are not opened on
Sunday, Mr. Heale has found that the regular pick -up times
are not enough to take care of the waste that is in the
community, and when people on the weekend start cleaning up,
as long as they can get through on Saturday and can get to
the dump they are okay, but on Sunday they have no place to
go, and many times it collects up for the week, and may be
too large for the pick -up. So you have to wait until
someone is off work.
Council Member Connors then asked if there was no way to get
the other one open on Sundays.
The City Manager replied that he thought the County would
open it if someone would pay the bill.
Council Member Waller stated that he sees the need for these
type of establishments, and he has been told that it is safe
and clean, but he would prefer to have it held over to the
next meeting so Corona and Mira Loma could be contacted and
get information concerning their transfer stations.
Mayor Partain indicated he agreed, as he would like to find
out what the County is going to do about opening on Sundays,
since that is one of the main arguments for this transfer
station.
a. Consideration of Granting or Denying the Appeal.
Motion by Council Member Shaw to accept the Planning
Commission's recommendation to deny Plot Plan 87 -PP -4, DIED
FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Motion by Council Member Waller,
Connors, to continue this agenda
on July 13, 1987 during which
Page 9
second by Council Member
item until the next meeting
time staff may be able to
5.
6.
Beaumont City Council
June 22, 1987
provide additional in -depth reports concerning the existing
transfer stations in Corona and Mira Loma.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Waller and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: Council Member Shaw.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
b. Consideration of Approval of Negative Declaration 87-
ND-1.
By prior motion, this agenda item was continued to July 13,
1987.
C, Consideration of Approval of Plot Plan 87 -PP -4, Subject
to Conditions of Approval.
By prior motion, this agenda item was continued to July 13,
1987.
Request for Permit to Obtain Business License to Operate an
Indoor Auction House in the City of Beaumont. Applicant:
Billy E. Kenner. Location: 530 E. 3rd Street.
The staff report was presented by the City Manager
indicating that Section 5.20.080 of the Beaumont Municipal
Code requires a permit from the City Council for an auction
to obtain a business license, with his recommendation that
the permit be given.
There were questions asked by all members of the Council
concerning why a special permit from the Council is needed,
where the merchandise comes from for the auction, and the
types of merchandise that would be allowed to be sold.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Connors, to grant the request of Mr. Billy E. Kenner to
obtain a business license for an indoor auction at 530 East
3rd Street.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
Request for Permit to Obtain Business License for Funeral
Home /Wedding Chapel. Applicant: Dora L. Rynio for Chapel
of Roses. Location: 200 E. 6th Street.
The staff report was presented by the City Manager
concerning the action taken by the Planning Commission
approving the minor Plot Plan. He then called attention to
the fact that the State will not license a mortuary until
the City has approved the business and its location.
Once the City has approved the business, it will then go
before the State Board for consideration of issuing a State
license for funeral directors.
Questions were asked by members of the Council concerning
the conditions under which the business is to operate, and
the fact that the business license can be revoked if they do
not abide by the conditions of approval.
Council Member Waller also questioned the location of the
parking lot which is to be used by the funeral home, since
there is another business between the parking lot and the
funeral home.
Page 10
7.
Beaumont City Council
June 22, 1987
Council Member Connors said her appeal concerned not only
turning left but also turning right, as she feels there is
going to be a traffic problem created by a funeral
procession. She also indicated she felt the existing
business in between the funeral home and the parking lot
will be affected when a funeral is being held. She feels
the problem will only become worse as the City grows, and
she does not feel that particular business belongs on that
corner.
Mrs. Dora Rynio, representing Chapel of Roses, addressed the
Council, pointing out this location has previously
functioned as a funeral home very successfully, as well as a
restaurant and as a church. She did not feel there would be
a problem with the parking lot located where it is, nor
would the adjoining business be affected. So far as the
traffic is concerned, it is very well controlled, and they
have a motorcycle escort which are usually off -duty police
officers.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Shaw, to approve the issuance of a business license for the
Chapel of Roses when a copy of the State license is
presented to the City.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Council
Partain.
Council
None.
None.
Member Shaw,
Member Connors.
Waller and Mayor
ORDINANCE NO. 640 - SECOND READING - Repealing Chapter 13.16
of the — Beaumont Municipal Code Which Established a Mobile
Home Rent Review Commission.
Mr. Clay Hage, Western Mobilehome Association, addressed the
Council speaking in favor of the repeal.
Mr. Jim Melvin and Mr. Irish D. Mitchell spoke in
opposition.
The question was raised, and lengthy discussion followed,
concerning the City Attorney's legal opinion that Council
Member Shaw could not vote due to a conflict of interest,
since he is a tenant in a mobile home park.
Council Member Shaw requested a clarification of this legal
opinion, as he felt he should be able to vote as a citizen,
and did not feel he has a conflict of interest.
Discussion continued with the City Attorney reiterating his
legal opinion there was sufficient benefit to the tenants as
a whole to indicate a conflict of interest on Council Member
Shaw's part. A number of questions from the Council were
answered by the City Attorney.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Mayor Partain, to
continue the agenda item to the regular meeting of July 13,
1987, pending receipt of a second legal opinion by the City
Attorney.
AYES: Council Member Waller and Mayor Partain.
NOES: Council Member Connors.
ABSTAIN: Council Member Shaw.
ABSENT: None.
Page 11
Beaumont City Council
June 22, 1987
8. ORDINANCE NO. 641 - SECOND READING - Prezoning 4.19 acres
from County R- 1_(Residential Single Family) to City RSF
(Residential Single Family). Applicant: Delores Mezori,
Sunny Acres Guest Home. Location: 13140 American Avenue.
(Annexation 87- ANX- 1 -39).
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Connors, to read Ordinance No. 641 by title only.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
The Ordinance was read by title only by the Deputy City
Clerk.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Shaw, to adopt Ordinance No. 641 at its second reading.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
9. ORDINANCE NO. 643 - SECOND READING - Rezoning Certain
Property from HDR (High Density Residential) to CG
(Commercial General). Applicant: Jasper Stone Development
Co. Location: .42 acres north of 6th Street and east of
Illinois Street. (Behind the Rusty Lantern).
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Shaw, to read Ordinance No. 643 by title only.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
The Ordinance was read by title only by the Deputy City
Clerk.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Connors, to adopt Ordinance No. 643 at its second reading.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
10. RESOLUTION_ NO. 1987 -43 - Consenting and Authorizing
Submittal oT— Annexation Application of Uninhabited
Territory. Applicant: Delores Mezori, Sunny Acres Guest
Home. Location: 4.19 acres at 13140 American Avenue.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Waller, to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -43.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
11. CONSENT CALENDAR - All items listed under the Consent
Caa endar are considered to be routine by the City Council
and will be approved on one motion. There will be no
separate discussion of these items unless a Council Member
or Citizen so requests, in which case the item will be
removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a
separate item.
a. Approval of Minutes of Special Council Meeting of June
3, 1987, and Regular Council Meeting of June 8, 1987.
Page 12
Beaumont City Council
June 22, 1987
b. Acceptance of Minutes of Regular Planning Commission
Meeting of June 2, 1987.
C. Approval of Payment of Warrants as Audited per Warrant
List of June 22, 1987, in the amount of $116,112.41;
and Payroll of June 11, 1987, in the amount of
$39,987.43.
d. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -42 - Determining Fees to be Charged
to Reimburse the City for Cost of Registering Bonds and
Cost of Annual Administration. Assessment District
1983 -1.
e. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -44 - Calling and Giving Notice of
the Ho Ong of a General Municipal Election to be Held
in Said City on Tuesday, November 3, 1987 for the
Election of Certain Officers of Said City as Required by
by the Provisions of the Laws of the State of
California Relating to General Law Cities.
f. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -45 - Setting Forth Regulations for
Candi ac�tes Tor Elective Office, Pertaining to Materials
Submitted to the Electorate and the Costs Thereof, and
Requiring Candidates for City Offices to Pay the Cost
of Candidates Statements, for the General Municipal
Election to be Held in said City on Tuesday, November
3, 1987.
g. Authorization for Submittal of Claim for Article 4
Funding, FY 1987/88.
h. Report of Action by Planning Commission at Meeting of
June 16, 1987.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Shaw, to approve the Consent Calendar with the June 8
minutes being amended on Page 6 to state the Election
Department fees will be the same as they pay to all others.
12. Recess to Closed Session Pursuant to Government Code Section
54957.6 to Meet with Its Designated Representative Regarding
Labor Relations Matters.
The meeting was recessed to closed session at 8:31 P.M.
The meeting was reconvened to regular session at 10:03 P.M.
Let the record show the Council received a report from its
designated representative regarding labor relations matters,
direction was given, but no definitive action was taken.
13. Mayor Partain called a special meeting to be held on
Thursday, July 2, 1987, in the City Council Chambers to
begin review of the proposed 1987 -88 budget and Memoranda of
Understanding with employees.
Date Set for Next Regular Council Meeting, Monday, July 13,
1987, at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers.
There being no further business to come before the Council,
on motion by Council Member Waller,, second by Council Member
Shaw, the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
City C er
Page 13
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
SPECIAL MEETING OF
JULY 2, 1987
The Beaumont City Council met in a duly noticed Special Meeting
at 3:40 P.M., on Thursday, July 2, 1987, in the City Council
Chambers, with Mayor Partain presiding.
On Roll Call the following Council Members were present:
Connors, Shaw and Mayor Partain. Let the record show Council
Member Waller arrived at 4:14 P.M.
1. Clerk's Affidavit of Posting.
The Clerk's Affidavit of posting the agenda was read into
record by the Deputy City Clerk.
2. Continued Review of Proposed 1987 -88 Budget.
The City Manager presented his budget report relative to the
projected revenues and expenditures.
The Council began their review of the preliminary 1987 -88
budget on a department by department basis.
3. Action on Budget Related Items.
Motion by .Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Connors, to authorize the typewriter listed as Account No.
1100 -6040 in the City Manager's department, in the amount of
$2,870.00, be purchased prior to adoption of the budget.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
4. Recess to Closed Session Pursuant to Government Code Section
54957.6 to Meet with Its Designated Representative Regarding
Labor Relations Matters.
The meeting was recessed to Closed Session at 5:50 P.M.
The meeting was reconvened to Regular Session at 6:50 P.M.
Let the record show reports were received from its
designated representative concerning labor relations
matters, but no definitive action was taken in closed
session.
Let the record show that Council Member Shaw was excused at
6:05 P.M. while the Council was in closed session.
5. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -46 - Authorizing the Signing and
Execution of the Memoranda of Understanding Between the
City of Beaumont and the General Employees Unit of the
Public Employees Association of Riverside County, Inc.; the
Beaumont Confederation of Police of the California
Organization of Police and Sheriffs; and the Police
Sergeants as Individuals.
Page 1
Beaumont City Council
July 2, 1987
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Connors, to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -46.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Waller and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Shaw.
Mayor Partain called for another special meeting to be held
on Thursday, July 9, 1987, at 3:30 P.M., in the City Council
Chambers, for continued review of the budget and Memorandum
of Understanding with the Management and Administrative
Employees.
On Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Connors, the meeting was adjourned at 6:55 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Page 2
• BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
SPECIAL MEETING OF
JULY 9, 1987
The Beaumont City Council met in a duly noticed Special Meeting
at 3:35 P.M., on Thursday, July 9, 1987, in the City Council
Chambers, with Mayor Partain presiding.
On Roll Call the following Council Members were present:
Connors, Shaw and Mayor Partain. Let the record show Council
Member Waller arrived at 3:46 P.M.
1. Clerk's Affidavit of Posting.
The Clerk's Affidavit of posting the agenda was read into
record by the Deputy City Clerk.
2. Continued Review of Proposed 1987 -88 Budget.
The Council continued their review of the preliminary-1987-
88 budget on a department by department basis.
Under General Government, Account 1450, Council Member
Connors and Council Member Waller had a number of questions
concerning the accountability of the funding that is
budgeted for the Chamber of Commerce.
After lengthy discussion, the City Manager was requested to
find out if the Chamber has a budget, and if so, to furnish
copies of the budget to the Council for their review so they
can determine how the funding is used.
The City Manager informed the Council of the offer by the
Rotary Club to purchase and install carpeting in the hallway
of the building if the City would pay one -third of the cost,
not to exceed $1,000.00.
It was the concensus of the Council to add $1,000.00 for
carpeting, General Government Budget No. 1450 -6030, and
$1,000.00 for equipment to maintain the carpeting, General
Government Budget No. 1450 -6040.
In discussing the Police Department budget, the Council
requested a breakdown regarding the type of protective
clothing proposed to be purchased, as they wanted to be
certain sufficient clothing would be purchased.
The meeting was recessed at 5:20 p.m.,, reconvening at 5:25
p.m.
3. Action on Budget Related Items.
There was no action taken.
4. Recess to Closed Session Pursuant to Government Code Section
54957.6 to Meet with Its Designated Representative Regarding
Labor Relations Matters.
The meeting was recessed to Closed Session at 5:30 P.M.
The meeting was reconvened to Regular Session at 7:05 P.M.
Page 1
Beaumont City Council
July 9, 1987
Let the record show a report was received from its
designated representative concerning labor relations
matters, but no definitive action was taken in closed
session.
Let the record show that Council Member Shaw was excused at
6:45 P.M. while the Council was in closed session.
5. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -47 - Authorizing the Signing and
Execution of the Memorandum of Understanding Between the
City of Beaumont and the Management and Administrative
Employees as Individuals.
Notion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Connors, to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -47.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Waller and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Shaw.
On notion by Council Member Waller, second by Mayor Partain,
the meeting was adjourned at 7:07 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
City Clerk
Page 2
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
JULY 13, 1987
The Beaumont City Council met in a regular meeting at 6:02 P.M.,
on Monday, July 13, 1987, in the City Council Chambers, with
Mayor Partain presiding.
On roll call the following Council Members were present:
Connors, Shaw and Mayor Partain. Let the record show Council
Member Waller arrived at 6:08 P.M.
The Invocation was given by City Attorney George Ryskamp.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by City Manager
Robert Bounds.
1. Clerk's Affidavit of Posting.
The Clerk's Affidavit of posting the agenda was read into
the record by the Deputy City Clerk.
2. Adjustments to Agenda.
There were no adjustments to the agenda.
3. ORAL COMMUNICATION:
There was no one requesting to speak during - oral
communication.
4. ORDINANCE NO. 640 - SECOND READING - Repealing Chapter 13.16
of the Municipal Code which Established a Mobile
Home Rent Review Commission. (Continued from June 22,
1987).
At the request of Council Member Waller, the discussion
pertaining to Ordinance No. 640 will be included in the
minutes verbatim.
City Attorney Ryskamp: Might I address a procedural point
that I think should be taken care of or considered. First,
I might point out as to this item, our initial review, as I
have sent a memo to all of you, and our phone call with John
McClean, attorney for the FPPC, indicated that the question,
as I had indicated, about whether or not Mr. Shaw could vote
was a close one, as to whether or not there is a conflict of
interest. Mr. McClean's indication to me was that he felt
there was. I talked with him about some of the rulings,
several of which have been up, and even made the paper, and
he indicated that he felt the best course - and I agreed
with him - was that we request a formal ruling which the
City has the right to do. We have, therefore, requested
from the FPPC a ruling as to whether or not there is a
conflict of interest under the stats in this case. However -
and therefore I would have asked that this whole matter be
continued until we had that ruling. However, an additional
problem has come up. The City Manager and I were discussing
votes in passing matters on dealing with financial matters,
resolutions and ordinances, and we decided because of the
upcoming budget and some other questions, that I should
double check our understanding of the statutes involved with
this particular concept of voting requirements for financial
matters, because we both knew that there was a requirement
that at least three council persons vote in favor of such a
matter.
Page 1
Beaumont City Council
July 13, 1987
My review of those indicated to me immediately that this is
applicable to the mobile home rent review. Government Code
Section 36936 reads as follows. Resolutions and orders for
the payment of money, and all Ordinances require the votes
of at least three Councilmen, pardon me, it does say men,
for passage. Obviously, there were not three affirmative
votes, not an issue to this point, since we are talking
about passage not introduction. Introduction, there is no
requirement that the first reading had any more than a
majority vote, and which there was at that time. However,
the question was -- that resolved that question -- there was
really nothing improper in the handling of the first
reading, and that is covered in the memo that I just handed
to you. A second question, and somewhat more difficult,
came up, in the fact that among the three cases cited under
this particular Government Code section was one called
Martin vs Ballinger, and our City Manager had mentioned to
me the common law rule which is incorporated there, that any
abstention be counted as an affirmative vote. However, I
reviewed the case law, and I have summarized it all for you.
It is my opinion that that rule is not applicable in this
case, because all of the cases talk about a person who
abstains so as not to join in and approve the vote, but
refuses to vote no. Such is not the case with Mr. Shaw if
he is, in fact, disqualified, which we do not have an answer
for.
Recognizing that fact, I reviewed the cases and-there is
nothing directly on point, but it is my opinion at this time
that Mr. Shaw's disqualification or abstension because of
our ruling on a conflict of interest, and a potential
conflict there may be, the rule that an abstension should
count as an affirmative vote should not be counted.
Particularly a statute that says there shall be three
persons voting in favor, and not merely a majority voting in
favor. There is some reasons for having three because that
constitutes a majority of the total elected group, or the
total group.
With that idea in mind, my recommendation at this point is
very clear from what has transpired, that there is not going
to be a three person vote in favor of repeal, and my
recommendation at this time would be that the entire matter
be tabled. Tabled means dropped. And furthermore, I would
strongly discourage any of you from bringing the matter up
for reconsideration unless you know for a fact that there
has been a change in the voting until such time as there is
a five member Council, because a three member vote is not
possible. Perhaps not then as well, that is a political
decision, it is not mine. But, procedurally, it is clear
where the voting patterns are. No matter what the
resolution is, whether Mr. Shaw can or cannot vote by the
FPPC, there is not going to be a three vote, and, therefore,
it seems futile to continue to spend the time for the
citizens and everyone else concerned with this.
Mayor Partain: Okay. However, whatever is decided, we will
receive a letter as to the ruling. We have asked for that.
City Attorney: That will come in the mail no matter what.
Mayor Partain: It will come in the mail.
City Attorney: That issue will be resolved. And as I have
indicated that will be a close one. There is case law
indicating it could go either way, and, frankly, in my
Page 2
Beaumont City Council
July 13, 1987
opinion, it will be determined on the facts of the
situation, and it will be a very close ruling. Because we
have now had comments to our office from the FPPC from two
different attorneys giving opposite opinions. So we are
awaiting their formal letter ruling to find out.
Mayor Partain: Do you have anything, Mr. Bounds, that you
want to add.
City Manager: Not on the basis of this.
Council Member Shaw: Then, in essence, what you are saying
now is that this ordinance is in force.
City Attorney: No, to the contrary. What I am saying is
that it takes three affirmative votes - and I don't think in
your situation, even if you are disqualified, your vote
should count as affirmative. That is not a voluntary
abstention. Your, at this point, not voting because you are
following our recommendation until we resolve a conflict of
interest, which I appreciate, Mr. Shaw. That is something
you don't have to do. You could go ahead and vote over my
ruling, and I do appreciate the courtesy you have shown to
our conservative opinion, and I think it - at this point
though - with your opinion very clear from statements we
have had, and we know how the others have voted, that there
is not going to be three people voting, and, therefore, to
continue the matter, wait for the letter, have everyone come
back, go through the process, create additional feelings,
etc., accomplishes nothing. Drop the matter. And that is
what table means. Table means that, in effect, it is not
voted on, no further action, discussion, it is just put back
into the trash can, and I would strongly suggest that no one
raise it again at this point until there is a five member
council. And, if then. I mean, there again, that is a
political decision. I am not recommending that you come
back, I am saying it is dead if you table the motion. If
you table the matter, rather.
Mayor Partain: Comments:
Council Member Connors: Well I think that is irrefutable
logic, and I think we should table the motion, and I would
be willing to so move. I would be willing to make the
motion to table the motion. To table the item, rather.
Mayor Partain: That is a motion.
Council Member Connors: Yes.
Mayor Partain: Okay. We have a motion to table Item No. 4.
Do we have a second. Do we have a second. Okay, I will
second. Okay. Discussion on the motion of Council Member
Connors. Go ahead.
Council Member Connors: Well I think using the logic that
has been advanced, that we will be wasting our time sitting
here discussing this when we can't come to a clear vote on
it anyway, and I don't think that any of us, or the
citizens, need to waste that kind of time. I really think
we should table it.
Mayor Partain: Can Mr. Shaw participate, Mr. Ryskamp, in
this case.
Page 3
Beaumont City Council
July 13, 1987
City Attorney: Once again, if there is a conflict of
interest, no. Preferably not.
Council Member Waller: I am sorry, wouldn't it be any
discussion that is pertinent only to the motion, which would
mean that - - -
City Attorney: No, we went over that before and any
discussion, if in fact there is a conflict on the main
matter, any discussion or action on that matter is out of
order if one abstains for reasons of conflict of interest.
Mayor Partain: Comments, Mr. Waller. Go ahead.
Council Member Waller: Yes, it seems to me that, you know,
that we haven't really gone into any other avenues. I have
here Ordinance No. 48, an Ordinance of the City of Cathedral
City establishing a Mobile Home Fair Practices Commission.
Although I did not have time to pass it to everyone, or
even, for that matter, make copies, I got stuck in traffic
in Riverside, I think that we should, as my contention has
been all the time, that we disprove the present ordinance,
and also the up and coming one, or the one that is a
possible alternative, prepared by our attorneys, and
possibly review another one. I feel by pushing it off, or
tabling it, I wouldn't mind having it extended for one
meeting, because I think that is only fair, that everyone
has the chance to see this. And, I believe in being
creative. I believe that there is a possible chance of this
meeting the needs of the residents of the mobile home park,
the citizens of Beaumont, as well as any political faction,
whatever they may be. -
Mayor Partain: Any other comments.
Council Member Connors: Well whether or not the ordinance,
the old one or the new one or anything else, meets the needs
of the people is probably going to be irrelevant since I
don't think we are going to be able to pass one. And right
now we have a lot of inflamed passions going on in the
community, and it would be nice to be able to talk about it
in a nice, relaxed manner, and it would be nice to know that
there are enough Council Members to be able to come to a
decision. Rather than just sitting here, spinning our
wheels and arguing.
Mayor Partain: Mr. Bounds, go ahead. And then Mr. Ryskamp.
City Attorney: Mr. Mayor, I wonder if it is understood that
the motion to table does not delay the Item No. 4, which is
repeal of the Ordinance. The motion to table does away with
that totally. And it would not be heard again. It would
leave the present Ordinance in effect.
City Attorney: The motion to table also does not eliminate
the possibility, at any time, of a new revision of the
current Ordinance. Obviously, our recommendation would be
to, if it is before it is introduced and discussed, we will
have arrived at a decision as to whether or not Mr. Shaw can
vote, and, hopefully, there would be some feeling of
concensus before we take everything back through this.
Particularly in light of the letter that I just distributed
to you from the attorney for the park tenants. I think, at
this point, continued indecision as to changes or anything
Page 4
Beaumont City Council
July 13, 1987
else may harm the rights of the tenants and, probably, the
rights of the park owner as well in the ongoing litigation.
Not to any extent of giving the City any liability, but as a
practical matter, as the attorney points out, he is very
unwilling to proceed to arbitration until there has been a
resolution of the matter. That was another reason why I
proposed tabling of the matter. That is more of a practical
reason than the legal barrier that you see here. But, that
is why I proposed that rather than the continuance, which I
had already asked for. That way, the arbitration can
proceed. There will not be this whole question out there
hanging about whether or not this whole ordinance is going
to be repealed, making it kind of irrevelant to get a
verdict for the tenants in the arbitration following which,
thirty days later they get a notice increasing the rent.
Everything they have gained through the arbitration process.
Mayor Partain: Certainly, they are in limbo.
Council Member
ordinance is st
City Attorney:
old ordinance.
in effect. All
the ordinance.
Shaw. So, at this point in time, this
ill in effect.
No, this ordinance is not in effect. The
The original ordinance, as it was, is still
the first reading adoption does is introduce
Council Member Shaw: Well, I mean, 640 is still in effect.
City Attorney: The old ordinance. The one that is in our
municipal code. Chapter 13.16, is in effect, as it was
originally written, with its problems, with its advantages,
it remains just as it was. 640 is an ordinance to repeal.
The motion to table it that is before you would cancel that.
Just drop it.
Council Member Shaw: That is what I meant to say. The old
ordinance is in effect. That is what I meant to say.
City Attorney: Chapter 13.16 remains in effect.
Mayor Partain: Mr. Waller, I believe you had further- - -
Council Member Waller: Yes, you say that because of us
holding this up there can be no further litigation or
proceedings to take place as far as rent increases.
City Attorney: It is the opinion of the attorney, and you
have got his letter, the most recent correspondence, of the
tenant's association for the Valley Mobile Home Park, that
he will not proceed until there is a resolution of the
matter of whether or not the ordinance is going to be
repealed.
Mayor Partain: Which is only obvious. That is easy to see
why.
City Attorney: As a practical matter, yes.
Council Member Waller: But this means that the Valley
Mobile Homeowners and Renters Association then would have to
conduct their negotiations under the old - - -
City Attorney: They have already conducted their
negotiations, they are at a point of a final arbitration
decision.
Page 5
Beaumont City Council
July 13, 1987
Council Member Waller: Well, why didn't we have an
arbitrator before where we didn't have to bring this whole
damn thing up in front of the public.
City Attorney: Marshal, to help you review that, we - two
things transpired. One, we did not have an arbitration to
begin with, there was a Commission, we substituted the
concept (where a Commission could not be selected because we
didn't have enough volunteers to meet the requirements) that
there would be an arbitrator.
Council Member Waller: Has there always been - - -
City Attorney: We selected an arbitrator -- well, no, that
has only been in the last eight months, seven months, I
would have to go back and look for the date, I don't
remember. We appointed an arbitrator - let me finish
telling what has happened. We appointed an arbitrator.
Unfortunately, the initial arbitration, the materials had
not been submitted to the arbitrator. There was confusion.
There was dissatisfaction expressed by both attorneys, and,
for that matter, they asked for the opportunity of deciding
between them on an arbitrator. They were unable to agree,
at which point we contacted Mr. Porter, who has been
appointed, and Mr. Porter has about twelve years of
experience of defense counsel, has worked extensively in
doing arbitrations, and also spent six years as the City
Attorney for Lake Elsinore. So he comes with good
experience, and the ability to handle matters. And, I feel
very confident that he will be able to push this thing
through to a resolution.
Council Member Waller: How long has this Porter been
assigned.
City Attorney: Mr. Porter was appointed the end of last
month.
Council Member Waller: And it took this long for it to come
to this point for an amiable - or one that both parties
agreed on.
City Attorney: Both parties did not agree. We arbitrarily
appointed because they could not agree.
Council Member Waller: Okay. If it was eight months ago
that we first of all saw this problem, and it took us seven
months to realize that we had to appoint our own arbitrator
City Attorney: We appointed one.
Council Member Waller: I know. How come it took us seven
months to make that decision.
City Attorney: It did not, because the initial appointment
was completed, there was then a period when they were
supposed to submit materials to the arbitrator, he did not
receive the materials. There were jurisdictional - - -
Council Member Waller: Was this on both behalfs.
City Attorney: I was not receiving the materials. I know
the arbitrator did not receive them from the park owner. I
Page 6
Beaumont City Council
July 13, 1987
am not positive as to what they received from the tenants or
not. And when the arbitrator met, he felt he did not have
enough information. There were jurisdictional questions he
chose not to rule on, and as I say, generally, the two
attorneys were very dissatisfied with the arbitrator. That
sometimes happens. When you talk to any attorney and you
will find occasionally you draw an arbitrator who doesn't
seem to put it together on that particular case.
Council Member Waller: When did it become apparent to both
attorneys that the previous arbitrator was not working.
City Attorney: After the arbitration.
Council Member Waller: Okay. Time line.
City Attorney: I don't remember the date the arbitration
was, Marshal. I do know, however, they requested - - -
Council Member Waller: Three months, four months.
City Attorney: They requested additional time to resolve
the matter, and as I recall they were supposed to have it
resolved either by the 15th of May or the first of June.
But I don't remember the dates. It may have been earlier
than that. Two activities have been going on
simultaneously. It was our frustration with the arbitration
situation that initially prompted our suggestion that there
should be some type of change in the ordinance as it
appeared. That is what triggered the request from Mr.
Hacker, as I recall, that there be some changes. Which is
what brought about the request for reports from Councilmen,
which only yielded one report, as I recall, pardon me,
Councilwoman, I apologize.
Mayor Partain: One report and one request.
City Attorney: One report and a request to repeal from
Mayor Partain. And no other comments. We then acted on
that and attempted, based on those comments from Council
Person Connors, to make modifications. And we prepared what
is now Ordinance No. 640 because of Mayor Partain's request
to repeal. So there have been two actions going on
simultaneously, as we recognized the difficulties with the
ordinance, which was a copy of what, at the time, they were
using in the County, and was the best available, and was
applied to the situation here, and just hasn't worked well
in Beaumont. There is not enough population to make the
Commission concept work.
Council Member Waller: Well, I can't see where putting it
off, or tabling it indefinitely, and then waiting around, is
really going to make that much difference, if, in fact, it
seems as though we could probably resolve the matter before
that, and not put the poor sick person that becomes a member
into the position that I have been placed in - oh, how
vividly I remember - where a decision had to be made of that
magnitude. I feel that we should be able to work this out.
I feel that, you know, within the time span from this
meeting until the next meeting we should be able to have a
decision as to whether or not Mr. Shaw is, in fact, in a
conflict of interest or not, and, from that point I feel
that we may just, in fact, have a workable ordinance and
that we could get it out of the way during the slow summer
months. I say that with fifteen agenda items. No,
twelve.
Page 7
Beaumont City Council
July 13, 1987
Mayor Partain: Go ahead Mr. Ryskamp.
City Attorney: Mr. Waller, my one concern is that I don't
know that you are seeing the procedurally - 640 is sitting
there having been introduced by first reading. Something
needs to be done with 640, which is the repeal ordinance.
Either it needs to be tabled, which kills anything this
evening, or it needs to come to a vote and we go through
that process.
Council Member Waller: How about a continuance.
City Attorney: For what purpose. What is gained by - - -
Council Member Waller: I have already explained that Mr.
Ryskamp.
City Attorney: Okay, Mr. Marshal - -
Council Member Waller: Mr. Waller.
City Attorney: Pardon me, Mr. Waller, what you have
explained is a desire to continue to consider other options
for the mobile home rent review ordinance modifications as
opposed to repeal. A motion to table does not eliminate the
possibility of proposing, at a future date, if you feel that
you have a workable solution that will get three votes. A
modification of the ordinance. And having to work with it I
would recommend it, and based upon, if the FPPC rules that
there is no conflict of interest, then you may have a
workable three.
Council Member Waller: It is just a concern of mine that
if, in fact, it is tabled, we will never get back to it
until November, and no matter if within two weeks I find
that Mr. Shaw can vote, and even if he votes differently
than I, there may be three votes, and I feel that by not
staying on the matter that it will be lost. It will not be
brought back up, and I am not at all happy with, not yours,
it is 620, Ordinance 620, that I feel needs to be gotten rid
of.
Mayor Partain: 620. You are talking about 640. Mr.
Waller, let me start here again. If you table 640, that is
the repeal. By tabling 640, that does away with the repeal.
Council Member Waller: Right. I don't want even 640
though.
Mayor Partain: You don't want 640.
Council Member Waller: I don't want 640 or 620. I don't
want either of them.
Mayor Partain: What is 620.
Council Member Waller: Well, okay. What is the previous
one.
City Attorney: 13.16 of the Beaumont Municipal Code.
Council Member Waller: Okay, I want to get rid of that one,
and I want to get rid of 640.
Mayor Partain: Okay, but what we are dealing with tonight
is the repeal of 13.16.
Page 8
Beaumont City Council
July 13, 1987
Council Member Waller: Couldn't we just continue that.
Mayor Partain: What would be the -- why continue it if
tabling does away with 640 altogether. Why do you want to
continue something, if, by tabling it - - -
Council Member Waller: Because I want to get rid of both of
them.
Mayor Partain: Okay, but you need to take them one at a
time - - -
Council Member Waller: Why. We were looking at both of
them at one time.
Mayor Partain: Because they are on the agenda one at a
time this evening. Ordinance No. 640 is the one you are
addressing.
City Attorney: The modification is gone gentlemen. It is
not before you. The only thing that is before you is the
repeal. Straight out. Unless you - - -
Mayor Partain: Of the 640. That puts us back in the
situation where the existing ordinance will prevail until
such a time that another modification or a new one is
introduced, and you certainly have that privilege to do that
on your own, or whatever.
City Attorney: And a continuance is harmful to the
interests of the tenants.
Mayor Partain: In 640, the repeal of it - - -
Council Member Waller: May I ask two members of the
audience some questions.
Mayor Partain: No, it is not open to the audience. If you
have some questions, direct them at the information you
have.
Council Member Waller: I just wanted to know if both of
them, both parties, that being the mobile homeowners and
renters association and the park representative, would feel
good working under the old existing ordinance, and, if so,
then I can make my decision right now.
Mayor Partain: Mr. Waller, I am hard pressed to understand
here, sir, what tabling Item No. 4, which is the repeal of
the ordinance, has to do with working under the other
ordinance. They are going to be forced into a situation as
it is that anything they are currently - that is currently
in arbitration, they will have to arbitrate under the old
ordinance no matter if there is a modification put into
effect. There won't be that time. The question is, now, do
we want to table the repeal. Based on the information that
has been given us legally by Mr. Ryskamp - I don't see that
we have, personally, that we have any alternative. Putting
640 out of the way means that it will not come up before the
Council, means it is no good, period. By tabling it.
Indefinitely. That will give you and anyone else the
opportunity to bring a modification in.
Okay, we do have a motion and a second on the floor. Do you
have any further - - -
Page 9
Beaumont City Council
July 13, 1987
Council Member Shaw: Can we have any audience
participation.
Mayor Partain: Not with a motion and a second, no. We are
at that point where we must make a decision whether we are
going to table this and let them get on with business, and
us on with business here.
Council Member Shaw: Well I would prefer tabling Marshal,
in preference to trying to do any elimination, because if we
eliminate this then they are at the mercy of anybody. They
have got nothing.
Council Member Waller: They wouldn't have nothing.
City Manager: That's right, if you repeal.
Mayor Partain: If you repeal 640 - if you table 640, then
you still have the existing Chapter 13.16.
Council Member Waller: Right. They would have something.
City Manager: Not if it is repealed.
Council Member Waller: No, that isn't what I am saying. If
you table Ordinance 640, then you would still have Chapter
13.16 to fall back on. I know, and that is why I asked if I
could just find out - but if we have got to go through and
vote, let's vote.
Council Member Shaw: Can I talk in this. It is pretty hard
for me to keep quiet.
City Attorney: I understand that, Fred.
Council Member Waller: Call for the question.
Mayor Partain: I think, Mr. Waller, I think Mr. Shaw was
directing a question at you. Excuse me just a minute.
Council Member Waller: Well I thought he had already made
it apparent that he can't talk.
Mayor Partain: Were you directing the question at Mr.
Ryskamp.
Council Member Shaw: Yes.
Mayor Partain: Okay, I'm sorry. Are we finished there,
then may we have the call for the question.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Mayor Partain,
to table Agenda Item No. 4.
AYES: Council Member Connors and Mayor Partain.
NOES: Council Member Waller.
ABSTAIN: Council Member Shaw.
ABSENT: None.
MOTION CARRIED.
5. Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Plot Plan 87 -PP -4, a
Proposed Solid Waste Transfer Station. Appellant: E. Ross
Heale. Location: N/E corner of 1st and American.
(Continued from June 22, 1987).
Page 10
Beaumont City Council
July 13, 1987
A report was received from the City Manager relative to the
two existing solid waste transfer stations, during which he
advised both these transfer stations are under the
jurisdiction of the County Health Department, Mr. John
Fanning, who has previously testified before the Council.
At the request of the Council, Mr. John Fanning, Director of
Environmental Health, Riverside County, answered questions
from the Council, and pointed out he had provided mat' rial
to the City Manager concerning the responsibilities of the
transfer stations to meet certain criteria set by the State
and by the Environmental Health Department.
Ms. Jean Bailie, 162 South Maple, addressed the Council,
speaking in opposition to granting the appeal of the
Planning Commission decision.
Mr. Gary Koontz, CM Engineering, representing the applicant,
addressed the Council, speaking in favor of granting the
appeal, and providing additional information concerning the ,
proposed operation of the transfer station.
Dr. Randhawa, 754 East Third Street, addressed the Council,
speaking in opposition to granting the appeal of the
Planning Commission decision.
a. Consideration of Granting or Denying the Appeal.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Connors, to deny the appeal.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Waller and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: Council Member Shaw.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
6. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -48 - A Resolution of Intention to Order
Abandonment od w -=wood Avenue between I -10 Freeway and the
Southern Pacific Railroad.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Shaw, to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -48.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: Council Member Waller.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
7. Approval for City Manager to Continue Discussions on a
Possible Joint Powers Agreement with Beaumont - Cherry Valley
Water District and Pass Water Agency for Reclamation of
Water.
After receiving a report from the City Manager, it was the
concensus of the Council Members to authorize the City
Manager to continue discussion on a possible joint powers
agreement for reclamation of water.
8. ORDINANCE NO. 644 - FIRST READING - Repealing Sub - Section
17.60.0 (AT-1 oT—the Beaumont Municipal Code and Adding a
New Sub - Section 17.60.020(A)l to the Municipal Code
Concerning On -Site Advertising Structures and Signs.
Page 11
Beaumont City Council
July 13, 1987
a. Consideration of Adoption of Negative Declaration 87-
ND-20.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Shaw, to adopt Negative Declaration 87- ND -20, based upon the
findings.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: Council Member Waller.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
b. Motion to Read Ordinance No. 644 by Title only.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member -
Shaw, to read Ordinance No. 644 by title only.
AYES:
Council Member
Mayor Partain.
NOES:
None.
ABSTAIN:
None.
ABSENT:
None.
Connors, Shaw, Waller and
C. Motion to Pass Ordinance No. 644 at its First Reading.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Shaw, to pass Ordinance No. 644 at its first reading.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: Council Member Waller.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
9. ORDINANCE NO. 645 - FIRST READING - Repealing Sections
17.50. 00, X7.50.105 and 17.50.205, Amending Sub - Section
17.50.110, and Adding New Sections 17.50.100, 17.50.105 and
17.50.205 to the Beaumont Municipal Code, Thereby Adding
Poultry Processing as a Permitted Use in M -C and M -L Zones.
A report was received from the City Manager concerning the
need for this amendment, and also giving information
concerning the proposed poultry processing operation. The
City Manager then answered questions from the Council.
Mr. Larry Posik, the present owner of Beaumont Poultry,
answered questions from the Council.
a. Consideration of Adoption of Negative Declaration 87-
ND-19.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second.by Mayor Partain,
to adopt Negative Declaration 87- ND -19, based upon the
findings, and reasonable mitigation measures have been
discussed and do exist.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Waller and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: Council Member Shaw.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
b. Motion to Read Ordinance No. 645 by Title only.
Page 12
Beaumont City Council
July 13, 1987
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Waller, to read Ordinance No. 645 by title only.
AYES: Council Member Connors.
NOES: Council Member Shaw, Waller and Mayor
Partain.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
MOTION FAILED.
Motion by Mayor Partain, second by Council Member Waller, to
reconsider Agenda Item No. 9.b.
AYES:
Council Member
Mayor Partain.
NOES:
None.
ABSTAIN:
None.
ABSENT:
None.
Connors, Shaw, Waller and
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Waller, to read Ordinance No. 645 by title only.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
c. , Motion to Pass Ordinance No. 645 at Its First Reading.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Waller, to pass Ordinance No. 645 at its first reading.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Waller and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: Council Member Shaw.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
10. Appointment of Representative to Serve on Veterans Home
Committee.
Council Member Waller stated that he was designated at the
last meeting to attend the veterans home committee meeting,
and he was asked to request an appointment by the City
Council of a representtive to serve on this committee.
There was discussion concerning the purpose of this
committee, whether or not it was to bring the veterans home
to Beaumont, or to the Pass area.
After this discussion, Council Member Waller requested that
Agenda Item No. 10 be withdrawn from the agenda, and no
action was taken by the Council.
11. CONSENT CALENDAR - All items listed under the Consent
Calendar are considered to be routine by the City Council
and will be approved on one motion. There will be no
separate discussion of these items unless a Council Member
or Citizen so requests, in which case the item will be
removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a
separate item.
1. Approval of Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of June
22, 1987 and Special Council Meeting of July 2, 1987.
Page 13
Beaumont City Council
July 13, 1987
2. Acceptance of Minutes of Regular Planning Commission
Meeting of June 16, 1987.
3. Approval of Payment of Warrants as Audited per Warrant
List of July 13, 1987, in the amount of $107,652.74;
Payroll of June 25, 1987, in the amount of $42,316.96;
and Special Payroll of July 2, 1987, in the amount of
$6,310.16.
4. Authorize Payment of Claim for Repair to Private
Vehicle Due to Automobile Accident.
5. Authorize Submission of Claim for Article 8 Funding for
Fiscal Year 1987 -88.
6. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -49 - Establishing the Salary and
Benefits for the C— i� y Manager.
7. Report of Action by Planning Commission at Meeting of
July 7, 1987.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Waller, to approve the Consent Calendar.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
12. Recess to Closed Session Pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(a) to confer with its attorney Regarding Pending
Litigation Which Has Been Initiated Formally and to which
the City is a party.
The title of the litigation is Howlett vs City of Beaumont,
Riverside Superior Court Case No. 167158.
The meeting was recessed to closed session at 8:35 P.M.
The meeting was reconvened to regular session at 9:11 P.M.
Let the record show there was discussion regarding the
litigation of Howlett vs the City of Beaumont, Case No.
167158, but no definitive action was taken.
Date Set for next Regular Council Meeting, Monday, July 27,
1987, at 6:30 P.M.
On motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Connors, the meeting was adjourned to Thursday, July 16,
1987, at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, for
continued review of the budget.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:14 P.M.
Page 14
Respectfully submitted,
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
JULY 27, 1987
The Beaumont City Council met in a regular.meeting at 6:05 P.M.,
on Monday, July 27, 1987, in the City Council Chambers, with
Mayor Partain presiding.
On Roll Call the following Council Members were present:
Connors, Shaw and Mayor Partain. Let the record show Council
Member Waller arrived at 6:11 P.M.
The invocation was given by Mayor Jim Partain.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Council Member
Shaw.
1. Clerk's Affidavit of Posting.
The Clerk's affidavit of posting the agenda was read into
the record by the Deputy City Clerk.
2. Adjustments to Agenda.
The City Manager recommended that Agenda Item, No. 4, be
continued since the applicant had not paid the necessary
filing fee, and has no insurance at this time. The City
Attorney indicated the public hearing could be opened in
case there was anyone attending who wished to speak
concerning this application.
3. ' ORAL COMMUNICATION:
Mr. Ramiro R. Cabrera, 1523 E. 8th Street, addressed the
Council concerning the possibility of a special assessment
district for sewer service on the east end of Beaumont,
indicating he had spoken with many of the residents, who
were all in favor of establishing this special district.
Mayor Partain asked that Mr. Cabrera schedule a meeting with
the City Manager to discuss the proposed special assessment
district and the steps needed to be taken.
4. PUBLIC HEARING - 6:00 p.m. - Application by S. F. Erzinger,
Sr. to Operate a Taxicab Service in the City of Beaumont.
The Public Hearing was opened at 6:10 p.m.
There were no proponents or opponents requesting to speak.
The Public Hearing was closed at 6:11 p.m.
---Consideration--.-.-.of-Approving Application to Operate a Taxicab
Service in the City of Beaumont.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Shaw, to continue Agenda Item No. 4 to the regular meeting
of August 10, 1987.
There, being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
5. Submittal by 75th Anniversary Steering Committee of Proposed
Budget for Period August through November, 1987.
Page 1
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1987
Council Member Waller questioned Item No. 1 and Item No. 3
of the budget, specifically, whether everything that was
advertised would be provided at the ice cream social, and
disagreeing with the design of the proposed monument. He
felt the activities in the park on the 4th of July were not
as advertised, and questioned if it would be the same for
the ice cream social. He also stated in his opinion it
would be more appropriate if the monument were made into
something that was carved in stone and placed on the side of
an edifice of some type. He did not like the idea of it
being placed in the ground like a headstone.
Council Member Shaw indicated he felt it should be in the
form of a plaque placed on the side of the building.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Mayor Partain,
to approve the proposed budget for the 75th Anniversary
- -Steering Committee. .
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Shaw, to amend the motion to approve Items No. 2, 4, and 5
of the proposed budget at this point in time, with Items No.
1 and 3 to be brought back.
VOTE TAKEN ON AMENDMENT TO MOTION:
AYES:
Council Member
Mayor Partain.
NOES:
None.
ABSTAIN:
None.
ABSENT:
None.
AMENDMENT CARRIED.
VOTE TAKEN ON MAIN MOTION:
AYES:
Council Member
Mayor Partain.
NOES:
None.
ABSTAIN:
None.
ABSENT:
None.
MAIN MOTION CARRIED AS AMENDED.
Connors, Shaw, Waller and
Connors, Shaw, Waller and
After the vote on the above motion and amendment, Fred
Hicks, Chairman of the 75th Anniversary Steering Committe,
arrived at the meeting. At the Council's request,* he
answered a number of questions concerning the ice cream
social, (and indicating the ice cream and cake have been
donated by local businesses), and the design of the
monument.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Shaw, to include Item No. 1 as approved as part of the 75th
Anniversary Steering Committee budget.
AYES:
Council Member
Mayor Partain.
NOES:
None.
ABSTAIN:
None.
ABSENT:
None.
Connors, Shaw, Waller and
It was determined that the Council should submit their
suggestions or changes regarding the monument to the City
Manager by the end of this week, with the City Manager then
turning these suggestions or changes over to the steering
committee.
Page 2
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1987
6. Submittal of Proposed Plot Plan for New Police Building and
Authorization to Request Proposals from Architects.
A report was received from the City Manager concerning this
request.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Waller, to authorize the following:
1. City Manager to request proposals from architects.
2. After RFP's are received, staff to review the proposals
and select three (3).
3. The three selected to be submitted to the City Council
for selection of the firm to be hired.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
7. RESOLUTION NO. 1987-50 - A Resolution of Intention to Order
Abandonment of a Port on of Fifth and Orange. Applicant:
Valdivia.
Let the record show the gavel was given to Mayor Pro Tem
Waller at 7:02 to conduct the meeting during discussion and
action on this agenda item since the applicant is Mayor
Partain's father -in -law.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Shaw, to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -50.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw and Waller.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: Mayor Partain.
ABSENT: None.
Let the record show the gavel was returned to Mayor Partain
at 7:06.
8. Review and Comments Concerning Riverside County
Transportation Commission Draft Sales Tax Ordinance .and
Expenditure Plan for a Proposed 1/2 Cent Sales Tax for
Riverside County.
A report concerning this agenda item was presented by the
City Manager.
Responding to a question from Council Member Connors, the
City Manager clarified this is consideration as to whether
or not the Council opposes placing this on the ballot, not
that they approve the measure itself.
No action was taken. The City Manager will telephone the
Riverside County Transportation Commission advising that the
Beaumont City Council has no comments.
9. ORDINANCE NO. 644 - SECOND READING - Repealing Sub - Section
17.60.020(A7 7 -the Beaumont Municipal Code ana Adding a
New Sub - Section 17.60.020(A)l to the Municipal Code
Concerning On -Site Advertising Structures and Signs.
Page 3
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1987
Motion to read Ordinance No. 644 by title only.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Connors, to read Ordinance No. 644 by title only.
AYES:
Council Member
Mayor Partain.
NOES:
None.
ABSTAIN:
None.
ABSENT:
None.
Connors, Shaw, Waller and
The Ordinance was read by title only by the Deputy City
Clerk.
Motion To Adopt Ordinance No. 644 at its second reading.
Motion by Council member Connors, second by Council Member
Shaw, to adopt Ordinance No. 644 at its second reading.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: Council Member Waller.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
10. ORDINANCE NO. 645 - SECOND READING - Repealing Sections
1350.10d, 11.50. 05 and 17.50.205 of the Beaumont Municipal
Code and Adding New Sections to the Municipal Code Thereby
Adding Poultry Processing as a Permitted Use in M -C and M -L
Zones.
Mr. Irish D. Mitchell addressed the Council in favor of this
amendment to Title 17 allowing poultry processing as a
permitted use in the M -C and M -L zones, feeling it will be
very much to the benefit of the City.
Council Member Connors and Council Member Waller reported on
their trip to the Valley Fresh plant in Turlock, both
indicating they were favorably impressed with the
cleanliness of the operation, and the fact there was no
odor.
Council Member Shaw stated he had also done some research
and the result of this research has caused him to change his
stance from negative to positive.
Motion to read Ordinance No. 645 by title only.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Shaw, to read Ordinance No. 645 by title only.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
The Ordinance was read by title only by the Deputy City
Clerk.
Motion to Adopt Ordinance No. 645 at its second reading.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Shaw, to adopt Ordinance No. 645 at its second reading.
Page 4
AYES:
Council Member
Mayor Partain.
NOES:
None.
ABSTAIN:
None.
ABSENT:
None.
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1987
Connors, Shaw, Waller and
11. Designation of Voting Delegate for League of California
Cities Annual Conference.
Motion by Mayor Partain, second by Council Member Shaw, to
designate Mayor Pro Tem Waller as the voting delegate for
the League of California Cities Annual Conference, with
Council Member Connors as the alternate.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
12. CONSENT CALENDAR: All items listed under the Consent
Calendar are considered to be routine by the City Council
and will be approved on one motion. There will be no
separate discussion of these items unless a Council Member
or Citizen so requests, in which case the item will be
removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a
separate item.
-At the request -of Council Member Waller, Item No. "f" was
removed from the Consent Calendar and will be considered
separately.
a. Approval of Minutes of Special Council Meeting of July
9, 1987, Regular Council Meeting of July 13, 1987 and
Adjourned Council Meeting of July 16, 1987.
b. Acceptance of Minutes of Regular Planning Commission
Meeting of July 7, 1987, as corrected.
C* Approval of Payment of Warrants as Audited per Warrant
List of July 27, 1987, in the amount of $120,199.29;
and Payroll of July 9, 1987, in the amount of
$45,391.38.
d. Authorization for City Attorney to Attend League of
California Cities Annual Conference in San Francisco,
October 4 -7, 1987.
e. Consideration of Adoption of Negative Declaration 87-
ND-15. Applicant: Keith Burton. Location: 238
Maple.
g. Confirming Appointment of John Swoda as Alternate on
Board of Directors for the Riverside Transit Agency.
h. Report of Action by Planning Commission at Meeting of
July 21, 1987.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Connors, to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception
of Item No. "f ".
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Page 5
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1987
12.f Consideration of Adoption of Negative Declaration 87- ND -16.
Applicant: Clifford Development. Location: Northeast
Corner of 8th and Pennsylvania. (87 -PP -8, Am #2).
Responding to a question from Council Member Waller, the
City Attorney advised that in considering the adoption of a
Negative Declaration they would have to find significant
impact that has not been mitigated in order not to approve
it.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Connors, to continue Item No. 12.f to the next meeting.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
13. Recess to Closed Session Pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(a) to Confer with Its Attorney Regarding Pending
Litigation Which Has Been Initiated formally and to Which
the City is a Party.
The title of the litigation is Citizens Against a Pass Area
Prison vs City of Beaumont. Case No. Riverside Superior
Court 164329.
The meeting was recessed to Closed Session at 7:52 p.m.
The meeting was reconvened to Regular Session at 8:23 p.m.
Let the record show direction was given with respect to
pending litigation but no definitive action was taken.
14. Set Date for Continued Review of,Proposed 1987 -88 Budget.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Shaw, to adjourn this meeting to Thursday, July 30, 1987, at
6:30 P.M.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
Date Set for Next Regular Council Meeting, Monday, August
10, 1987, at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers.
There being no further business to come before the Council,
the meeting was adjourned at 8:26 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
City Clerk-
Page 6
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
ADJOURNED MEETING OF JULY 16, 1987
(Adjourned from July 13, 1987)
The Beaumont City Council met in an adjourned meeting at 7:14
p.m., in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor Partain presiding.
On Roll Call the following Council Members were present:
Connors, Shaw and Mayor Partain. Let the record show Council
Member Waller arrived at 7:20 p.m.
1. Clerk's Affidavit of Posting.
The Clerk's affidavit of posting the agenda was read into
the record by the Deputy City Clerk.
2. Adjustments to Agenda.
There were no adjustments to the agenda.
3. Continued Review of Proposed 1987 -88 Budget.
The Council continued their review of the preliminary 1987-
88 budget on a department by department basis.
The City Manager presented his report regarding the
protective clothing included in the Police Department
budget. This report is a matter of record in the Clerk's
file.
He also presented the Chamber of Commerce budget as well as
a report concerning the distribution of funds by the
Chamber.
There was discussion and questions asked by the Council
concerning all departments reviewed, with certain
corrections being made to the Police Department budget on
the recommendation of the City Manager.
The City Manager was requested to verify the cost of the
electrical panel included in the Public Works budget as
Mayor Partain felt it might be more than is shown.
4. Action on Budget Related Items.
There was no action taken on budget related items.
On motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Connors, the meeting was adjourned at 9:16 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
ADJOURNED MEETING OF JULY 30, 1987
(Adjourned from July 27, 1987)
The Beaumont City Council met in an adjourned meeting at 6:35
P.M., on Thursday, July 30, 1987, in the City Council Chambers,
with Mayor Partain presiding.
On Roll Call the following Council Members were present:
Connors, Shaw and Mayor Partain. Let the record show Council
Member Waller arrived at 6:58 p.m.
1. Clerk's Affidavit of Posting.
The Clerk's affidavit of posting the agenda was read into
the record by the Deputy City Clerk.
2. Adjustments to Agenda.
There - were - no__adjustmen-ts to the agenda.
3. Continued Review of Preliminary 1987 -88 Budget.
The City Manager submitted information requested by the City
Council at the previous budget meeting, advising them the
electrical panel in Public Works is a step up transformer,
and the price has been double checked.
The City Council continued their-review of the preliminary
1987 -88 budget on a department by department basis.
In discussing the parks budget, the fact that a new
sprinkler system is needed was brought up. Possible means
of funding this system were discussed, including applying
for grants and soliciting assistance from service clubs. It
was determined the City should actively pursue any
available funds for this purpose.
Council Member Waller suggested that a half day work shop of
some type, conducted by Ronney Wong or someone else, would
be helpful to the Council in understanding the accounting
and budgeting procedure.
It was the concensus of the Council to add $235.00 to the
pool budget, Account 4035, to allow Russ Grance to attend a
pool maintenance training course.
Under the Transit budget, the City Manager called attention
to the fact we had just received the figures from SCAG
indicating they are allowing $3,500.00 for the computer and
$3,000 for the copy machine. As a result these figures were
adjusted to reflect these increases, making the total
capital expenditures $10,500.00.
The Council completed their review of the preliminary
budget. The City Manager will have all adjustments made, as
well as including the new salaries, and a new proposed
budget will be given to the Council for review qn a date to
be set at the regular meeting of August 10, 1987.
4. Action on Budget Related Items.
Approval of Contract for Fire Protection Services.
Beaumont City Council
July 30, 1987
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Connors, to enter into the agreement with the County of
Riverside for Fire Protection Services in the amount of
$246,857.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Authorization to Purchase Police Vehicles.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Waller, to authorize the purchase of three police cars from
Swift Dodge in the amount of $10,569.07 per unit, for a
total of $31,707.21.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
There being no further business to come before the Council, on
motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Connors, the meeting was adjourned at 9:09 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
4'CI94&v�
City C er
Page 2
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
AUGUST 10, 1987
The Beaumont City Council met in a regular meeting at 6:10 P.M.,
in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor Pro Tem Waller
presiding.
On Roll Call the following Council Members were present:
Connors, Shaw and Mayor Pro Tem Waller. Let the record show
Mayor Partain arrived at 6:26 P.M.
The Invocation was given by Reverand Bob Wood, United
Presbyterian Church.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Deputy City Clerk
Julia White.
- -I. Clerk's .Affidavit of Posting_;
The Clerk's Affidavit of Posting the agenda was read into
the record by the Deputy City Clerk.
2. Adjustments to Agenda.
The City Manager recommended that Item No. 6 of the agenda
be continued since the applicant has still not paid the
necessary fee.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Shaw, to continue Item No. 6 to the next regular meeting.
There being no opposition, the motion carried with three
ayes, one absent.
3. ORAL COMMUNICATION:
There was no one requesting to speak during oral
communication.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - 6:00 P.M.
4. Intention to Order Abandonment of Wellwood Avenue between I-
10 and the Southern Pacific Railroad.
The City Manager presented his report to the
Council
regarding this proposed abandonment.
The Public Hearing was opened at 6:15 P.M.
Mr. David Sumner, representing the applicant, spoke
in favor
of the abandonment of Wellwood between I -10 and the
Southern
Pacific Railroad.
There were no opponents requesting to speak.
The Public Hearing was closed at 6:20 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -55 - Ordering the Abandonment
and
Vacation of Wellwood Avenue Between I -10 and the
Southern
Pacific Railroad. Applicant: Beaumont Concrete.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council
Member
Connors, to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -55.
Page 1
Beaumont City Council
August 10, 1987
There being no opposition, the motion carried with three
ayes, one absent.
5. Report and Account of Cost for Weed Abatement, and Hearing
of Objections or Protests.
The City Manager presented the report and account of cost
for weed abatement.
The Public Hearing was opened at 6:23 P.M.
There were no protests received and no one requesting to
speak.
The City Manager advised that one property should be removed
from the list since payment had been made today, and
submitted a corrected accounting to the Council.
The Public Hearing was closed at 6:25 P.M.
a. Consideration of Approval of the Report and Account of
Weed Abatement as Presented, Modified or Corrected.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Shaw, to approve the Report and Account of Weed Abatement as
corrected.
There being no opposition, the motion carried with three
ayes, one absent.
b. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -56 - Assessing the Amounts Shown on
the Report and Account of Cost of Weed Abatement as
Liens Upon the Respective Parcels of Land as they are
Shown Upon the Last Available Assessment Roll.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Shaw, to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -56.
-- There being no opposition, the motion carried with three
-- ayes, one absent.
END PUBLIC HEARINGS.
Let the record show Mayor Partain presided beginning with Item
No. 6.
6. Consideration of Approving Application to Operate Taxicab
Service in the City of Beaumont. (Continued from July 27,
1987).
By prior motion, this agenda item was continued to the
regular meeting of August 24, 1987.
7. Request from San Gorgonio Pass Hospital Foundation for
Permission to Hold a 25 mile and 50 mile Bicycle Challenge
Ride in the City of Beaumont.
Pat Hebenton, representing the San Gorgonio Pass Hospital
Foundation, addressed the Council, giving them information
concerning the proposed bicycle races.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Shaw, to grant the request of the Hospital Foundation.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
Page 2
Beaumont City Council
August 10, 1987
8. Consideration of Adoption of Negative Declaration 87- ND -16.
Applicant: Clifford Development. Location: N/E Corner of
8th and Pennsylvania. (87 -PP -8, Am. #2) (Continued from
July 27, 1987).
Council Member Waller indicated he felt he was within the
300 foot radius of this project, however, did not receive a
notice. After consideration of the map, it was determined
that Mr. Waller was not within the 300 foot radius.
There was lengthy discussion regarding this plot plan and
negative declaration, with Council Member Connors and
Council Member Waller feeling there were impacts on the
environment that have not been mitigated. City Attorney
Ryskamp pointed out this project complies in every fashion
with the zoning and with the Code.
Council Member Connors felt the project was not appropriate
for the location and cited that the traffic problems
created, including the speed, the noise problems and the
aesthetics have not been mitigated.
There was discussion concerning what would be required to
change the high density zoning in these residential areas,
and the City Attorney advised it would take a general plan
amendment and zone changes, with public hearings before the
Planning Commission and City Council. It would be a time
consuming project and the housing element would have to be
changed at the State level.
The City Attorney advised the Council that in order to deny
this negative declaration they must make clear findings of
significant impacts to the environment that have not been
mitigated, as the project meets all requirements of the
zoning and code.
Council Member Waller pointed out there is already a
tremendous amount of traffic in the area, and the addition
of more apartment buildings can only increase the traffic
problem.
Mayor Partain and Council Member Shaw did not agree that
there is a traffic problem at the present time, nor that the
additional apartment building will create a traffic problem.
It was pointed out that Pennsylvania Avenue is designated as
a major arterial street in the City.
Answering a question from Council Member Waller, the City
Attorney pointed out there was recently a lawsuit brought
against the City for failure to make proper findings in
passing a negative declaration. The Court found against the
City, in favor of the environmentalist, on the basis that
the City had failed to make proper findings to support the
negative declaration. He said the same is possible in the
reverse, with the developer bringing a lawsuit. Whether it
would be successful would depend on the nature of the
findings and whether they are supported by the facts.
He reminded the Council that in rejecting a negative
declaration they are, in effect, mandating some type of
environmental impact report. If the only finding is there
is unmitigated impact on the traffic, it would be possible
to focus the study only to the traffic conditions, and
present the facts relative to traffic in that area. It
would depend on the nature of what they do.
Page 3
Beaumont City Council
August 10, 1987
Council Member Connors indicated she felt it should be
denied. on the basis of the amount of the traffic, the
traffic concentration, the noise and the aesthetics, with
the City Attorney asking what the facts are that this
project doesn't mitigate that other projects have or will
mitigate in what is zoned residential high density.
The City Attorney then reemphasized there must be clear
findings that there is something unique about this
particular corner that would not be the same if it were mid -
block, or someplace in another one of those downtown blocks.
He then pointed out again that residential high density
allows exactly this project.
A motion by Council Member Connors, with a second by Council
Member Waller, to deny Negative Declaration 86 -ND -16 on the
basis of non - mitigation for the amount of traffic, the
traffic concentration, the noise and the aesthetics, was
withdrawn by Council Members Connors and Waller in order to
allow the developer to address the Council.
Mr. Thomas Shaw, 979 Indiana, Venice, representing Clifford
Developers, addressed the Council stating they are building
a quality building. He said they understand the concerns of
the Council, but they are planning a good project and they
are interested in putting in a quality project. He also
indicated if there will be problems with the traffic, there
should be stop signs, and they would be happy to put in a
stop sign, but that is not something they can do.
Responding to a question from Council Member Waller, Mr.
Shaw indicated they intended to keep the apartment building,
not sell it, and would be very interested in maintaining it
in a good condition. They are very interested in the area
and they want to have a very well -run building, a quality
apartment building.
The City Attorney stated he is concerned the Council does
not have the facts before them to make the findings they are
making. He did not disagree with the Council's concept, but
it is legally zoned as residential high density, and he has
not heard any kind of facts or statistics those findings
could be based upon, as to this particular project since it
conforms to the law. He stated further that the General
Plan of the City, the Constitution, so to speak, of
development in this City, says that residential high density
is o.k. in this area, and the objections he is hearing seems
to relate to the general concept they do not want any more
apartment buildings in that block in that area.
He said he is hearing conflicting comments and no real
facts. The aesthetic concept and the noise would seem to
relate to the project specifically, but he is not hearing
the kind of specifics that says, when I look at this project
you are not going to hide the cars, therefore, it is
aesthetically unpleasing.
Council Member Connors clarified that he meant when it is
zoned high density that zoning has already taken into
account the fact there will be all of the things they have
been discussing.
The City Attorney confirmed that is the concept of a General
Plan. You adopt a General Plan, and when it is adopted
Page 4
Beaumont City Council
August 10, 1987
there is an environmental impact report that deals with
these issues, outlines certain types of problems that have
to be met to mitigate any problems - that is what a General
Plan is. A General Plan establishes a basic concept and
should deal with the types of objections that are being
raised, and becomes a constitution for development. He
said he is not suggesting this project may not have some of
the faults that have been raised, in fact some possibilities
have been raised relative to that particular corner being
unique because of the location of the high school, the
traffic patterns, the quantity of traffic, and maybe there
are problems.
The City Attorney stated further that if the Council really
has these concerns', the matter be continued until they have
more facts. All he is trying to do is prevent another
negative declaration that is adopted without the kind of
substantial findings based on facts in the reports before
them. They are going against the recommendation of the
Planning Department - the action of the Planning Commission
- and he is not hearing the kind of facts that need to be
there to substantiate what they are saying. What he is
hearing is it should not be residential high density in this
area, but that is what the General Plan says. The
correction should be made at the General Plan level, not in
denying this particular Negative Declaration. Once that
process_.gets going, they can then stop other projects,
giving a directive that they do not want development of this
nature in there until the high density area has been
resolved.
He then stated there may be, specific to this project,
impacts that need to be mitigated and some type of action to
determine that there are such impacts - there should be some
type of report and facts because so far staff didn't find
them, and, although he has heard some possibilities, he
hasn't heard the kind of facts he would want to take into
Court and defend.
Council Member Connors asked
continue it to the next meeting
and then, if they are found,
Commission.
if he meant they should
in order to find the facts,
to send it back to Planning
The City Attorney responded that if facts can be identified
that are specific to this particular location that would
indicate that this project has not or cannot mitigate the
impacts that have been mentioned, the negative declaration
can be denied.
The question of the timeframe within which the Council must
take action on this matter was brought up, and the City
Attorney recommended they ask the developer if he will waive
any time requirements to eliminate a problem in this regard.
Mayor Partain asked Mr. Shaw if they would agree to an
additional two weeks in the Council's consideration of this
negative declaration, and Mr. Shaw indicated that would be
agreeable with them.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Connors, to continue this agenda item to the next regular
meeting on August 24.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
Page 5
Beaumont City Council
August 10, 1987
Answering a question from Council Member Waller, the City
Manager indicated that it is his feeling if they are trying
to grasp a finding that would point up the traffic problems,
they are 1) looking at the design of Pennsylvania Avenue, it
is designed for so many vehicles per day, and 2) you are
looking at the City doing a traffic count on Pennsylvania
Avenue. That would be the only type of finding in traffic
that would help. Secondly, 8th Street is secondary because
it is "going no where" because in the scheme of traffic
circulation the westerly direction of 8th Street is
considered as not going anywhere. He then pointed out that
he felt they were going to find that Pennsylvania is
designed for many more cars than are currently using it. It
is a major arterial.
The City Attorney suggested the Council Members who are
raising the questions meet with the Planning Director to
find out if these questions have already been addressed and
the information regarding them already available.
Let the record show the foregoing discussion took place
while the motion was on the floor, prior to the vote.
9. Request from Council Member Connors and from Mr. Bud
Mattheson for Discussion of Possible Commemoration of the
Signing of the United States Constitution.
Mr. Bud Mattheson addressed the Council concerning the
possible activities the Council may wish to participate in
concerning the commemoration of the signing of the United
States Constitution.
There was lengthy discussion relative to everything that
would be involved, including funding, and it was the
concensus of the Council to continue discussion of this
matter at the next budget meeting.
10. CONSENT CALENDAR - All items listed under the Consent
Ca %ndar are considered to be routine by the City Council
and will be approved on one motion. There will be no
-- separate -discussion of these items unless a Council Member
or Citizen so requests, in which case the item will be
removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a
separate item.
a. Approval of Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of July
27, 1987, and Adjourned Council Meeting of July 30,
1987.
b. Acceptance of Minutes of Regular Planning Commission
Meeting of July 21, 1987.
C. Approval of Warrants as Audited per Warrant List of
August 10, 1987, in the amount of $226,178.60; Payroll
of July 23, 1987, in the amount of $44,240.94 and
Special Payroll of July 17, 1987, in the amount of
$498.46.
d. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -51 - Accepting Grant of Easement -
Sewers, and Ordering Recordation Thereof with the
Riverside County Recorder. (Tract 20011 -1,• DevCorp).
e. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -52 - Accepting Grant of Easement -
Drainage and Grading, and Ordering Recordation Thereof
with the Riverside County Recorder. (Tract 20011 -1,
DevCorp.)
Page 6
Beaumont City Council
August 10, 1987
f. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -53 - Accepting Grant of Easement -
Drainage, and Omer ng Recordation Thereof with the
Riverside County Recorder. (Tract 20011 -1, DevCorp).
g. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -54 - Approving Final Parcel Map No.
and Authorizing Recordation Thereof with
Riverside County Recorder. Applicant: Dowling.
Location: Corner of 14th and Palm.
h. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -57 - Adopting the Sewerage and
Sanitation Fees Report and Directing that Said Report
be Certified to the County Auditor for Collection on
the Tax Rolls.
i. Authorization for Mayor to Execute Subdivision
Agreement with Development Entity Ventures Corp.
(DevCorp) for Country Crossing Unit No. 4.
j. Report of Action by Planning Commission at Meeting of
August 4, 1987.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Waller, to approve the Consent Calendar.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
11. Recess to Closed Session.
a. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 to Consider
Personnel Matters.
b. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) to
confer with its Attorney regarding pending litigation
which has been initiated formally and to which the City
is a party.
The title of the litigation is Citizens Against a Pass
Area Prison, Case No. Riverside Superior Court 164329.
The meeting was recessed to Closed Session at 8:25 P.M.
The meeting was reconvened to Regular Session at 8:51 P.M.
Let the record show reports were received pertaining to
personnel matters and also the litigation of Citizens
Against a Pass Area Prison vs City of Beaumont, but no
definitive action was taken in Closed Session.
- -lla. Settlement _in the Case of Lester Racadio.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Shaw, to accept the settlement offer of $17,500.00 plus
medical and legal expenses, and treatment to date; and with
the submission of a request for disability retirement the
City Manager is authorized to certify for the City of
Beaumont that Mr. Racadio's disability retirement was work
related and upon that determination being made in writing
the City Manager would then be authorized to terminate Mr.
Racadio's labor code section 4850 benefit, with'Mr. Racadio
then getting disability retirement that is service
connected.
Page 7
AYES:
Council Member
Mayor Partain.
NOES:
None.
ABSTAIN:
None.
ABSENT:
None.
Beaumont City Council
August 10, 1987
Connors, Shaw, Waller and
llb. Authorization for Payment of Attorney's Fees in the Case of
Citizens Against a Pass Area Prison, Case No. 164329 in the
Riverside Superior Court.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Connors, based upon the City Attorney's recommendation, to
accept a settlement offer by paying $39,192 in attorney's
fees, plus the costs outstanding that would be assessed
against the City, to resolve the matter without further
expenditure of City funds.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
12. It was determined that a Special Meeting will be called for
Monday, August 17, 1987, at 3:30 P.M., for continued review
of the proposed 1987 -88 budget and other budget related
items' including discussion of the commemoration of the
constitution and the monument proposed by the 75th
Anniversary Committee.
Date set for Next Regular Council Meeting, Monday, August
24, 1987, at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers.
There being no further business to come before the Council,
on motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Shaw, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Page 8
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
SPECIAL MEETING OF AUGUST 17, 1987
The, Beaumont City Council met in a special meeting at 3:32 P.M.,
on Monday, August 17, 1987, in the City Council Chambers, with
Mayor Partain presiding.
On roll call the following Council Members were present:
Connors, Shaw and Mayor Partain. Let the record show Council
Member Waller arrived at 3:44 P.M.
1. Clerk's Affidavit of Posting.
The Clerk's affidavit of posting the agenda was read into
the record by the Deputy City Clerk.
Mayor Partain reported that City Manager Bob Bounds is ill
and unable to attend the meeting this afternoon. As a
result, Mr. Bounds requested that Agenda items 4, 5 and 6 be
taken off the agenda until such time as he can be present.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Connors, to remove Agenda Items 4, 5, and 6 from the agenda.
There being no opposition, the motion carried with three
ayes, one absent.
2. Discussion of Commemoration of Signing of United States
Constitution and Funding for Certain Activities.
There was discussion concerning the number of balloons
needed, the string or insert that would be required, and the
availability and cost of helium.
Motion by Mayor Partain, second by Council Member Shaw, to
budget $200.00 for the commemoration of the signing of the
constitution.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Waller.
3. Discussion of Monument Proposed by the 75th Anniversary
Steering Committee.
Fred Hicks, Chairman of the 75th Anniversary Steering
Committee, presented a report to the Council concerning the
proposed monument. He indicated the committee had reviewed
a number of ideas to leave something of a lasting nature
concerning the 75th anniversary of the City, and the
proposed granite monument was the outcome of their review.
He showed a sketch of a proposed redwood sign to them,
indicating the committee had previously ruled it out for a
number of reasons.
There was discussion concerning a possible redesign of the
monument to resemble the sketch of the redwood sign, the
names to appear on the monument, and the use of bronze
letters or a bronze plaque on the monument, as well as the
possibility of having a wall mounted bronze plaque in place
of the granite monument.
Page 1
Beaumont City Council
August 17, 1987
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Connors, to include the original members of the City Council
and the equivalent to the City Manager if there was one,
from 1912, as well as including Matt Russo as Council Member
for 1987.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Waller, that the monument be a bronze plaque to be placed
within the confines of the City Hall.
AYES: Council Member Shaw and Waller.
NOES: Council Member Connors and Mayor Partain.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
MOTION FAILED.
After discussion concerning a possible redesign of the self -
supporting granite monument, Mr. Hicks was requested by the
Council to bring back the estimated cost of the new design
agreed upon by the City Council at the earliest date.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Shaw, to adjourn this special meeting to Wednesday, August
19, 1987, at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers to
consider Agenda Items 4, 5 and 6.
Resp_Qctfully submitted,
/" (- / 4�'
y City Clerk
Page 2
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
ADJOURNED SPECIAL MEETING OF AUGUST 19, 1987
(Adjourned from August 17, 1987)
The Beaumont City Council met in an adjourned special meeting at
6:02 P.M., on Wednesday, August 19, 1987, in the City Council
Chambers, with Mayor Partain presiding.
On roll call the following Council Members were present:
Connors,- Shaw and Mayor Partain. Let the record show Council
Member Waller arrived at 6:14 P.M.
1. Clerk's Affidavit of Posting.
The Clerk's affidavit of posting the agenda was read into
the record by the Deputy City Clerk.
2. Report from Chairman Fred Hicks Concerning Alternate 75th
Anniversary Monument.
Mr. Fred Hicks presented two alternatives of the proposed
redesign of the 75th anniversary monument, with the cost of
the larger version, including the bronze plaque, being
$6,576.12, and the cost of the smaller version, including
the bronze plaque, $5,115.46. He indicated the committee
recommended that the smaller version be used, with the
granite base to include flag pockets at no additional cost.
Mr. Hicks then indicated the schedule of events to wind up
the 75th anniversary included the Grand Ball on November 14,
and the unveiling of the monument on the anniversary of the
incorporation, November 18, 1987.
The City Manager pointed out the unveiling ceremonies would
be the opportune time for the City to have its open house,
including a possible display of City equipment.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Shaw, to approve the recommendation of the committee for the
smaller version of the monument to include the bronze
plaque.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Waller.
3. Report on the Available Sewer Capacity in the Present
Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plant and Discussion of Sewer
User Fees and Sewer Connection Fees.
A report was presented to the Council by the City Manager.
This report is a matter of record in the Clerk's file.
There were questions from the Council, and discussion
regarding the available capacity remaining in the sewer
plant.
Plans for the expansion of the existing plant, as well as
proceeding with the new plant, were discussed, with the City
Manager indicating a feasibility study should be done.
Page 1
Beaumont City Council
August 19, 1987
The City Manager's report on sewer service charges indicated
there is a deficit in the sewer service account, meaning we
are not receiving enough revenue to cover the costs of sewer
service. As of June 30, 1987 the deficit is $165,336, with
a projected deficit as of June 30, 1988 of $291,699.
The question of sewer service fees and sewer connection
fees, and the possibility of increasing these fees was
brought up by the City Manager, who presented a report
showing the fees currently being charged by other cities in
Riverside and San Bernardino counties, as well as fee
increases scheduled for later in the year.
It was the concensus of the Council that the City Manager
will present his recommendation for increasing the sewer
service fees at the meeting of September 28 or the first
meeting in October.
The City Manager will. also prepare his recommendation
regarding increasing the sewer connection fee and will bring
that back to the Council as soon as possible.
The meeting was recessed at 8:00 p.m., reconvening at 8:10
p.m.
4. Continued Review of Proposed 1987 -88 Budget.
The City Manager presented his updated budget information, a
copy of which is a matter of record in the Clerk's file.
The new revenue projection was $2,843,233, representing a
$37,800 increase. Changes were made in the Community
Development Department budget to include a work experience
aide for the secretary, and increasing office supplies, fuel
and oil and contractual services, for a total increase to
the department budget of $10,226.
Public Works contractual services was increased by $576.00,
the Senior Center salaries and benefits was decreased by
$312.00 and the pool travel and training budget was
increased by $235.00
The Council continued their review of the proposed 1987 -88
budget on a department by department basis.
5. Action on Budget Related Items.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Shaw, to direct the City Manager to take the necessary steps
to finalize and publicize the 1987 -88 Budget for adoption
the first meeting in September.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
On motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Shaw, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Page 2
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
AUGUST 24, 1987
The Beaumont City Council met in a regular meeting at 6:05 P.M.,
on Monday, August 24, 1987, in the City Council Chambers, with
Mayor Partain presiding.
On roll call the following Council Members were present:
Connors, Shaw and Mayor Partain. Let the record show Council
Member Waller arrived at 6:10 P.M.
The Invocation was given by Council Member Ann Connors.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Mayor Partain.
1. Affidavit of Posting.
The Clerk's affidavit of posting the agenda was read into
the record by the Deputy City Clerk.
2. Adjustments to Agenda.
3.
3a.
The City Manager advised the Council he had just received a
copy of the application for disability retirement from
Lester Racadio's attorney, which will be effective September
1, 1987. A resolution must be adopted by the City prior to
September 1, and since there is no other meeting before
then, he is asking that the resolution be added to this
agenda for consideration.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Shaw, to add Resolution No. 1987 -61 to the agenda as Item
No. 3.a, on the finding, as represented by the City Manager,
that when the agenda was posted and distributed this was not
available and it is of an urgent nature which must be dealt
with immediately.
There being no opposition,
ayes, one absent.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
the motion carried with three
Mr. Bud Mattheson and Mr. Mike Pickett, Master of San
Gorgonio Lodge No. 668 in Banning, presented to the City
Council a special banner to be flown from now until
September 17, commemorating the signing of the United States
Constitution.
RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -61 - Regarding the Disability of Lester
Racadio, Social Sec�ty No. 570 -76 -5617.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Shaw, to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -61.
AYES:
Council Member
Mayor Partain.
NOES:
None.
ABSTAIN:
None.
ABSENT:
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - 6:00 P.M.
Page 1
Connors, Shaw, Waller and
Beaumont City Council
August 24, 1987
4. APPEAL of Planning Commission Decision Concerning Plot Plan
7- PP -12, Am. #1, and Certain Conditions of Approval Placed
Thereon. Appellant: American Housing Corp. Location: N/E
Corner of Cougar and Beaumont Avenue.
The Public Hearing was opened at 6:16 P.M.
Mr. John Sims, representing American Housing Corporation:
Mr. Mayor, Council Persons, my name is John Sims, I am
President of American Housing Corporation. Our headquarters
are at 924 Westwood Boulevard, Los Angeles. We are the
appellants in this matter and I am not sure what your
procedure is, but very briefly I can explain the three major
concerns that we have if you would like for me to proceed.
Mayor Partain: Yes, please do.
Mr. Sims: What I have done is to post a proposed parcel
map, I'm sorry, proposed layout of our project as we have
worked with staff, as well - both the Planning Director, the
Planning Commission and the City Engineer. I have also
delineated on the blackboard what I understand to be the
conditions imposed by the Planning Commission. Essentially
they are as follows: A small item in our mind is that the
Planning Commission did not want any access, whether it be
emergency access or regular vehicular access, on Beaumont
Avenue. If you will look at the service list of the project
there is a crash gate, which the fire department requested
that we install. This would be only for emergency purposes
only. Primarily fire trucks, police and ambulances. It is
not to be used by tenants for ingress and egress to the
project.
We do not object to blocking that off should the Council so
desire. We think that by having only access, both of an
emergency nature and of a convenience nature on Cougar
Avenue, is satisfactory. However, in a project of
approximately ten acres with 156 units, usually there is an
emergency access provided in addition to the main accesses.
Item No. 1 is that we would prefer to leave the project as
designed. Item No. 2, and these are not necessarily of
importance for which I believe is the key of concern that I
have for the project is the requirement by the Planning
Commission to provide an access road parallel to Beaumont
Avenue, and in this project at this time. As I recall, I do
not have a staff report, it is my understanding that the
Planning Commission specified a 32 foot width street - that
it be at some point east of the east property line of
Beaumont so as not to interfer with the Deodora trees. And
as I understand - well, I thought I heard from the Planning
Commission, the access road would be as follows: (Mr. Sims
stepped to the map and drew in what he felt the access road
was supposed to be, his comments at this time are not
intelligible on the tape.)
Mr. Sims (continuing): To have six lanes of traffic on
Beaumont Avenue, two in each direction, to me seems to be
overly excessive. We do not, and have not, ever planned
this project to interfer environmentally with the deodora
trees. Originally we thought it would be desirable to have
a main access off Beaumont, but it was brought to our
attention that it would be preferable that it not be done.
Page 2
Beaumont City Council
August 24, 1987
Your staff, both the Planning Director and the City
Engineer, especially the City Engineer, has gone on the
record opposing an access road for a number of reasons. One
of which, in my view I agree with, is the overall planning
nature of access roads. I have mentioned it before, and I
will do it again, to go over to Palm Desert and look at what
is happening on 101 in my view is an extreme planning
detriment.
Number 2, and more importantly, he is on record in writing
suggesting that it is a danger to create that kind of an
access at that kind of an intersection. I thoroughly agree
with that issue also.
We would like to proceed with this project as it was
originally intended at the time we brought the planning and
re- zoning issues up to the City Council. The only concern,
as I recall, was no access off of Beaumont Avenue. Again,
that is satisfactory.
Those are the main issues, the other issues involve a
requirement for a block wall fence completely surrounding
the project. It was our intent to put a block wall - a
decorative block wall - along Beaumont Avenue, and an
appropriate wall around the other boundaries of the project
to create an effect that would be aesthetically pleasing.
Whether that would be reinforced wood fence with block
pilasters, or what it is at this point I can't specifically
say, but we were going to make any compromise on that issue
which would be reasonable.
The sum substance, in my opinion, the critical aspect of
this project has to do with the access road. The two other
issues are matters which I believe can be resolved with
reasonable participation on behalf of the staff. I would be
happy to answer any questions that you might have.
Mayor Partain: Okay, do we have questions. Mr. Waller.
Council Member Waller: Not at this time.
Mayor Partain: Mr. Shaw.
Council Member Shaw: The only thing that concerns me, like
I say, I looked at that situation yesterday, and there is a
rear fence line comes down, that is like a wire fence right.
Mr. Sims: Mr. Lay is in the audience. I don't know exactly
where his fence is.
Council Member Shaw: A fence line, anyway, comes down about
eight feet, eight to ten feet from those trees. Now, I have
to agree with these people who want to save those trees,
because if anything happened to those trees I think it would
be disgraceful, and I want to see it adequately done, and I
want to see an adequate access way that would not impair
those trees, or endanger them.
Mr. Sims: Mr. Councilman, we have no problem with that, and
given the latitude of planning we can set back from those
trees and make sure that the improvements that we put there
are in no way interfering with the root system of the trees.
What the improvements are that we are to be, under the
Page 3
Beaumont City Council
August 24, 1987
conditions along Beaumont, would be subject to whatever the
Council and the City Engineer require. And, again, I don't
see a problem with widening of Beaumont to the extent of the
curb and gutter along that part. But in my judgment, and I
am not an agronomist, or whatever they call a tree person,
but if you put an access road on that side of the street,
you are going to be having, in my opinion, a lot different
situation then exists now with drainage, and with draining
in that root system, and I, for one, would suggest that that
might be more detrimental than our project setting back an
appropriate distance from those trees and leaving it as is.
Mayor Partain: Further questions.
Council Member Connors: When you say having it as it was
originally, an appropriate distance from the trees, what
distance are you talking about. How much distance.
Mr. Sims: I think we are at least thirty feet from those
trees, and I would be more than happy, if there is a
compromise available, to get whatever opinion from whatever
expert would be acceptable to the Council, as to what that
root system is and how far that should be set back. You
might remember that all of the units along Beaumont, and all
of the units along Cougar are all one story. We have an
extensive capability to adjust the project to conform to
stay out of any kind of a root system. We don't have 32
feet plus the other setback, whatever that might be, and
even if we did, to construct that road system, in all
honesty would kill the project. We could not go forward
with it.
Council Member Connors: At the point of the thirty feet
from the trees is where you were going to put the block wall
originally.
Mr. Sims: Yes, you can see - this is one inch equals 30
feet, and if the tree system is here we can come back with
this line far enough from the trees to keep out of that
area. In addition, another alternative, if we could wall
the project at this level without building a brick wall - a
brick wall was a requirement of the Planning Commission, not
originally ours - we will try to accommodate that should the
Council wish - but as I understand these are 40 foot patios
in this area - (at this point Mr. Sims is again speaking
away from the microphone and is difficult to understand on
the tape).
Mayor Partain: Anything further. Mr. Waller, anything
further.
Council Member Waller: Let me just make sure that this is
completely understood. As far as the conditions of approval
that the Planning Commission came up with, they came with
eighteen, is that correct.
Mr. Sims: I believe so, yes.
Council Member Waller: Okay. Now, out of those eighteen
you are amenable to a change in which area.
Mr. Sims: The three areas which I proposed, one of which I
think is an extremely minor one, which is the emergency
crash gate off of Beaumont Avenue. We can eliminate that
Page 4
Beaumont City Council
August 24, 1987
with no harm to the project. Item No. 2, of much, much more
significant importance, but not absolutely critical, was the
requirement of a brick wall, a decorative brick or block
wall, whatever it is, completely around the project. Our
project, particularly the newer elements, we try to ring
them with one story, planting, lawns, the fencing in between
the buildings would be wrought iron, we would achieve the
same effect, which would be to make the project safe, secure
for tenants, children, dogs, cats, whatever, but yet not
have it look like a walled in community. I think in small
and medium sized communities such as this, it is a
detrimental effect. Again, I am certainly willing to
compromise.
Item No. 3 is, I believe, the last item on that sheet which
has to do with the access road. And the rest of them, quite
frankly, I think are standard and acceptable and applicable
to any development.
Council Member Waller: Why did you not ask for - in
thinking about this and coming up with a few changes - why
did you not appeal to the Planning Commission instead of
coming here.
Mr. Sims: Sir, I have tried to work with the Planning
Commission. In every community that I have ever been in I
have never quite experienced the procedure and the method
that we had as we went through this item. We tried to
present alternatives. We tried to present logical
arguments. We had the staff in our support, and basically,
the Planning Commission's attitude was this is the way this
is going to be, this is what we wish, and we do not desire
to have any alternatives presented to us. We want a
frontage road. We discussed that before. There was a delay
of two weeks while some of the members went back and
researched notes apparently they had at home. The City
Attorney had his input in it. And to go back to the
Planning Commission on the issue of the frontage road would
seem to me to be a useless act.
Mayor Partain: Mr. Waller, anything else. Did you have
something, Mr. Shaw.
Council Member Shaw: Encroachment on those trees, the
overhang and the root system is almost the same amount of
footage. Now, if you come in there with a big van or a
moving van, a big truck, won't that catch some of those
branches and tear them loose.
Mr. Sims: No sir. If you look at the site plan there is no
vehicular access between the trees and the apartment units.
There is no way - the only problem might be a fire truck,
which we don't have any control over, but all of the access
to the units are from each end, and there is no vehicular
access, cars, or anything else through there, and I might
add that is intentional, why we planned it that way. We
knew that these trees were a very sensitive issue in this
community. As I said before, that is one of the reasons
why we selected this site and tried to put a development on
it.
Council Member Shaw: Now, in the event - like - moving vans
come into that area, right?
Mr. Sims: No sir. No sir.
Page 5
Beaumont City Council
August 24, 1987
Council Member Shaw: They won't come into that area.
Mr. Sims: If you look at the site plan . . .
Council Member Shaw: I don't mean as a regular procedure,
but it would make it easier access for them that they might
use, and that is what worries me.
Mr. Sims: No sir, no sir. This will all be lawn and
controlled access. There will be no sidewalks, there will
be no way that you could park a moving van on Beaumont
Avenue, because as you will notice here is a fence. You
cannot get to the unit from Beaumont Avenue.
Council Member Shaw: Well, the reason I question it, I have
seen moving vans do that you know, make it easy for
themselves, and disregard other people's property, and that
is what I want to eliminate. Can you guarantee that.
Mr. Sims: They would have to physically carry personal
possessions over a six foot high fence in order to do that.
Mayor Partain: Anything further. I just have one thing.
Did you read the letter by Mr. Dotson.
Mr. Sims: Yes sir.
Mayor Partain: Actually the frontage road itself is
something that he did not talk about. What concerned him
was the intersection, not the frontage road itself, and his
letter specifically states if a frontage road is required
that he would not like it unless the intersection into
Cougar from that frontage road was at least 200 feet from
the intersection of Cougar and Beaumont Avenue. That was
the thing, not the frontage road itself.
Mr. Sims: Yes sir. At the time I discussed that with Mr.
Dotson, the Planning Commission had not designated any kind
of a double intersection at that point. What we are
concerned about is that is also our main entrance to our
project since we were obligated to have access only off of
Cougar Way, and the problem that we will have with that is
that if that frontage road is here, so we now have our
entrance, and egress and the frontage road all at one point.
That, to me, is almost as bad as having (Mr. Sims is again
speaking away from the microphone at the blackboard and his
comments, for the most part, are unintelligible).
Mayor Partain: Assuming that your secondary
Cougar. However, if, as the Planning
suggesting, that the frontage road is put
secondary access could come off of that at t
where you are showing the emergency access
Avenue.
access was from
Commission is
in, then your
he same location
from Beaumont
Mr. Sims: If we do that what we have is an alley concept,
and, quite honestly, sir, I wouldn't do the project. It
would create - if you put an access road there, then
clearly, and I should turn the map around so it would be
consistent here, the east side of that access road is going
to have to be a block wall. There is no way in 32 feet
there could not be a block wall. That means then that our
project would have access literally off a 32 foot street
with a block wall and I am afraid I would pass on the
project.
Page 6
Beaumont City Council
August 24, 1987
Mayor Partain: I don't have anything further. Anything
else. Thank you very much.
Any other proponents wishing to speak at this time. How
about opponents. Any opponents. Anyone wishing to speak at
all.
The Public Hearing was closed at 6:34 P.M.
The City Manager pointed out to the Council that there are
three pieces of property between Cougar Way and Brookside,
and the central property has the potential of becoming land
locked unless access through the trees is allowed, or unless
there is a frontage road or some kind of legal access to the
property from one or the other of the adjacent properties.
Questions from Council Member Waller concerning sewer hook-
up capacity were answered by the City Manager.
a. Consideration of Granting or Denying Appeal.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Waller, to deny the appeal.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
a. Consideration of Adoption of Negative Declaration 87-
ND-17.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Shaw, to adopt Negative Declaration 87- ND -17.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
5. PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND CHANGE OF ZONE -
Applicant: Beaumont Interstate Ltd. Location: Hig w y 60
and Southern Pacific Railroad, S/W of Interstate 10. A
proposed General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone from
Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Commercial Highway
Services. (87- CC -GP -3, 87- RZ -4).
The Public Hearing was opened at 6:44 P.M.
Mr. Dave Sumner, representing Beaumont Interstate Ltd:
I don't know of anything controversial about the project, it
does have access, it does not have sewer and water, but
those situations have been considered by the owner, they are
aware of the problem. They will have to develop water and
sewer. They propose to put in a restaurant /motel type
facility. It is all very tentative at the moment, however,
they have some significant thoughts about it. There is
nothing unusual that I know of, there are some slopes to be
considered that they will remain away from, and there is no
environmental problem that I can think of. Any questions.
Mayor Partain: Are there any questions, Mrs. Connors, Mr.
Shaw, Mr. Waller. Are there any proponents here this
Page 7
Beaumont City Council
August 24, 1987
evening that would like to speak on behalf of the zone
change. Any proponents. How about opponents. Anyone
wishing to speak against. No one wishing to speak.
The Public Hearing was closed at 6:46 P.M.
A report concerning this project was received from the City
Manager, indicating that an adjacent property owner has
requested to be included in this zone change.
a. Consideration of Adoption of Negative Declaration 87-
ND-21.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Shaw, to adopt Negative Declaration 87- ND-21.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
b. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -58 - Amending the General Plan
to C ange Zoning from Panned Unit Development (PUD) to
Commercial Highway Services. (87- CC- GP -3). Applicant:
Beaumont Interstate Ltd. Location: Highway 60 and
Southern Pacific Railroad, S/W of Interstate 10.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Connors, to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -58.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
C. ORDINANCE NO. 646 - FIRST READING - Rezoning Certain
Property from =Panned Unit Development (PUD) to
Commercial Highway Services. Applicant: Beaumont
Interstate Ltd. Location: Highway 60 and Southern
Pacific Railroad, S/W of Interstate 10.
• Motion to read Ordinance No. 646 by title only.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Shaw, to read Ordinance No. 646 by title only.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Motion to pass Ordinance No. 646 at its first reading.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Shaw, to pass Ordinance No. 646 at its first reading.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
6. APPEAL of Planning Commission Decision Concerning
Conditional Use Permit 87- CUP -1, Addressing Conditions No. 2
and 6 of the Conditions of Approval. Appellant: Keith
Burton, Burton Sandblasting. Location: 238 Maple.
Page 8
Beaumont City Council
August 24, 1987
The Public Hearing was opened at 6:52 P.M.
Mr. Keith Burton, 238 Maple, appellant: Appealing the two
items No. 2 and 6. Referring to this number 15 on here on a
conditional use permit where it says sandblasting plants,
shot or grit. I need a definition of that. What does the
City mean when they say that you can sandblast - have a
sandblast plant with shot or grit. If somebody can explain
that to me I want to find out if we are allowed to do that,
or if we aren't allowed to do that. I know there are some
proponents and opponents, there are two major ones who are
opposed, and of course there are quite a few who are keeping
quiet that would generally approve of our operation. There
is no noise limits in the City Council agenda that I know
of. I don't think there is any limits as to how much noise
you can make, and even if there was the train that runs
right in our backyard back there makes twice or three times
as much noise as we do, so we don't shut the Southern
Pacific down because of noise. Yet, those people, the
proponents here would like to do that because I make some
noise when I sandblast. But there is no problem because we
have four and one -half acres to distribute it on.
Regardless to what some people have said, it is not
hazardous, it is not dangerous, we went through all the
tests, we had the public - we have had the health people out
and run soil samples, we have done all this. If you
followed this through the Planning Commission, you will find
that all of this has happened. None of the things that have
been said about Burton Sandblasting are true. We haven't
put no poisons into the air. We have put no lead into the
air, and everything that has been tested has come out with
no ill effects, nothing.
So we feel we should be allowed to sandblast on our four and
one -half acre property that we purchased for that purpose.
So we ask that these two things, where it stands right now I
can't even sandblast my own house, which is totally
ridiculous. No sandblasting is allowed on my premises.
There is two items that I definitely have to sandblast, that
is my house and sand storage hopper. They are on my
property right now. The way it stands on 2 and 6 that can't
even be done on my property.
Technically, I can hire somebody to come in and do it, but I
can't do it myself, and that is a little ridiculous. I
haven't stopped any of my clients from doing their jobs,
from working their jobs from 8 to 5 or whatever it happens
to be, and I don't feel they have a right to stop me from
earning a living. It really - the people who oppose it
couldn't define sandblasting if you had them come up and
tell you how it works, they couldn't do it. So you have to
understand the subject in order to define it. What it
actually does.
So, if somebody can tell me what Item 15, Sandblasting
Plant, Shot and Grit, what that means - does that mean that
you can or you can't do it in this area with a use permit,
or what is it. How is it handled. I would like for
somebody to tell me what that means. Does the City allow it
or don't they allow it. Does a couple of opponents keep the
City from allowing businesses to come into this area, and
running their business, or how is it. That is all I have to
say.
Page 9
Beaumont City Council
August 24, 1987
Mayor Partain: Any questions of Mr. Burton. Mrs. Connors,
Mr. Shaw, Mr.Waller. Thank you Mr. Burton. Any other
proponents. Any other proponents. Anyone wishing to speak
on behalf of the appeal. Okay. Jean Bailie, would you
please come forward and state your name and address.
Jean Bailie: Thank you Mr. Mayor. My name is Jean Bailie,
residence at 162 South Maple, Beaumont. I came prepared to
discuss conditions 2 and 6 with you, and I am confused what
we are talking about - number 15. I will simply address
what I thought we were here for. I am speaking on behalf of
the residents who live on South Maple, and those who are
affected along East First Street. They are very concerned
citizens. Some of them couldn't be here, most of them have
made most of the Planning Commission meetings. We have had
some very in -depth studies. A lot of letters and a lot of
contradiction there. I am sure you are aware of that
because I am sure you have a copy of all that has gone on.
I just want to tell you that the Planning Commission and the
residents and the City Attorney have spent a lot of time
trying to resolve this situation. The Planning Commission
has worked very hard to work out a solution that would allow
Mr. Burton to have a business there and still not compromise
our standard of living. On Condition No. 2 it is just good
common sense that it be worded like it is on there in light
of some of the information we have gotten from South Coast,
which incidentally Council interpreted correctly. It is
very important that control be in the hands of someone
competent, the City Council, the Planning Commission, or
someone, to determine what blasting can be done, what
pollutants can be released in the air. The conditional use
permit that you have before you is the very best that the
Commissioners could come up with without a flat denial of
sandblasting by Mr. Burton, or as I said before, a denial of
our rights and standard of living.
The initial Planning Commission staff report, and I think a
lot of the facts were presented by the appellant, contained
numerous misinterpretations, numerous omissions. A lot of
those have been corrected, and again, I am sure you have
seen that. You have read it over. Because of that, we feel
that anything that is in this conditional use permit must be
spelled out clearly. There can be no its o.k. if you do
this today, but not tomorrow, because there will be problems
with it. City Council has indicated, and I feel, and so do
the rest of the people, that to allow sandblasting of
personal items on the property only is totally
unenforceable. How are you going to determine. I think you
have some pictures in file of a great many of the personal
items that Mr. Burton has on there. As a matter of fact I
think it would rival M & M Auto Wrecking. And there have
been more of these items brought in since then.
Mr. Burton admitted at one of our Planning Commission
meetings that he had sandblasted after being restrained, but
he said he thought it was o.k. because it was a fish pond
that he had there. He has ignored compliance with the City
Ordinance that you Council Members passed regarding
dismantled, inoperative vehicles and things on property. I
could go on and on, it is in the file and there is no sense
talking about that. I just want to say, in short, I think
his attitude has been a lot like it was recorded in the
paper, If I don't get what I want, you can stick it.
Page 10
Beaumont City Council
August 24, 1987
I have also heard too that there is a lot of concern that he
might want to sue the City because he got a license in error
from time before, and some people are concerned about it,
and I just want you to know that you can use our tax money
to file a countersuit if there is any concerns from that
area. Historically, the Courts in the State of California
has held responsible the knowing parties, and I don't mean
some license inspector that erroneously issued a license. I
am talking about someone who had forty years of experience
in sandblasting, that knows what they are supposed to do,
and knows what permits they are supposed to have, and knows
that they need conditional use permits. I will give you an
example. You buy an automobile from a waitress, and she
tells you that that car is running good, and you go out and
it blows up and maybe you have got a lawsuit against her.
But you buy an automobile from a mechanic and have that car
blow up, that is a whole new ballgame.
I think that Mr. Burton came to Boremont in the boonies, to
steal one of Mr. Waller's terms, and figured he could run a
business, in my opinion a polluting business, with little or
no compliance or cost, and it just hasn't turned out that
way because we have a very diligent Planning Commission, we
have some people who are competent and have spent a lot of
time working. We have got some citizens who have supplied
some material, and we have got a City Council who is
informed and intelligent. I urge you to support the
Planning Commission. Their decision was unanimous. I think
Dr. Randhawa has some additional things. I thank you very
much for your patience in listening to us.
Mayor Partain: Are there any questions.
Council Member Waller: I know that you know this, and we
know it, but for public edification, for the sandblasting to
exist is there a condition for a plot plan.
Mrs. Bailie: I don't know.
Dr. Randhawa, 734 E. 3rd Street: I would like to bring a
few more things in in addition to what Mrs. Bailie has
mentioned. I did give the material what you have. One is a
study done by Loma Linda University and it came from the
Press - Enterprise. Abdominal body defects. These, what we
call chronic diseases, it takes ten to, sometimes, thirty/
fifty years for the defects to appear. And this is what we
are showing, and Beaumont is, unfortunately, one mentioned
there.
I think that is a good example. Heavy metals have been
mentioned in that, and sandblasting, all of the County
dusting has shown lead from 5 to 75, with very little
sandblasting, even though it is below the level of being
dangerous. But imagine what will happen over the years, and
it will catch up that level of dangerous material, and then
we will suffer after ten or fifteen years in the future. So
that is one main thing there.
The other, I wrote a letter to main office in E1 Monte, the
air district, the South Coast Air Quality Management
District. The answer to Mr. Burton is who knows what this
is. I think you are hearing that we have no intelligence
here. Government hasn't introduce this department just to
control this air quality. And they have the authority, and
Page 11
... .yam . -.. .... Y
Beaumont City Council
August 24, 1987
and other things. It even mentions business very clearly,
and I would like to address that things so it comes clear
there.
The question is brought again and again about the railroad
noise. That is not the same as what we are getting from
sandblasting. It is a high pitched decimental. The
railroad comes off and on for few minutes and is gone. So
that is irrelevant there, that point. Mr.
told me, when I got that letter, which is on the of er si e
of that, and he did again tell me, because I asked him that
we are hearing again and again that he can do this for a
limited time. Now he went again to what is the rules and
regulations and he said it is limited, and that is only in
case he does with air shocks and grit, not with sand.
Whenever sand is used, it is sandblasting, and that is
called abrasive. And that always has to be done in enclosed
house type of system. And he has mentioned again. And that
the objects sizes there. It could be 8 foot in width or 10
foot length, either one of that, and small cars, I measured
my car before coming, it is a Sprint, and it is 4 -1/2 feet
wide, 10 -1/2 feet length and 5 foot or 4 -1/2 foot in height.
So that thing still comes there, and he has already
mentioned that he wants to do those.
Again, we are pleased - I give the list of people who are
opposed, that I got before to the Planning Commission. We
got additional more, and that is just the people who walk
into my business. And I showed them that thing, and
except one person, all gladly signed. They said we do not
want any polluting type business. And we are still generous
to him. He can still operate his big trucks under the air
quality control district rules and regulations. He can
blast his house under that - which would be only once or
twice. But not everyday. I have complained three times
since the last Commission ruling he has done it three things
for a few minutes. He has no respect for the law. When Mr.
mentioned he said he would try to find that
complaint. A couple of years back he even decided to have
house bagging. He was cited for that doing small objects,
even under the house bag system. So there has been a couple
of complaints, and who knows what will happen in the future.
So, in brief, this business is not a polluting type, both
from health now and for defects which can appear in ten or
twenty years. That is another big thing, and I think I
produced - I got official papers, they even say stand -by
people, they can even get hurt. So - and then the goal of
the community, we have already pointed out that, most of the
people who came here want clean air, and I think that we
request that we pay attention to that. Any questions.
Mayor Partain: Any questions. Thank you. Anyone else
wishing to speak. Come ahead Mr. Melvin.
Jim Melvin, 1425 Cherry Avenue, Space 181, Beaumont: I do
not live in that area, but approximately two to two and one -
half months ago, prior to the ceasing of operations down at
Mr. Burton's sandblasting operation, I happened to be
driving by there at approximately five minutes to eight in
the morning. If you can visually - or mentally conceive -
what I saw visually, I think that you would understand the
concerns of the residents of that area. One is that when I
approached the area, there is no way I can give you an idea
Page 12
Beaumont City Council
August 24, 1987
of the noise that was being generated from the sandblasting
there would remind you of jet engines at an airport, and in
relation to trying to compare that with the trains that were
going by, that train would have to be unending.
Secondly, the cloud that was being produced by the
sandblasting going on at that time I would estimate was a
funnel cloud approximately 100 foot in the air. If I lived
in that area I certainly would be concerned too. Thank you
gentlemen.
Mayor Partain: Questions. Anyone else?
The public hearing was closed at 7:12 P.M.
Council Member Connors commented that this has been on the
agenda several times, and the Council has received quite a
lot of information, so it seems very clear.
There were no other comments from the Council.
a. Consideration of Granting or Denying Appeal.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Shaw, to deny the appeal.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
7. INTENTION TO ORDER ABANDONMENT AND VACATION OF A PORTION OF
FIFTH STREET AND ORANGE AVENUE. App icy anti— ValUivia� .
Mayor Partain announced that since Mr. Valdivia is his
father -in -law, he will give the gavel to Mayor Pro Tem
Waller and will not participate in the discussion or action
on this agenda item.
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:15 P.M.
Mr. Irish Mitchell, 402 E. 6th Street, Beaumont: Mr. Mayor,
Council Persons, every since the freeway we have had a
number of these dead -end streets off of Fifth Street. They
are catchbasins for trash, rodents and they are never
maintained, and if all of them were abandoned it would be
advantageous to the City all the way through. This
particular one, it is only logical that it should be
abandoned because it is of no value to the City and it would
put something back on the tax rolls. Thank you.
Mr. William Salinas, 1207 Palm Avenue, Beaumont, speaking
neither in favor or in opposition: I don't know whether I
am for or against it. I can't understand why you are going
to take the seven feet off. Is it on Orange Street on the
east side.
At this point, the City Manager showed a copy of the map to
Mr. Salinas, explaining what was proposed.
Mr. Salinas: After a while, are you going to do like you do
on 14th Street, where you have got curb and gutter on one
area, and then you go a little further down the road and you
don't. Is that what is going to happen here.
Page 13
Beaumont City Council
August 24, 1987
At this point, the City Manager showed a copy of the map to
Mr. Salinas, explaining what was proposed.
Mr. Salinas: After a while, are you going to do like you do
on 14th Street, where you have got curb and gutter on one
area, and then you go a little further down the road and you
don't. Is that what is going to happen here.
The City Manager is speaking away from the microphone and
his comments are not intelligible on the tape.
Mr. Salinas: Okay, I just didn't understand. Okay.
Mayor Pro Tem Waller: Is there anybody else who would like
to speak in opposition to this issue. Okay.
The Public Hearing was closed at 7:19 P.M.
The City Manager presented his report concerning this
proposed abandonment.
a. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -59 - A Resolution of the City
Counci of the C y of Beaumont Ordering the
Abandonment and Vacation of a Portion of Fifth Street
and Orange Avenue. Applicant: Valdivia.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Connors, to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -59.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw and Mayor Pro
Tem Waller.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: Mayor Partain.
ABSENT: None.
The gavel was returned to Mayor Partain at 7:21 P.M.
END PUBLIC HEARINGS.
8. Consideration of Adoption of Negative Declaration 87- ND -16.
Applicant: Clifford Development. Location: N/E Corner of
8th and Pennsylvania. (87 -PP -8, Am. #2). (Continued from
August 10, 1987).
Council Member Connors and Council Member Waller indicated
they had not found sufficient findings to deny this Negative
Declaration.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Mayor Partain, to
adopt Negative Declaration 87- ND -16.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: Council Member Waller.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
9. Consideration of Approving Application to Operate Taxicab
Service in the City of Beaumont. (Continued from August 10,
1987).
The City Manager presented his report concerning this
application, stating the applicant had paid the necessary
fee, but at this time does not have his insurance. He
Page 14
Beaumont City Council
August 24, 1987
recommended if the Council desired to approve the
application, they should do so contingent upon the applicant
obtaining insurance.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Connors, to approve the application for a permit to operate
a taxicab service in the City of Beaumont, with the
condition that the business license will not be issued until
proof of insurance is filed with the City Clerk's office.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
10. Request from Council Member Connors to Consider Calling a
Joint Meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission to
Discuss Zoning in the City.
Council Member Connors explained there was considerable high
density zoning and apartment houses being built in areas
where residential single family exists, and she felt this
was an emergency situation and the zoning should be changed
before there are apartment houses everywhere in Beaumont.
She feels that a joint meeting of the City Council and the
Planning Commission is necessary at the earliest date so
that changes in the General Plan and Zoning can be discussed
necessary to stop this from continuing to happen.
There was lengthy discussion regarding this proposed joint
meeting, as well as the possible date on which to hold the
meeting.
It was the concensus of the Council that the meeting would
be held on either Friday, September 11 and Saturday,
September 12, or Friday September 18 and Saturday September
19, whichever dates are most convenient for all concerned.
The time of the meeting would be commencing on Friday at
6:30 P.M., and Saturday morning at 7:00 A.M., adjourning at
12 Noon on Saturday, with the City Clerk directed to notice
a Special Meeting when the dates have been determined.
11. Request from Council Member Waller to rescind the action
taken on Ordinance No. 640 at its First Reading due to the
fact that erroneous information was provided.
There was lengthy discussion concerning this request and the
reasons for the request being made.
The discussion is a matter of record on the tape and is
available for review if it is desired.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Shaw, to rescind and expunge from the record any action
taken on Ordinance No. 640 at its first reading.
AYES:
Council Member
Mayor Partain.
NOES:
None.
ABSTAIN:
None.
ABSENT:
None.
Connors, Shaw, Waller and
12. Request from Council Member Waller to Consider Scheduling an
Information and Briefing Workshop for Interested Council
Candidates for the November, 1987 City Election.
Page 15
Beaumont City Council
August 24, 1987
After discussion of this request, the request was withdrawn
by Council Member Waller.
Let the record show Council Member Waller left his seat at
8:31 P.M.
13. CONSENT CALENDAR - All items listed under the Consent
Caencar are considered to be routine by the City Council
and will be approved on one motion. There will be no
separate discussion of these items unless a Council Member
or Citizen so requests, in which case the item will be
removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a
separate item.
a. Approval of Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of
August 10, 1987.
b. Acceptance of Minutes of Regular Planning Commission
Meeting of August 4, 1987.
C. Approval of Warrants as Audited per Warrant List of
August 24, 1987, in the amount of $43,338.68; and
Payroll of August 6, 1987, in the amount of $45,767.60.
d. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -60 - Approving the Application for
Grant Funds under t e Community Parklands Act of 1986
for Stewart Park Rehabilitation and Development and
Rangel Park Rehabilitation and Development.
e. Consideration of Approval of Supplemental Agreement for
Use of 13th Year (1987 -88) Community Development Block
Grant Funds.
f. Authorization for City Manager to Execute 1987 -88
Title V NCOA Senior Community Service Employment
Program Agreement with Office on Aging.
g. Consideration of Approval of Negative Declaration 87-
ND-22. Applicant: Jasper Stone Development Co.
Location: North side of 6th Street between American
and Illinois. A commercial and medical building plus
mini - warehouse and parking. (87- PP -11, Am. #1).
h. Consideration of Approval of Negative Declaration 87-
ND-23. Applicant: Beaumont CKS Partnership.
Location: West of N/W Corner of 14th and Beaumont.
Plot Plan for 152 Units. (87 -PP -2, Am. #2).
i. Report of Planning Commission Action at Meeting of
August 18, 1987.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Connors, to approve the Consent Calendar.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Waller.
14. Recess to Closed Session Pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(a) to Confer with Its Attorney Regarding Pending
Litigation Which Has Been Initiated Formally and to which
the City is a Party.
Page 16
Beaumont City Council
August 24, 1987
The title of the litigation is Howlett vs City of Beaumont,
Case No. 167158, Riverside Superior Court.
The meeting was recessed to closed session at 8:35 P.M.
The meeting was reconvened to regular session at 8:54 P.M.
Let the record show Council Member Waller returned to the
meeting during closed session, but the time was not noted.
Let the record show a report was given regarding pending
litigation, direction was given by Council, but no
definitive action was taken.
Date Set for Next Regular Council Meeting, Monday, September
14, 1987, at 6:00 P.M.
There being no further business to come before the Council,
on motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Connors, the meeting was adjourned at 8:56 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
/ a
Page 17
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
SPECIAL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 3, 1987
(JOINT MEETING WITH BANNING CITY COUNCIL)
The Beaumont City Council met in a special meeting at 7:00 P.M.,
on Thursday, September 3, 1987, at the Sizzler Restaurant in
Banning, for the purpose of a joint meeting with the Banning City
Council.
On roll call the following Council Members were present:
Connors, Shaw and Mayor Partain. Let the record show Council
Member Waller arrived at 7:45 P.M.
1. Clerk's Affidavit of Posting.
The clerk's affidavit of posting the agenda is a matter of
record.
2. Discussion of Items of Common Concern to Both Cities.
City Managers Robert J. Bounds and Sam Racadio made
individual presentations concerning each City. There was
discussion regarding items of common concern to both cities,
but no actions were taken.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert J.PBounds, City C erk.
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
SEPTEMBER 14, 1987
The Beaumont City Council met in a regular meeting at 6:01 P.M., on
Monday, September 14, 1987, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor
Partain presiding.
On roll call the following Council Members were present: Connors, Shaw
and Mayor Partain. Let the record show Council Member Waller arrived at
6:09 P.M.
The Invocation was given by City Manager Robert J. Bounds.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Record - Gazette reporter
Wayne Russell.
1. Clerk's Affidavit of Posting.
The Clerk's affidavit of posting the agenda was read into the
record by the Deputy City Clerk.
2. Adjustments to Agenda.
There were no adjustments to the agenda.
3. ORAL COMMUNICATION:
There was no one requesting to speak during oral communication.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - 6:00 P.M.
4. APPEAL of Planning Commission Decision Concerning Pre - Zoning
Determination for Annexation 87- ANX -3 -40. Appellant:
Jasper Stone Development. Location: 4.26 acres at the N/W
Corner of Cougar and Sunnyslope Avenue.
The Public Hearing was Opened at 6:05 P.M.
Mr. David Sumner, Sanford and Webb, representing Jasper Stone:
I am at somewhat of a disadvantage on this project because we are
not the designer of the subdivision itself. I do know that they
are having a difficult time making it fit. The 6,000 sq.ft. It is
probably more like 5800. The concern is that they do want to put
in a subdivision that fits about a 5600 sq.ft. lot, rather than the
required 7,000 sq.ft. lot. They are asking for the 5,000. But it
will come closer to 55 and 58. But I am not privy to the tentative
map that has been drawn by the other engineer.
Mayor Partain: Okay. Does anybody have any questions of Mr.
Sumner. Do you have anything further.
Mr. Sumner: No, we can't add anymore than that Mayor and Members
of the Council, other than his desire, and the purpose of it. In
the configuration, he has two streets, he has Sunnyslope and he has
Cougar Way. And because of the setback requirements and certain
street requirements, he can't squeeze his amount of lots on to that
configuration. If it were the other way perhaps - it is not square,
it is rectangular, and it just doesn't pencil out if he loses
anymore lots than on the prescribed 5,000. Thank you.
Mayor Partain: Anyone else wishing to speak on behalf of the
appeal. Anyone else here wishing to speak on behalf of the appeal.
Anyone wishing to speak against the appeal. Anyone wishing to
speak at all. Okay, we will close the public hearing.
Page 1
Beaumont City Council
September 14, 1987
The Public Hearing was closed at 6:08 P.M.
The City Council received comments from the City Manager concerning
the two maps which had been attached to Jasper Stone's appeal,
showing the proposed subdivision at 5,000 sq.ft. and what it would
be at the 7,000 sq.ft. With the 5,000 sq.ft., he would have 24
lots averaging 5000 -6000 sq.ft. He is asking for Residential High
Density in that that is the only zoning that the City has that
allows 5,000 sq.ft. lots for single family homes.
There were no questions from the Council.
a. Consideration of Granting or Denying the Appeal.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member Shaw, to
hold Item No. 4 over until after they have had the joint Planning
Commission -City Council meeting this weekend, and then from there
get a better understanding of what we all are coming from, or where
we are coming from, and he feels as though the Council would be
premature in doing anything with this unless the Council has had
the chance to meet together and find out what is in the best
interest of the City.
There was lengthy discussion concerning the timeframe within which
a decision must be made. Mr. Whittier, the representative for
Jasper Stone, arrived at the meeting at this time. He was asked if
they would agree to waive the time limit in order to continue the
Council's decision until September 28. Mr. Whittier agreed to sign
a written waiver, which was given to the Clerk for filing.
Mr. Whittier also requested to address the Council concerning the
appeal. Mayor Partain pointed out a motion was on the floor at
this time, and the public hearing had been closed.
Council Member Waller and Council Member Shaw were asked if they
would be willing to withdraw the motion and second in order to
allow Mr. Whittier to address the Council.
MOTION AND SECOND WITHDRAWN by Council Member Waller and Council
Member Shaw.
Ronald P. Whittier, representing Jasper Stone Development: May I
ask a question. Did you receive the little subdivision - the two
ways.
Mayor Partain: Yes.
Mr. Whittier: I think that the discussion that went on at the
Planning Commission was that there was some concern that anyone
that would come in and annex to the City it would set a precedence
of having 5,000 sq.ft. lots that you may not want to be a
precedent. I think the City Attorney recommended that if there was
a vote on 5,000 sq.ft., there should be some special circumstances
on a piece of property - why you do it - then there wouldn't be a
precedent set.
At that meeting I did not bring in a plat map showing - and I think
that you can see from the two plats that the only reason I have a
problem, and maybe that is why you are discussing this, is because
of the zoning. There is not an area for me to go in other than to
request high density in order to get just six units per acre, is
all I would be getting because the lots are 112 in depth, and if
you gave me - if the high density was granted, we would have 50 x
112, which is 5700 plus square feet, which is almost the 6,000
Page 2
Beaumont City Council
September 14, 1987
sq. ft. If we went to the medium density, then we would be going
to 6700 sq.ft., and the circumstances on this property - being a
corner lot and the depth of ratio of the lots, we have an interior
street going through and then the whole exterior street, and we
started the annexing process - it was a positive attitude to come
into the City - wanting to complete this street - providing some
adequate housing close to the school, which would be, like I said,
some 5700 plus square foot lots. I wasn't totally prepared at the
time of Planning Commission, I didn't show it, so, in your thoughts
over the next week, or when you are discussing it, I think there is
special circumstances, because there is a complete corner and
exterior street for improvement, and an interior street, and the
lots are like no mans land where they are not really 5,000 sq.ft.,
they are 55. The problem comes is with not wanting to have high
density. But the whole street averages out easily 16 units per
acre, and we are talking about six units per acre, and I think the
City Attorney did remark that we could put a stipulation on the
subdivision, or on this piece of property, that I would go R -1 and
that is the intent. It is just because of the zoning problems, so,
and I think it really boils down to does the City want this piece
of property into the City, annexed, or left in the County. But,
whoever gets it, whether it be myself or someone else, would be
faced with the same problems because of the configuration of the
property.
I thank you for listening. It might give you some thoughts until
the next time that I see you.
There were no questions from the Council.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member Shaw, to
continue this appeal to the regular meeting of September 28, 1987.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
5. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 22561 - Applicant: DevCorp. Location:
Vass' ' Lane, East -oT Beaumont Ave., South of Brookside. A
proposed division of 4.9 acres into 27 lots.
The Public Hearing was opened at 6:25 P.M.
Mr. David Hacker, Hacker Engineering, representing the applicant:
Primarily I am here to address the tentative tract 22561, which is
a resubdivision of a portion of tract 20011 -1, which was just
recently approved - the final map was - by the Council. What this
new tentative map is striving to do is to provide better traffic
circulation, eliminate a large lot that was created in tract 20011-
1, and provide for good usage of the property. As you will notice
the reconfiguration of the subdivision of this tract, if approved,
would indeed provide for a much better shot on Vassili Lane, and
also for other lots that are within the subdivision, and actually
approve, I believe, about 15 new lots and combine this with
additional lots that are already in there approved in tract 20011.
I am here basically to answer any questions that you may have.
Mayor Partain: Mr. Waller do you have questions.
Council Member Waller: Yes. Are we on a time line on this
particular project. I am not sure whether I am asking you or our
attorney.
Page 3
Beaumont City Council
September 14, 1987
City Attorney: I don't think we have any time constraints on this.
City Manager: No.
Mayor Partain: Mr. Shaw. Council Member Connors. No. Okay. Any
other proponents wishing to speak on behalf of the project. Do we
have any opponents. Anyone wishing to speak against the project.
Anyone wishing to speak at all. No one wishing to speak at all.
The Public Hearing was closed at 6:28 P.M.
The City Manager clarified that this resubdivision creates
something that was recommended by staff to DevCorp, and reduces the
density from that which was proposed in tract 20011 -1, and staff
strongly recommends approval of the new map.
a. Consideration of Adoption of Negative Declaration 87-
ND-26.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member Connors, to
adopt Negative Declaration 87- ND -26.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
b. Consideration of Approval of Tentative Tract Map
22561.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member Shaw,
to approve Tentative Tract Map 22561.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
6. PROPOSED 1987 -88 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET AND PROPOSED USE OF
FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING FUNDS
The City Council received a report from the City Manager regarding
the proposed use of revenue sharing funds for police department
operations in 1987 -88.
The Public Hearing was opened at 6:32 P.M.
There were no proponents or opponents requesting to speak.
The Public Hearing was closed at 6:35 P.M.
a. Consideration of Approval of Use of Revenue Sharing
Entitlement Funds.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member Shaw,-,to
approve the use of Federal Revenue Sharing Entitlement Funds of
$205,799 for Police Department operating costs.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Page 4
Beaumont City Council
September 14, 1987
b. Consideration of Adoption of 1987 -88 Fiscal Year
Budget.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Connors, to adopt the 1987 -88 Fiscal Year Budget in the
total amount of $4,964,311, which includes a General Fund
Budget of $2,959,490.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
END PUBLIC HEARINGS.
7. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -62 - Indicating Intent to Provide for
the Issuance of O- gations in an Amount Not To Exceed
$6,300,000 for the Orchard Park Apartments Project.
Ms. Robin Ellins, of the Riverside County Economic and
Community Development Department, addressed the Council,
giving them the background information concerning this type
of financing mechanism, and why the County wishes the City
to adopt a resolution of this type rather than the County.
Mr. John Sims, American Housing Corporation, developers of
Orchard Park Apartments, addressed the Council concerning
their need for this type of financing and the adoption of
the resolution.
There was discussion by the Council with questions asked of
both Ms. Ellins and Mr. Sims.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Shaw, to continue this agenda item to the regular meeting of
September 28, 1987.
AYES: Council Member Shaw, Waller and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: Council Member Connors.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
8. Consideration of Claim for Damages Filed by Rhonda Pickon,
Geraldine Robinson, Shelly Brown, Debra Crawford, and Loren
Patrice d'Aunoy- Payne.
The City Council received a report from the City Manager
concerning this claim, with additional input from the City
Attorney.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Shaw, to reject each individual claim as found in Agenda
Item No. 8, based on the findings that Interstate 10 is not
in Beaumont's jurisdiction for maintenance purposes, with
the City Clerk directed to send individual Notice of
Rejections to each claimant.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Council Member
Mayor Partain.
None.
None.
None.
Page 5
Connors, Shaw, Waller and
Beaumont City Council
September 14, 1987
9. Consideration of Claim for Damages Filed by Albert A.
Hershey dba Hershey Door Company.
The City Attorney presented his findings and recommendation
that this claim be removed from the agenda and a Notice of
Insufficient Claim be mailed to the claimant.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Shaw to remove this item from the agenda on the
recommendation of the City Attorney.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
10. Consideration of Claim for Damages Filed by Nationwide
Insurance on Behalf of Charles Crafts, Jr.
A report concerning this claim was received from the City
Manager.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Waller, to authorize payment of $1,798.34 to Nationwide
Mutual Insurance Company in full payment for damages to
automobile owned by Charles Crafts, Jr.
AYES:
Council Member
Mayor Partain.
NOES:
None.
ABSTAIN:
None.
ABSENT:
None.
Connors, Shaw, Waller and
11. ORDINANCE NO. 646 - SECOND READING - Rezoning Certain
Property from PUD TPlanned Unit Development) to Commercial
Highway Services. Applicant: Beaumont Interstate Ltd.
Location: Highway 60 and Southern Pacific Railroad, S/W of
Interstate 10 (87-RZ -4).
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Shaw, to continue this agenda item until September 28, 1987.
AYES: Council Member Shaw and Waller.
NOES: Council Member Connors and Mayor Partain.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
MOTION FAILED.
Motion to Read Ordinance No. 646 by title only.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Connors, to read Ordinance No. 646 by title only.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
The Ordinance was read by title only by the Deputy City
Clerk.
Motion to Adopt Ordinance No. 646 at its second reading.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Mayor Partain,
to adopt Ordinance No. 646 at its second reading.
Page 6
AYES:
Council Member
Partain.
NOES:
Council Member
ABSTAIN:
None.
ABSENT:
None.
Beaumont City Council
September 14, 1987
Connors, Shaw and Mayor
Waller.
12. a. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -63 - Proclaiming October 25-October
9 7 as "Ta i ornia Red Ribbon Week" in the City of
Beaumont; and Supporting a Coordination of Effort to
Deal with Drug Problems in the Pass Area.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Waller, to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -63.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
b. Request from Pass Area Drug Abuse Council for Financial
Contribution for "Red Ribbon Week ".
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Shaw, to authorize a donation of $600.00 to the Pass Area
Drug Abuse Council in support of "Red Ribbon Week" with the
funds to be taken from Account No. 1050 -4096, City Council -
Community Promotion.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
13. CONSENT CALENDAR - All items listed under the Consent
Calendar are considered to be routine by the City Council
and will be approved on one motion. There will be no
separate discussion of these items unless a Council Member
or Citizen so requests, in which case the item will be
removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a
separate item.
Prior to consideration of the Consent Calendar Council
Member Waller requested that Consent Calendar Item No. 13.f
be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered
separately.
a. Approval of Minutes of Special Council Meeting of
August 17, 1987, Adjourned Special Council Meeting of
August 19, 1987, Regular Council Meeting of August 24,
1987 and Special Council Meeting of September 3, 1987.
b. Acceptance of Minutes of Regular Planning Commission
Meeting of August 18, 1987.
C. Approval of Payment of Warrants as Audited per Warrant
List of September 14, 1987, in the amount of
$173,916.82; Payroll of August 20, 1987, in the amount
of $45,173.76 and Payroll of September 3, 1987, in the
amount of $51,477.16.
Page 7
Beaumont City Council
September 14, 1987
d. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -64 - Setting Forth an
Appropriations Limit for 1987 -88 Consistent with
Article XIII B of the California Constitution and
Giving Notice of Availability of Information Supporting
Said Determination.
e. Authorization to Request Sealed Bids for Street Overlay
Work in the City.
g. Report of Planning Commission Action at meeting of
September 1, 1987.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Connors, to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception
of Item "f ".
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
14. Consideration of Adoption of Negative Declaration 87- ND -18.
Applicant: TRS Enterprise. Location: S/W Corner of First
Street and Pennsylvania. A proposed 97 Space RV Park.
There was lengthy discussion concerning this project and the
fact that the State preempts what the City can and cannot do
with mobile home parks.
The City Attorney emphasized that to deny a Negative
Declaration there must be specific findings that impacts on
the environment will not be mitigated.
The City Council are to submit any questions they may have
concerning this project to the City Manager by the end of
the current week, in order that staff may provide answers
prior to the next meeting.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Connors, to continue this agenda item until the regular
meeting of September 28, 1987.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Date Set for Next Regular Council Meeting, Monday, September
28, 1987.
There being no further business to come before the Council,
on motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Shaw, the meeting was adjourned at 8:20 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert J. Bounds,
City Manager
Page 8
a.
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
AND
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 18 AND SEPTEMBER 19, 1987
The Beaumont City Council and Beaumont Planning Commission met in
a joint special meeting at 6:35 p.m., on Friday, September 18,
1987, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor Partain presiding.
On roll call the following Council Members were present:
Connors, Shaw and Mayor Partain. Let the record show Council
Member Waller arrived at 6:46 p.m.
On roll call the following Commissioners were present: Ingrao,
Remy, Schuelke and Chairperson Burton. Commissioner Tapp was
excused.
1. Clerk's Affidavit of Posting.
The Clerk's Affidavit of posting the agenda was read into
record by the Deputy City Clerk.
2. ORAL COMMUNICATION:
There was no one requesting to speak under oral
communication.
At this time, the meeting was turned over to City Attorney
George Ryskamp.
3. Discussion of Zoning and General Plan of Beaumont;
Development Agreements; and Other Land Use Planning Tools as
they Relate to the City of Beaumont.
The discussion was opened by City Attorney George Ryskamp
with a listing and brief discussion concerning the goals of
this joint meeting.
A presentation was then given by Consultant Planning
Director, Valerie Beeler, giving a step by step analysis of
planning procedures and controls. Ms. Beeler distributed a
flow chart concerning planning procedure to enhance her
presentation.
There was lengthy discussion with participation by the City
Attorney, Planning Director, Members of the Council and
Members of the Planning Commission relative to various
planning procedures.
There was no discussion concerning the General Plan or
Development Agreements at this time.
4. Motion by Chairperson Burton, second by Commissioner Remy,
to adjourn this meeting to 7:00 a.m., Saturday, September
19, 1987, in the City Council Chambers.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 P.M.
5. The meeting was reconvened at 7:20 a.m., on Saturday,
September 19, 1987, in the City Council Chambers, with
Chairperson Burton calling the meeting to order.
Page 1
Beaumont City Council
September 18 and 19,
1987.
On roll call the following Council Members were present:
Connors and Mayor Partain. Let the record show Council
Member Shaw arrived at 7:40 a.m., and Council Member Waller
arrived at 8:12 a.m.
On roll call the following Commissioners were present:
Ingrao, Remy, Schuelke and Chairperson Burton. Commissioner
Tapp was excused.
6. Discussion continued concerning planning procedures, with
City Attorney Ryskamp and Consultant Planning Director
Valerie Beeler leading the discussion.
The discussion was then directed to the General Plan.
The general outline of the discussion is as follows:
A. General Plan Principles.
1. Legislative Framework.
2. Fundamental Concepts.
a. Constituion of Local Land Use Planning.
b. Legal Review Doctrines.
(1) Adequacy.
(2) Consistency.
3. Procedures for Adopting or Amending General Plan.
4. Annual Review and Update.
B. Review of Beaumont General Plan.
1. Element other than Housing.
2. Housing Element
3. The Map.
C. Discussion.
1. City Development Goals.
2. Housing Patterns.
a. Overall Goals.
b. Problems in Specific Areas.
c. Ways to conform to regional and local needs.
3. Other General Plan Considerations.
A number of handouts were given to the Council and
Commission by the City Attorney and Planning Director for
their use during the discussions and for future use.
Included were a flow chart of the subdivision map process,
the existing housing element of the Beaumont General Plan,
the State of California General Plan Guidelines, recent
public law developments and a CEQA Process Flow Chart.
The meeting was recessed at 10:05 a.m., reconvening at 10:25
a.m.
There was in -depth discussion concerning the housing element
and the related zoning, with the City Attorney reviewing the
element page by page. There were numerous questions from
the Council and Commission addressing, in particular, the
high density zonings.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Connors, to direct the Planning Commission to study a
General Plan Amendment and zone change in the area of the
western City limits to Cherry, and from 6th to 11th, for the
purpose of changing the General Plan and zoning from high
density to single family.
Page 2
Beaumont City Council
September 18 and 19,
1987.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Connors, to direct staff to review the need for a review and
revision of the General Plan, in particular the housing
element, and come back to Council with a proposal for
accomplishing that review and revision.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and
Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Time did not allow discussion pertaining to Development
Agreements.
On motion by Council Member Waller, the meeting was
adjourned at 12:16 p.m.
Page 3
Respectfully submitted,
J I v I
y city tier
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
SEPTEMBER 28, 1987
The Beaumont City Council met in a regular meeting at 6:01 p.m., on
Monday, September 28, 1987, in the City Council Chamber, with Mayor
Partain presiding.
On roll call the following Council members were present: Connors,
Shaw and Mayor Partain. Let the record show Council Member Waller
arrived at 6:10 p.m.
The Invocation was given by City Attorney George Ryskamp.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Council Member
Connors.
1. Clerk's Affidavit of Posting.
The Clerk's Affidavit of posting the agenda was read into the
record by the Deputy City Clerk.
2. Adjustments to Agenda.
There were no adjustments to the agenda.
3. ORAL COMMUNICATION: Anyone wishing to address the Council under
oral communication, or on any agenda item, should fill out a
Request to Speak Form and give it to the City Clerk at the
beginning of the meeting. (The forms are available on the
railing next to the City Clerk's desk.)
There was no one requesting to speak during oral communication.
4. PROCLAMATION Declaring October 4 through October 10, 1987 as
"Fire Prevention Week" in the City of Beaumont.
A proclamation declaring October 4 through October 10, 1987 as
"Fire Prevention Week" was read into the record by the Deputy
City Clerk.
The proclamation was then signed by Mayor Partain and City Clerk
Robert Bounds.
5. PUBLIC HEARING - 6:00 P.M. - APPEAL of Planning Commission
Approval of Public Use Permit 87 -PUP -1 for the 1st Southern
Baptist Church. Location: 640 E. 14th Street. Appellant:
Steve Quinn.
The Public Hearing was opened at 6:08 P.M.
Mr. Steve Quinn, 695 E. 14th, Beaumont, the appellant: I have a
couple of documents I would like to show you. Is that okay?
(Mr. Quinn submitted the documents to the Council). This is the
map of future development of the church across the street from
me. I have got yellow lines on what is already there, and of the
houses directly across the street and what is to be affected by
the new development, and the dust that their dirt parking lot
creates now. And I would also like to show you a petition that I
have, and every neighbor on there has signed it.
Mayor Partain: Did you wish to state anything further.
Mr. Quinn: My only problem is I would like that area that they
call a gravel parking area - I would like it paved. As for the
other stuff, that is no problem. I am all for the church
expanding, it is a nice place and all that, I just want that area
paved. So they would - to alleviate the parking problem - and
also to get rid of the traffic, which is a safety hazard and a
dust problem.
Beaumo City Council
Septemx,-:r 28, 1987
Mayor Partain: Okay. Council Member Connors, did you have any
questions of Mr. Quinn.
Council Member Connors: Not just yet.
Mayor Partain: Mr. Shaw, did you have any questions.
Council Member Shaw: No, I live up there. I know what their
problem is.
Mr. Quinn: Can I say something else.
Mayor Partain: Sure.
Mr. Quinn: They are in violation of their public use permit
right now. They are totally in violation of it and it has been
going on for five years and four months, and they haven't made
one effort to do anything about it, and they haven't watered the
parking area over there for about five months. They are just
flaunting it in my face, putting the dirt in my house.
Mayor Partain: Okay. Any questions of Mr. Quinn. Did you want
these entered into the record, or are these something that you
want to keep.
Mr. Quinn: I would like a copy of the petition in case this goes
further.
Mayor Partain: Have you had the opportunity to read this Mr.
Bounds. Okay, Mr. Quinn, we will get this back to you. Okay is
there any other individuals here who wish to speak on behalf of
the appeal Mr. Quinn started. No one else. I have three
individuals then that wish to speak. Is that Mr. Meacham. Is
that correct. Would you please come forward and state your name
and address.
Mr. Bob Meacham, 690 E. 13th, Beaumont, speaking in opposition to
the appeal: I would just urge the Council to be consistent with
your Planning Commission. All of the issues that Mr. Quinn
raised at the Planning Commission hearing have been addressed in
the Public Use Permit that we have applied for. We are in a
catch 22. We have applied for and tried to get the City to tell
us where to put a curb and gutter. They did that about six
months ago and we had plans drawn up, and those plans are
currently before the City Engineer to put a curb and gutter
across from Mr. Quinn's house. In conjunction with that we fully
intend to pave that area. But we cannot do any of this until we
get a public use permit.
As far as being in violation of our current CUP, I don't believe
that is factual. But, nevertheless, that is not the issue
tonight. The issue tonight is on the appeal. We believe that
the appeal should be denied. All of the issues that Mr. Quinn
desires to see addressed are addressed in the public use permit,
and we urge your denial of the appeal, so that we can get on with
this thing and solve the problems. Thank you.
Council Member Waller: Did he say the appeal should be denied.
I just wanted to make sure. Did you say the appeal should be
denied.
Mr. Meacham: I believe that - yeah. I am willing to get on with
the public use permit. We are trying to get things done and
going, and if it takes a denial of the appeal - whatever it takes
to get the public use permit issued, that is what I want, as soon
as possible, so that we can alleviate these problems that Mr.
Quinn addresses.
Mayor Partain: Okay. Any further questions. Okay. Mr. Davis.
Page 2
Beauatont City Council
September 28, 1987
Mr. John Davis, 8001 Bluff Road, Banning, representing 1st
Southern Baptist Church, speaking in opposition to the appeal: As
I came before the Planning Commission several weeks ago, I just
simply wanted to state what I did at that time. Our church has
been growing rapidly, and when we built our last major addition to
the facility, we had been in and attempted to obtain permits to do
curb and gutter and improvements to the east of the building, even
prior to the time that we obtained the property on the west side.
Both permits have been held up pending whatever reasons through
City Engineer, and we would just urge you to give us the freedom
to put that public use permit, that the Planning Commission has
granted, that we could begin to function within the scope of that
- and I believe that as you review that you would find that the
problems that our neighbors have would be mitigated through the
use of that permit. Thank you.
Mayor Partain: Any questions of Mr. Davis.
Council Member Connors: Yes, you said something that confused me
a little. You said that the City had held up the curb and gutter
permits, but there is a curb in front of the church, and a
sidewalk coming from the church to the curb.
Mr. Davis: Yes there is. Only on the portion of the property
that existed at the time of our last building. Since then we have
obtained property to the east of that and to the west.
Council Member Connors: This CUP wasn't for the building of the
church - the original one in 1982 - the church was there already.
Mr. Davis: No it wasn't. The church was already there. That is
correct.
Council Member Connors: And when the church was built there was
no requirement for a parking lot.
Mr. Davis: That is correct.
Council Member Connors: Thank you.
Mayor Partain: Anything else. Mr. Waller. Mr. Shaw. Thank you
Mr. Davis. Mr. Harris.
Mr. Harris: I'll pass.
Mayor Partain: Okay. Anyone else wishing to speak this evening.
Item No. 5. Okay. Do you have any questions that you want to
address to anyone that has spoken so far. Mrs. Connors, Mr. Shaw,
Mr. Waller.
Council Member Waller: I am not sure that I and the public -
I always say the public that way it covers up the fact that I
might not understand - when it comes to the conditions Mr. Quinn
cites . . .
Mayor Partain: Mr. Quinn, would you please step forward.
Council Member Waller: Now, there are a total of five prior to
September 1, and then three more. Is that correct. Conditions of
the CUP. There were five and then three more added September 1st.
Mr. Quinn: This was the Planning Commission of this month,
September, yes, I believe so.
Council Member Waller: Okay. Out of these how many are you aware
of that have been met.
Mayor Partain: Mr. Ryskamp, did you -have something.
City Attorney: Might I - to eliminate quite a bit of confusion
that I see coming up, on Mr. Bounds' statement to you, the first
five were conditions when the CUP was granted back in 1982. 2A
D� -^ I
Bez ont City Council
Septamber 28, 1987
was deleted by the City Council, presumedly on appeal from the
Planning Commission at that time. Interestingly enough, they
deleted the requirement for concrete or asphalt, but left in the
one for striping, which is a little difficult to do on gravel.
But that is, in fact, what the record indicates happened. With
this CUP then, this is what exists now, minus 2A, which the City
Council deleted in the pertinent part. What you have, the other
three conditions are those which Mr. Bounds thought were pertinent
out of a list of some 12, including the last two, were ones that
were added. Eleven and twelve being added to the original list of
conditions of approval due to concern by the Planning Commission.
I would also note that these do, as always, incorporate the City
Engineer's recommendation, which, while in a much more abbreviated
form than we normally receive from him, the City would require
paving, and that was basically stated several times at the
Planning Commission. But it does not appear as a definite stated
condition. Just so that you have got a background while you are
exploring the different issues from where they are at this time.
Council Member Waller: Yeah. I got that one.
Mayor Partain: Do you have some questions specifically for Mr.
Quinn. The reason I want to know, I will go ahead and close the
Public Hearing and get staff report at this time, if you don't
have any questions.
Mr. Quinn: May I add something. Mr. Meacham said he didn't
believe they were in violation of their CUP at all. I would like
to show you they haven't followed any of them except, the only
one, 3D, any outside lighting shall be hooded. That is the only
one they have lived up to of all the conditions. And I would like
to have the City Attorney explain this to me. On the agenda of
the City Council dated July 26, 1982, I would like you to explain
this. If they deleted 2A, okay, now, it says, with the exception
of the deletion of 2A. Can you explain that wording to me. If
it was deleted, that put it back in doesn't it.
City Attorney: I am not sure what is being referred to at this
time. I know what the statement is that Mr. Bounds has given us,
and what the conditions of approval we had on record were.
Mr. Quinn: So this is erroneous. That is still in. So they are
in violation of that one too. It was never.deleted. With the
exception of the deletion --
(There is some discussion from the audience, which is not
intelligible on the tape).
Mayor Partain: I don't think that is the issue at this point. As
I see the question and what is before us, is whether or not any of
the things you have raised will be mitigated. That is the
question.
Mr. Quinn: I would like a date and time, that is the whole thing.
Mayor Partain: As we look at it, that is what we need to look at.
Mr. Quinn: That is what all the neighbors signed that petition
for. They would like to see something done about it.
Mayor Partain: Okay. Thank you very much.
Council Member Shaw: May I say a few words.
Mayor Partain: Are you going to ask anybody questions.
Council Member Shaw: Well, no, I just wanted - - -
Mayor Partain: Let me go ahead and close the public hearing, Mr.
Shaw, and we will get staff- - -
Page 4
Bear ont City Council
Sep'L. ,.nber 28, 1987
Mr. Meacham: May I just make one comment please. Again, this may
be part of the misunderstanding that we have had with Mr. Quinn.
The copy of the CUP that I have is dated July 19, 1983, and his is
not, and, therefore, that may be cause for some of the acrimony,
and what not, and I just think that if we just sat down and talked
about this we could get it ironed out. We want to be good
neighbors. As good as we possibly can be. We fully intend to put
in a curb and gutter and pave that area across from his house just
as soon as we get a permit to do so. We cannot apply for that
permit to do any work until we have a public use permit.
Mayor Partain: Okay. Thank you. All right, it is 6:24.
The Public Hearing was closed at 6:24 P.M.
The City Manager presented his staff report to the Council
concerning this appeal, reviewing the items listed in his
memorandum to them.
There were questions from the Council, and lengthy discussion with
the Council, the appellant, the representatives of 1st Southern
Baptist Church and the City Attorney participating.
At the conclusion of the discussion, the City Manager stated it
appeared the east parking lot is the bone of contention, and needs
to be done quickly. One of the things the Council may want, if
Mr. Quinn is willing to do so, is some statement on his part that
if this is taken care of, they would be willing to live with the
conditions to be a part of the construction of the new building.
If that is not the case, there are other items in the appeal
which have to be answered. Before they go further, they should
hear from Mr. Quinn that if they agree to condition the east
parking lot with 90 day completion, or whatever timeframe they
have in mind, would he then consider withdrawing his appeal.
Mr. Quinn indicated that if it was conditioned to be completed
within a reasonable timeframe, or at least make an honest attempt
to pave the east parking lot, he would withdraw his appeal and
allow them to meet the other complaints in their new permit.
It was pointed out the Southern California Gas Co. gas line may
cause a problem in completing the curb and gutter, as it would
make no sense to pave the east parking lot until a safe entryway
has been determined, because if the line is too shallow, a car
could snag it and cause an explosion. As a result, the Southern
California Gas Company must approve any plans in that area, and
this may delay the paving of the east parking lot. It is
imperative that the gas company sign off on any plan in that area,
and this could affect the 90 day timeframe.
The Council could stipulate a 90 day deadline, and staff could
come back to them if there is a problem with the gas company
approval delaying paving of the parking lot. Additional time
could then be granted to the church, and Mr. Quinn could be
notified, who would notify his neighbors, and they would be aware
that it is seriously being worked on.
On the other hand, should the engineer for the church delay
getting their plans in, staff would notify the Council within 45
days of this fact, and recommend that they be called in
immediately.
Mr. Quinn stated if some kind of dust control would be implemented
immediately, every weekend, he would be amenable to what has been
suggested.
The specifications and description of a product which does not
have an oil base were submitted by Mr. Davis for review by the
City Engineer. If it meets with his approval, this product would
be used for dust control on the parking lot.
Page 5
Beau, nt City Council
Sept4-_11Lber 28, 1987
It is the concensus of the Council that their intent is to amend
the conditions that have been forwarded to them by the Planning
Commission, with the recommendation that has been made by the City
Manager.
Let the record show Mr. Quinn has verbally agreed to withdraw his
appeal providing the Council sets a reasonable time table on the
1st Southern Baptist Church in regard to the east parking lot, and
the dust control problem that is there.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member Waller, to
adopt Negative Declaration 87- ND -28, and approve Public Use Per-
mit 87- PUP -1, with the amended conditions of approval as follows:
13a. A satisfactory dust control treatment shall be placed on
the east parking lot as soon as possible.
13b. That the 1st Southern Baptist Church has 90 days to
permanently pave the east parking lot. If there are
problems in preparing for the permanent paving due to
Southern California Gas Company's gas line that is on
the north side of 14th Street, that should be made known
to the Council by staff or by the 1st Southern Baptist
Church to staff to the Council as soon as possible.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
The meeting was recessed at 7:23 P.M., reconvening at 7:29 P.M.
6. Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Concerning Pre - Zoning De-
termination for Annexation 87- ANX -3 -40. Appellant: Jasper Stone
Development. Location: 4.26 acres at the N/W Corner of Cougar
and Sunnyslope Avenue. (Continued from September 14, 1987).
Let the record show the public hearing on this appeal was closed
on September 14, 1987, and no additional testimony was accepted.
The City Manager reviewed the appeal and what the appellant is
requesting concerning the density.
a. Consideration of Granting or Denying the Appeal.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Mayor Partain, to grant
the appeal making the zoning Residential High Density, with a deed
restriction that there only be single family residences built on
the property, with the deed restriction recorded and in the City's
hands prior to the annexation moving forward.
AYES: Council Member Waller.
NOES: Council Member Connors, Shaw and Mayor Partain.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
MOTION FAILED.
Let the record show there was discussion by the Council after the
above motion was made, but prior to the vote.
Since the motion granting the appeal failed, the appeal has been
denied without further motion.
d. Consideration of Adoption of Negative Declaration 87 -ND-
24.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member Shaw, to
adopt Negative Declaration 87- ND -24.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Beai nt City Council
September 28, 1987
e. ORDINANCE NO. 647 - FIRST READING - Prezoning 4.26 acres from
County R -A -1 (Residential Agriculture) to City Residential
Single Family (RSF). Applicant: Jasper Stone Development.
Location: N/W Corner of Cougar and Sunnyslope. (87 -ANX-
3-40).
Motion to read Ordinance No. 647 by title only.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Connors, to read Ordinance No. 647 by title only.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
The Ordinance was read by title only by the Deputy City Clerk.
Motion to pass Ordinance No. 647 at its first reading.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Connors, to pass Ordinance No. 647 at its first reading.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
7. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -62 - Indicating Intent to Provide for the
Issuance of Obligations in an Amount Not To Exceed $6,300,000
for the Orchard Park Apartments Project. (Continued from
September 14, 1987).
The City Manager presented his report concerning this resolution.
This report is a matter of record in the Clerk's file.
Mr. Ken Hobbs, representing Riverside County Economic and
Community Development, addressed the Council in favor of the
adoption of this resolution, and answering questions from the
Council.
The Council discussed the purpose of the resolution, with
questions being answered by the City Manager and Mr. Hobbs.
There being no motion to adopt the Resolution, no action was
taken.
8. Consideration of Adoption of Negative Declaration 87- ND -18. Appli-
cant: TRS Enterprise. Location: S/W Corner of First Street and
Pennsylvania. A proposed 97 Space RV Park. (Continued from
September 14, 1987).
At the request of TRS Developers, the following discussion has
been transcribed verbatim.
City Manager Bounds: Mr. Mayor, Member of the Council, tonight as
we entered the Council Chambers I was given three copies of well
information that was provided to TRS Enterprises, and believe it
is in the form of a recommendation or statement of what should be
done. One of the keys, I think, that is being portrayed is that
they would not use perch water but would go to depths much lower
than the perch water. If, in fact, that is true there is an
indication here, and I have not had the time to study this, that
there is a 400 foot ten inch well casing - and so forth. I have
three copies of these available if you would like to look at this.
Mayor Partain: Who are they from.
Mr. Bounds: Look back - the third from the last. They are all
three the same. The letter is about the third page from the rear.
From a well driller.
Mayor Partain: We will pass these out if you wish to look at them
real quickly, go right ahead.
Be nont City Council
Sep ,-ember 28, 1987
Mr. Schloesinger, please state your full name and address.
Mr. Todd Schloesinger, developer of the proposed project, 14405
California Street, Beaumont: What you have in front of you is
from McCullough Brothers Well Drilling, and also Mr. Ward, who
originally had a concern about the water at 150 feet. He has made
a log there of his well and some other wells in the area. This is
perch water which is 150 to 200 feet deep. As you look at Page
No. 1 from McCullough Brothers, the second and third paragraph,
you will see that we are going to go down at least 300 feet, if
not 600 feet. He made an indication on his report that in the
area he had drilled wells that would be substantial enough for the
usage we need at 300 feet, however, we could go down to 6. We
also feel that there would be no drainage problems to the upper
levels. Thank you.
Mayor Partain: We have continued this item. This is a continued
item from our last meeting. Mr. Waller, you asked for the
continuance. Do you have something to say at this time.
Council Member Waller: Yes. I have carefully reviewed the
application for the RV park and the action taken by the Planning
Commission. I have found that their approval was based on the
interpretation by the Planning Director of the compatibility of an
RV park with other residential agricultural uses. I disagree with
that interpretation. RV parks are properly zoned in the large
open space zones in our City.. I find questions have been raised
as to significant impacts on the RA zone surrounding this project
due to the transient nature of an RV park, which are not mitigated
by this project. Questions have also risen as to the impacts of
the project on the water availability and quality for nearby
residences, I therefore move that the Negative Declaration be
denied based on findings that the placing of an RV park in an RA
zone would have significant impact on the rural lifestyle of
residents surrounding the project which are not mitigated by this
project.
Mayor Partain: You have heard the statement and the motion by Mr.
Waller. Do we have a second. Do we have a second. Okay. I am
going to second for the sake of discussion. All right.
Interesting questions Mr. Waller. Mr. Ryskamp, I guess, Mr.
Bounds, Mr. Ryskamp, the ball is going to be in your field here.
Question is raised to zoning. The RA zone. Is this compatible in
RA zoning.
City Attorney: It is not a specifically listed permitted use. My
understanding earlier on was that this was an open space zone. It
is not, it is a residential agricultural. The Planning Director
did make an interpretation that it was compatible - it was a
similar use. However, our open space zone specifically allows for
recreational vehicle parks, whereas, our RA zone does not. It
allows CUPs for mobile home parks and other types of uses, but
recreational vehicle parks are not specifically included. So, in
our ordinance this is not a permitted use. We got an
interpretation that it is a compatible, similar use, therefore, is
being allowed. That is an interpretation. Obviously, the
final decision on that type of interpretation does not lie with
the Planning Director, but with this body.
Council Member Waller: Is it though, not by the letter of the
law, it is not one of the projects that could be considered.
City Attorney: It is not one of the specifically permitted
projects under a CUP in the RA zone.
Mayor Partain: Questions. Mr. Shaw do you have any questions
sir. Mrs. Connors do you have any questions.
Page 8
Bei font City Council
September 28, 1987
Council Member Connors: What does staff have in the - in the
information from the Planning Director to the Planning
Commission, this project analysis staff report, is that Title 17
RA zoning says the intent of the zoning is "designed to take
advantage of the rural environment as well as the outdoor
recreational potential of the community, and allows any use under
RSF, which includes mobile home parks, golf courses, tennis clubs,
country clubs and similar open space recreation facilities ". We
wouldn't be bound to this by this wording.
City Attorney: You have got an RV park. You mean are we bound by
the - - -
Council Member Connors: Are we bound by the wording that is in
17. This is quotes from 17. It says Page 42 of 17 and Page 36 of
17.
City Attorney: That is the two sections. That is your open space
and your RA requirements.
Council Member Connors: I'll tell you where I got this. I guess
it is about half way down.
City Attorney: The July 7th. Okay. Once again, there is the
determination that has been made that a recreational vehicle park
is a similar open space use as compared to mobile home parks, golf
courses, tennis clubs and country clubs. And, the interpretation
by the Planning Director is that that is, in fact, a similar use.
That is a word for word quote. The intent for the zone. The zone
then provides specifically for certain types of uses that are
allowed under a conditional use permit, and those include planned
residential developments, wind generators and mobile home parks.
Whereas, the open space zone - the intent of the open space zone
is to include - to recognize water courses, water shed areas,
public and private park lands, cemeteries, water areas, natural
resource lands, certain types of uninhabited agricultural lands,
wildlife preserves, and scenic and open space areas. It is also
the intent of this zone to provide for permanent open space in the
community by limiting development - it goes on to things that are
not relevant. It then lists specific permitted uses. Under
conditional use permit we have specifically recreational vehicle
and private travel trailer parks - is number six.
Mayor Partain: That is under open space.
City Attorney: That is under open space. It is clearly a
permitted use under a CUP in the open space. The question is
whether it - the question is being raised here is whether the
interpretation by the Planning Director that an RV park is similar
to a country club, a mobile home park, a golf course, is in fact
the case. And if it is not, does the placing of an RV park have a
significant impact on the intended lifestyles of a residential
agricultural zone. Actually, more specifically, does this project
have that impact.
Mayor Partain: Did you have something.
Council Member Shaw: We have to bring up space within that
certain area. They have to be restricted to so much footage for
vehicles and things like that. . . . designate this as strictly
a mobile home park.
City Manager: The proposed park is an RV park. It is not a
mobile home park. There are different restrictions.
Council Member Connors: Council Member Waller is saying that it
would have that impact because of its transient - - -
Mayor Partain: Mr. Waller is saying that it would not be the
same.
Council Member Connors: Yes. But it would have an impact on that
lifestyle because of the transient character of it.
T A
Be mont City Council
Sepuember 28, 1987
City Attorney: It has the potential for it, I think, is
what is being said, if I am understanding it. Once again,
remember, when dealing with Negative Declarations under CEQA,
you are looking at the question, is there evidence that there
may exist significant impacts which are not mitigated by the
project as it stands before you.
Council Member Shaw: But I understand that in a mobile home
park you must have 4,000 sq.ft., right.
City Attorney: There are very different requirements for
parking for the size of lot in a mobile home park.
Mayor Partain: This is the question being raised actually,
by Mr. Waller, Mr. Waller is saying because there are
conditions upon those - that an RV park, which does not have
those conditions, could possibly create a situation where
there would be more traffic and be detrimental - cause a more
congested area, and be detrimental to that type of lifestyle.
That is what he is saying.
Unidentified speaker: May I address the Council.
Mayor Partain: We have a motion and a second on the floor.
Council Member Waller: I am the maker of the motion. I
wouldn't mind if he were allowed to speak, if it is not out
of order.
Mayor Partain: I'm agreeable to it if the Council is
agreeable to it.
Council Member Connors: Yes.
Council Member Shaw: Does it boil down to a definition as
to what it is to be. A mobile home park or whatever.
Mayor Partain: Mr. Schloesinger wants to address the Council.
It is an RV park. There is no question about that. Are you
opposed to it, we do have a motion and a second.
Council Member Shaw: Okay.
Mayor Partain: Okay, come ahead then.
Mr. Schloesinger: There is now existing an RV park behind
this particular project. About a mile behind. They are 75%
to 80% occupied all year around, which gives them eleven
spaces that are available which are on a month to month. So
there is a possibility you won't have the transients as you
are saying. Most of them come for about six months or
something, or maybe three months, or maybe even month to
month. I don't think you will have the traffic that you are
concerned with from what I have seen from the other parks in
the area. That is all I wanted to say, thank you.
Mayor Partain: Okay. Further comments.
Council Member Shaw: The only thing that bothers me is a
designated area. Whether it will be 4,000 sq.ft.
Mayor Partain: It will not Mr. Shaw. This is an RV park,
not a mobile home park. You have no control as to how many
goes on the inside. You don't have any.
Council Member Shaw: Okay.
Mayor Partain: You don't have any. I don't know what the
situation, you know, whatever. The question that is raised
by Mr. Waller certainly is a legitimate, interesting
question. Now this Council, as I understand it, has to
decide whether the question as portrayed by Mr. Waller is the
correct interpretation as compared to what the Planning
Beaumont City Council
Sep ember 28, 1987
Director felt was the interpretation. Is that correct Mr.
Ryskamp. Is that what we are looking at.
City Attorney: The first question is yes. The answer to
that is yes, you have to determine that. Having made that
determination, if you determine that you do not agree with
the interpretation, then you need to make a determination to
adopt a Negative Declaration because there are, in your
opinion, no significant impacts that are not mitigated. Or
you reject it because there are significant impacts. Because
at this point, you are not approving or disapproving the
project. What is before you is only the Negative
Declaration. So if your interpretation is that it is a
dissimilar use, then your second conclusion to be able to
reject the Negative Declaration is that you have to find that
because of that dissimilar use, there are significant impacts
which are not mitigated by this project.
Council Member Shaw: What concerns me most is that it
stipulates so many square feet. Will that be adhered to.
That's what I mean - - -
City Attorney: Once again, we have already talked, in terms
of the details inside the RV park, it is not controlled by
the City. Nither would a mobile home park.
Council Member Waller: Is there not some type of requirement
that anybody within the recreational vehicle park must not be
a permanent resident. Which means that person must pack up
and leave every so often, so as to show that they are not,
and then maybe drive around the block and then come back.
Isn't there a certain time limit.
Council Member Shaw: Well the motor vehicle controls that
saying that you cannot stay any longer than a month, then you
must move.
Mayor Partain: I think - the question that Mr. Waller has
raised is being an RV park, if I have a camper and I drive in
there and rent a space is there something that says that
after six months or eight months or two weeks do I have to
leave and then be gone for a certain length of time and then
come back, and I don't believe there is.
Council Member Shaw: Well, I think that is up to the motor
vehicle. they have guidelines on that.
Mayor Partain: No, they don't
City Manager: We have no control within the park on a
vehicle that has flat tires, hasn't been moved in 72 hours,
or whatever, unless it becomes a health hazard. So -
restriction on parking for thirty days, I am not familiar
with that at all.
Council Member Waller: I am not saying thirty days, but
wouldn't it be - I mean how could it be a recreational
vehicle park if they can camp there forever - then it would
be a mobile home park.
City Manager: They are not mobile homes.
Council Member Connors: But it would be a residence. It
wouldn't be a recreational facility, it would be a residence.
Council Member Waller: Yeah. And that is not the way I
envision recreational vehicles.
Mayor Partain: Okay. Further comments. Mr. Ryskmap do you
have anything further. Mr. Bounds, do you have anything
further. All right, nothing further. Julia, would you read
the motion back to us.
n� -- ii
Be 'mont City Council
Se.-ember 28, 1987
Deputy City Clerk: The motion is that the negative
declaration be denied based on findings that the placing of
an RV park in an RA zone will have significant impacts on the
rural lifestyle of the residents surrounding the project,
which are not mitigated by this project.
Mayor Partain: Okay, that motion and second is on the floor.
If there is no further discussion or comments let us have the
roll call on it please.
For clarification of the record, the motion is shown below in
its proper form for the vote:
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Mayor Partain,
that the Negative Declaration be denied based on findings
that the placing of an RV park in an RA zone would have
significant impact on the rural lifestyle of residents
surrounding the project which are not mitigated by this
project.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
9. RESOLUTION 1987 -66 - Notice of Intention to Abandon a Portion of
Palm Avenue. Location: S/W Corner of Palm & 6th. Applicant: Don
Christante.
A report was received from the City Manager. This report is
a matter of record in the Clerk's file.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Shaw to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -66.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
10. Request for Authorization to Place Transit Tokens in Circulation,
and Offer Special Purchase Rate.
A report was received from the City Manager. This report is
a matter of record in the Clerk's file.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Waller, to authorize the use of tokens for one Dial -A -Ride
fare and further authorize a special rate of eleven Dial -
A -Ride tokens for the price of ten when purchased at the same
time.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
11. Consideration of Proposals Received from Architects for New Police
Facility.
A report was received from the City Manager, which is a
matter of record in the Clerk's file, with discussion
concerning his recommendations.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Connors, to act on the City Manager's and Police Chief's
recommendation of John F. Outcault, and allow them to
establish negotiations concerning the fees for the new police
facility.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
Prior to considering the Consent Calendar, at the request of
Council Member Waller, Item No. "a" was removed from the Consent
Calendar, to allow the Council sufficient time to review the
minutes, to be brought back with the agenda of October 12.
Page 12
Be 'mont City Council
September 28, 1987
12. CONSENT CALENDAR: All Items listed under the Consent Calendar are
considered to be routine by the City Council and will be approved
on one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these
items unless a Council Member or Citizen so requests, in which
case the item will be removed from the Consent Calendar and con-
sidered as a separate item.
a. Approval of Minutes of Regular City Council Meeting of
September 14, 1987.
b. Acceptance of Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting
of September 2, 1987.
C. Approval of Payment of Warrants as audited per Warrant List of
September 28, 1987, in the amount of $134,181.27; and
Payroll of September 17, 1987, in the amount of $41,069.99.
d. Consideration of Adoption of Negative Declaration 87- ND -27.
Applicant: Cosner. Location: 552 -558 California. Re-
quest to build an industrial metal type building.
e. Consideration of Adoption of Negative Declaration 87- ND -30.
Applicant: Dura Plastics Products, Inc. Location: 533 E.
Third Street. Addition to warehouse and office.
f. Authorization of Over Expenditure in the 1987 -88 Budget for
Materials Used in Lighting the Civic Center Hallway, Not to
Exceed $2,000.00, To Be Taken from Account 1450 -6030, General
Government - Buildings.
g. Report of Planning Commission Action at Meeting of September
15, 1987.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member Shaw, to
approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item No. "a ".
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Date set for next Regular Council Meeting, Monday, October 12, 1987 at
6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers.
There being no further business to come before the Council, on Motion
by Council Member Waller, the meeting was adjourned at 9:01 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Deputy City Clerk
Page 13
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
OCTOBER 12, 1987
The Beaumont City Council met in a regular meeting at 6:05 P.M.,
on Monday, October 12, 1987, in the City Council Chambers, with
Mayor Partain presiding.
On roll call the following Council members were present: Connors,
Shaw, Waller and Mayor Partain.
The Invocation was given by Mayor Partain.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Council Member
Waller.
1. Clerk's Affidavit of Posting.
The Clerk's affidavit of posting the agenda was read into the
record by the Deputy City Clerk.
2. Adjustments to Agenda.
The City Manager requested consideration of continuing Agenda
Item No. 14, first reading of Ordinance No. 648, to the
October 26, 1987 meeting.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council member
Shaw, to continue Agenda Item No. 14 to the October 26, 1987
meeting.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
3. ORAL COMMUNICATION: Anyone wishing to address the Council
under oral communication, or on any agenda item, should fill
out a Request to Speak Form and give it to the City Clerk at
the beginning of the meeting. (The forms are available on
the railing next to the City Clerk's desk.)
There was no one requesting to speak under oral communication.
4. PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 22523. Applicant:
DevCorp (Country Crossing). Location: North side of Cougar
Way, east of Beaumont Avenue. A proposed 44 lot single
family subdivision.
The Public Hearing was opened at 6:09 P.M.
Mr. David Hacker, Hacker Engineering, representing DevCorp:
I am here to speak in favor of the project. The project as
now configured would allow the completion of many different
phases of development to be completed for Vasilli Lane, and
would allow for the circulation and the further improvement
of utilities in that area. Also, it would provide for single
family housing in that area rather than what was previously
proposed as four -plex units on each lot. For that reason we
feel this will be a real asset to the City and we would like
to propose that you approve the tentative map.
I am also here to answer any questions that you might have.
Mayor Partain: Okay. Any questions. Mr. Waller, do you
have any.
Council Member Waller: No.
Page 1
•r:
Beau-nnt City Council
Octo__ :r 12, 1987
Mayor Partain: Okay. Thank you very much. Are there any
proponents here that wish to speak. Okay. I am not sure if
I am pronouncing this correctly - Mrs. Reeley, is that
correct?
Patsy Reeley, 11105 Sunnyslope, Cherry Valley: I am not
really either for or against the project. What I would like
to address is the concern of what the developer is going to
do with Marshal Creek. And what plans he has to take care of
that - that flood control down through there, and also is
there any consideration of the traffic that would be
increased on Sunnyslope which is basically a one way street.
It is a very narrow street and the development that has
already occurred in that area has at least doubled the
traffic on that small street already, and the residents are
quite concerned about that. So, I would like for you to
consider that when you are reviewing this project.
Mayor Partain: Okay. The questions that you have asked
are the items as far as traffic control and those things, are
they taken into consideration, and of course they are.
Mrs. Reeley: And, Marshal Creek.
Mayor Partain: And Marshal Creek, yes, also.
Mrs. Reeley: Will it be public knowledge what they are going
to do with that area. I mean the creek, and how they will
handle that.
Mayor Partain: Yes. Do we have anything we can provide her
with Mr. Bounds. Any extra this evening. In our staff
reports that we have before us, all of those have been
addressed, and there is some information that would be
available to you. Do we have any extra tonight. Do we have
any of that information.
City Manager: Yes, I was planning on making a report on
that.
Mayor Partain: Let me give you the opportunity - what I will
do, after the staff report and the discussions, before we
have a motion on the floor I will give you the opportunity if
you have any further questions at that time. Okay.
Mrs. Reeley: Thank you.
Mayor Partain: Do we have any opponents here. Do we have
any opponents. Do we have anybody wishing to speak in
opposition. Anyone wishing to speak in opposition. Okay.
If not, we will close the public hearing.
The Public Hearing was closed at 6:14 P.M.
The City Manager presented his report which included informa-
tion concerning zoning, streets and the plan for Marshal
Creek, as it has been worked out by the City Engineer and
Flood Control.
There were no questions from the Council with the exception
of a question from Mayor Partain concerning the proposed
street shown on the plan.
a. Consideration of Adoption of Negative Declaration 87 -ND-
31.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Connors, to adopt Negative Declaration 87- ND -31.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Parr A 9
5.
N.0
Beai )nt City Council
Octoper 12, 1987
b. Consideration of Approval of Tentative Tract Map 22523.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Connors, to approve Tentative Tract Map 22523.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Request from 75th Anniversary Committee to Consider Change of
Activities Regarding 75th Anniversary Commemoration.
Mr. Fred Hicks, Chairman of the 75th Anniversary Committee,
addressed the Council giving them a summary of what had been
budgeted and expended for the 75th Anniversary commemoration
to date. He advised the Council the Committee is asking for
authorization to change one of the previously proposed
activities, the prospective business luncheon, and replace it
with a video of the City. This video would be used for
presentations to businesses interested in the Beaumont area,
or for any other type of community promotion.
The committee is proposing to have a video tape prepared
which would show Beaumont's origins, where Beaumont is now,
what Beaumont has to offer in the way of clean air, pure
water, transportation, rail, highways, quality fair - priced
land, a wide based work force, good schools and churches,
and a friendly, cooperative City administration.
The tape would be an eight or nine minute tape, using a local
voice to narrate the tape, with the tape to be held by the
City, by the library, by the Chamber of Commerce and perhaps
by the Board of Realtors. The approximate cost of the tape
would be between $3,000 - $4,000.
Mr. Lew Weaver, a Committee Member, joined Mr. Hicks in
answering questions from the Council.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Connors, to approve the recommendation of the 75th
Anniversary Steering Committee regarding the video of the
City of Beaumont, with the Committee to come back to the
Council with a draft of the video for final approval.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Request from Kristy Weaver for City Sponsorship of Her
Participation in the Junior Miss Pageant.
Kristy Weaver addressed the Council, giving them additional
information concerning her request for financial sponsorship
of her participation in the Junior Miss Pageant.
There was lengthy discussion, with all members of the Council,
the City Manager and the City Attorney participating.
It was the concluded that in order to utilize Community Promotion
funding, the purpose must be to promote the City, and in this
instance this does not completely fall into that definition.
It was pointed out that if any member of the Council wished
to contribute to Kristy as an individual, they could
certainly do so. Council Member Shaw, Council Member Waller
and City Attorney Ryskamp all indicated they wanted to assist
her in this manner.
Page 3
rAr ..
7.
Bea,- -ont City Council
Oct. ,er 12, 1987
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Shaw, to deny the request of Kristy Weaver for sponsorship.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Let the record show Council Member Waller was excused at
6:58, returning to his seat at 7:04.
RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -67 - Intention to Order Abandonment of
a Portion of Walnut and 4th Street. Applicant: Scott
Engineering.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member
Connors, to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -67.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Waller.
8. ORDINANCE NO. 647 - SECOND READING - Prezoning 4.26 Acres
from County R -A -1 (Residential Agriculture) to City
Residential Single Family (RSF). Applicant: Jasper Stone
Development. Location: N/W Corner of Cougar and
Sunnyslope Ave. (Annexation 87- ANX- 3 -40).
The City Manager presented a summary of the purpose of this
Ordinance.
Mrs. Patsy Reeley addressed the Council, asking what would be
done about the traffic problem on Sunnyslope which would be
created by this new development.
There was lengthy discussion concerning the traffic on Sunny -
slope, with Mrs. Reeley being assured any traffic problems
have been addressed as part of the approval of the project.
It was pointed out that the major portion of Sunnyslope is in
the County and, as such, the City has no jurisdiction over
that portion.
Motion to read Ordinance No. 647 by title only.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Shaw, to read Ordinance No. 647 by title only.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
The Ordinance was read by title only by the Deputy City
Clerk.
Motion to Adopt Ordinance No. 647 at its second reading.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Shaw, to adopt Ordinance No. 647 at its second reading.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
9. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -68 - Consenting and Authorizing Submittal
of Annexation Application of Uninhabited Territory. Annexa-
tion 87- ANX -3 -40. Applicant: Jasper Stone Development.
Location: 4.26 Acres at the N/W Corner of Cougar and
Sunnyslope Avenue.
Paae 4
Beau nt City Council
OctoL,er 12, 1987
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Waller, to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -68.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
10. Request from TRS Enterprises to Submit New Information
Relative to Negative Declaration 87- ND -18. (A proposed 97
Space RV Park. Location: S/W Corner of First Street and
Pennsylvania.)
Mr. Clifton Reed, representing TRS Enterprises, addressed the
Council concerning this project. He first summarized what he
felt had taken place to date regarding this project, and
submitted what he felt was new information, that being he
felt the documents presented to the Council at the last
meeting with respect to the water issue, was not addressed or
discussed by the Council.
The City Attorney indicated he felt it needed to be recognized
there were environmental questions raised in the motion that
had been previously considered at the Planning Commission
level relative to the zoning of that particular piece of pro-
perty, and the impact of this use in that particular type of
zone. That was the subject of the motion and the findings
that went with it. He indicated that his only concern was
that he didn't hear Mr. Reed even mention that issue. He had
thought that would be the issue that would be addressed and
not merely clarify what has already happened. The City attorney
emphasized, for the record, that everyone understand that the
water issue was not the only environmental issue that was raised,
the only impact that was mentioned.
Council Member Waller brought up the fact that property to
the south of this project had been rezoned residential high
density, but that fact was not reflected on the zoning map at
the time the negative declaration was being considered.
The City Manager confirmed that he had found on Friday that
this change of zone is not reflected on the zoning map.
The City Attorney stated that at this point, if there is new
information, that it would best be handled at staff level in
terms of the fact that we have now found this out, and perhaps
the applicant has additional information that he had not pre-
sented to us, and this should be presented to staff, and since
staff would be the point where now the applicant would be
working on an EIR, which is the result if you have no negative
declaration you do an EIR, perhaps, then, staff would be in a
position to review the situation and make a recommendation as
to the focusing of an EIR, or perhaps if there is sufficient
information about mitigation or about the circumstances
behind the information given changing it, perhaps a new nega-
tive declaration has to be presented.
The City attorney clarified, for the record, that he is not
making a recommendation of what should happen, he just thinks
it should be done at staff level.
The City Manager indicated that he would certainly like for
Mr. Ryskamp to indicate that if a new negative declaration is
to be considered, or a focused EIR, where it starts, and how
it moves at this point.
The City Attorney summarized
is staff level environmental
vironmental review presented
negative declaration. The C,
the negative declaration was
evidence before them. There
that the process is that there
review. There was initial en-
to the Council in the form of a
Duncil made a determination that
not appropriate based on the
were significant unmitigated
e�
Bea, ont City Council
Oct(...,er 12, 1987
environmental impacts, and then the issue is there needs to be
a review, and that needs to be brought back before - -- There
are normally public hearings and the processes outlined in
CEQA for that. That involves a study, evidence to be presented
and also gathered. It may be that sufficient public hearings
have already been held to initiate that proceeding, but he needs
to look at the project in those terms, normally that is done by'
the developers themselves.
Responding to a question from Council Member Waller, the City
Attorney indicated that at the point where we are right now,
normally if a negative declaration is not granted, you move
forward to an EIR. This is really where the project is right
now.
Mayor Partain clarified that the process now should be that
Mr. Reed go back to staff at this time, and ask for what in-
formation is needed, or find out what areas are of concern,
with the City Attorney indicating that is also his under-
standing at this time.
There was no action taken on this agenda item.
11. Report on Bids Received for Street Overlay and Consideration
of Award of Bid.
The City Manager presented his report on the bids received for
the street overlay project. This report is a matter of record
in the Clerk's file.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member Shaw,
1) Award the bid to the lowest bidder, Matich Corporation, in
the following amounts:
Item 1 - Provide traffic control, lump sum, $4,000.00.
Item 2 - Furnish and place 1 -1/2" Asphaltic resurfacing,
$26.50 per ton.
Item 3 - Finishing roadways and final cleanup, lump sum,
$2,650.00.
2) Authorize the City Manager to expand the tonnage of asphalt
to be layed to 16,660 tons or more, provided that the amount
of money approved in the FY 1987 -88 budget is not exceeded.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
The meeting was recessed at 8:00 p.m., reconvening at 8:09 p.m.
12. Report on Negotiations with Architect for Proposed Police
Facility and Consideration of Authorizing the Mayor to
Execute an Agreement for Architectural Services.
The City Manager presented his report concerning the negotiations
with John Outcault. This report is a matter of record in the
Clerk's file.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member Shaw,
to authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement with John F.
Outcault, Architect, in the amount of $40,400 as a fixed sum
of money for the architectural services for the proposed
police building.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Page 6
Bear- )nt City Council
Octc., !r 12, 1987
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member Connors,
to authorize the City Manager to obtain a topographic survey and
soils tests for the proposed police facility.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
13. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -69 - Regarding the Disability Retirement
of Lester Racadio, Social Security No. 570 -76 -5617, and
Repealing Resolution No. 1987 -61.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member Shaw,
to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -69.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
14. ORDINANCE NO. 648 - FIRST READING - Repealing Beaumont
Municipal Code Sections 13.08.180 through 13.08.390 Inclusive
and Sections 13.08.440, 13.08.480 and 13.08.660, and Adding
to the Beaumont Municipal Code New Sections 13.08.180 through
13.08.390 and 13.08.440, 13.08.480 and 13.08.660 Establishing
the Procedure for Setting Charges for Construction Review Of,
Connection To, and Use Of Public Sewers by Resolution of the
City Council of the City of Beaumont.
By prior motion, this agenda item was continued to the regular
meeting of October 26, 1987.
15. ORDINANCE NO. 649 - FIRST READING - Repealing Chapter 2.24
and Sections 17.04.070 through 17.04.090 Inclusive of the
Beaumont Municipal Code and Adding to the Beaumont Municipal
Code Chapter 2.24 Entitled Planning Commission and Community
Development Department.
Motion to Read Ordinance No. 649 by Title Only.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member Waller,
to read Ordinance No. 649 by title only.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
The Ordinance was read by title only by the Deputy City Clerk.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member Connors,
to pass Ordinance No. 649 at its first reading.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Prior to consideration of the Consent Calendar, Item No. "c ",
approval of warrants and payroll was removed from the Consent
Calendar at the request of Council Member Waller, and will be
considered as a separate item.
16. CONSENT CALENDAR - All items listed under the Consent
calendar are considered to be routine by the City Council and
will be approved on one motion. There will be no separate
discussion of these items unless a Council Member or Citizen
so requests, in which case the item will be removed from the
Consent Calendar and considered as a separate item.
a. Approval of Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of
September 14, 1987, Special Joint Meeting with Planning
Commission of September 18, 1987 and September 19, 1987
and Regular Council Meeting of September 28, 1987.
Page 7
Beat,- ,)nt City Council
Octc !r 12, 1987
b. Acceptance of Minutes of Regular Planning Commission
meeting of September 15, 1987.
d. Consideration of Approval of Negative Declaration 87-
ND-33. Applicant: Oaktree Center (Christante).
Location: S/W Corner of 6th and Palm.
e. Report of Planning Commission Action at Meeting of
October 6, 1987.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member Shaw,
to approve Consent Calendar Items "a ", "b ", "d" and "e ".
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
16. c. Approval of Payment of Warrants as Audited per Warrant
List of October 12, 1987, in the Amount of $54,527.34
and Payroll of October 1, 1987, in the Amount of
$41,839.20.
Questions regarding the warrant list from Council Member Waller
were answered to Mr. Waller's satisfaction.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member Connors,
to approve the warrants and payroll.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and Mayor Partain'.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
17. Recess to Closed Session Pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(b)(1) Regarding Pending Litigation.
The meeting was recessed to Closed Session at 8:44 P.M.
The meeting was reconvened to Regular Session at 8:53 P.M.
Let the record show a report was given by the City Attorney re-
garding pending litigation, direction was given to the City
Attorney, but no definitive action was taken.
Date Set for Next Regular Council Meeting, Monday, October
26, 1987, at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers.
There being no further business to come before the Council, on
motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member Shaw,
the meeting was adjourned at 8:54 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert J. Bounds,
City Clerk
Page 8
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
OfAsb8orre�ted�7
The Beaumont City Council met in a regular meeting on Monday, October
26, 1987, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor Partain presiding.
On Roll Call the following Council Members were present: Connors,
Shaw, Waller and Mayor Partain.
The invocation was given by Mayor Pro Tem Waller.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Council Member
Connors.
1. Clerks Affidavit of Posting.
The Clerk's affidavit of posting the agenda was read into the
record by the Deputy City Clerk.
2. Adjustments to Agenda.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member Shaw,
to continue Agenda Item No. 15 to the next meeting.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
It was determined that Mr. Waller would meet with the City
Manager prior to the next meeting, and if satisfactory
information has been given to him, he can then request that
this item not be included on the agenda for November 9.
At the request of Council Member Waller, Item No. 16 was
withdrawn from the agenda.
3. ORAL COMMUNICATION: Anyone wishing to address the Council under
oral communication, or on any agenda item, should fill out a
Request To Speak form and give it to the City Clerk at the be-
ginning of the meeting. (The forms are available on the railing
next to the City Clerks desk.)
There was no one requesting to speak under oral communication.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - 6:00 P.M.:
4. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 20501 Revised) - Applicant: John Jones
formerly Halbeisen . Location: Fronting Orange Avenue
between 11th and 12th Streets. Parcel Map revised to show
two parcels only on Orange Avenue after former applicant
(Halbeisen) allowed a Certificate of Compliance and Lot Line
Adjustment for the existing residence fronting Magnolia.
(87- PM -2).
The Public Hearing was opened at 6:16 P.M.
There were no proponents or opponents requesting to speak.
The Public Hearing was closed at 6:17 P.M.
A report concerning this tentative parcel map was received from
the City Manager. This report is a matter of record in the
Clerk's file.
a. Consideration of Approval of Revised Tentative Parcel Map
20$01.
Page 1
Beau�ont City Council
October 26, 1987
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member Shaw,
to approve revised Tentative Parcel Map 20501, with all condi-
tions placed on the Parcel Map by the Planning Commission on
October 6 in place, with the deletion of Conditions No. it and
No. 13.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
5. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 22Z53 - Applicant: Comm. - Inv. - Ron
Whittier. Location: N side of Cougar Way between Beaumont
Avenue and City limits. A proposed division of 40 acres into
three (3) parcels. (87 -PM -7)
The Public Hearing was opened at 6:22 P.M.
There were no proponents or opponents requesting to speak.
The Public Hearing was closed at 6:23 P.M.
A report concerning this tentative parcel map was received from
the City Manager, specifically addressing the proposed align-
ment of Marshal Creek, and the extension of Palm Avenue.
a. Consideration of Adoption of Negative Declaration 87- ND -35•
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member Shaw,
to adopt Negative Declaration 87- ND -35•
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
b. Consideration of Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 22753•
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member Shaw,
to approve Tentative Parcel Map 22753•
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Council Member Waller asked that it be publicly acknowledged
that Council Member Roosevelt Williams and Mr. Earle Crawford,
from the City of Banning, were in the audience.
6. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 22 - Applicant: Jasper Stone Deve-
lopment. Location: N side of 6th Street, between Illinois
and American. A proposed division of 5.58 acres into two
commercial parcels. (87 -PM -6, Am. #1).
The Public Hearing was opened at 6:28 P.M.
There were no proponents or opponents requesting to speak.
The Public Hearing was closed at 6:29 P.M.
A report concerning this tentative parcel map was received from
the City Manager.
a. Consideration of Adoption of Negative Declaration 87- ND -34•
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member Connors,
to adopt Negative Declaration 87- ND -34•
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Do etu 7
Beaumont City Council
October 26, 1987
b. Consideration of Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 22793•
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member
Waller, to approve Tentative Parcel Map 22793.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
7. Intention to Order Abandonment and Vacation of Portion of Palm
Avenue. Applicant: Christante.
The Public Hearing was opened at 6:31 P.M.
There were no proponents or opponents requesting to speak.
The Public Hearing was closed at 6:32 P.M.
A report was received from the City Manager recommending that
Resolution No. 1987 -70 be adopted.
a. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -70 - Ordering the Abandonment and Vacation
of Portion of Palm Avenue.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member Waller,
to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -70.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
END PUBLIC HEARINGS.
8. Request from Mr. Earle Crawford, Member of the Banning 75th Anni-
versary Committee, for Joint Fireworks Display on 4th of July,
1988, and Joint Participation in Cost.
Council Member Roosevelt Williams, of the Banning City Council, and
Mr. Earle Crawford, Chairman of the Banning 75th Anniversary
Committee, addressed the Council giving the specifics of their
request for joint participation with the City of Banning for a
fireworks display on the 4th of July, 1988, similar to the one held
in Beaumont this last year.
There was lengthy discussion with questions being asked by the
City Council.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member Shaw,
that the Beaumont City Council appropriate an amount of $3,000.00
to be given to the 75th Anniversary Committee of Banning to be
used for the fireworks of July 4, 1988, and this is to be paid on
receiving notification from the City of Banning of the bill, with
the money to be taken from the General Government community promo-
tion fund, 1450 -4096.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
9. Consideration of Adoption of Negative Declaration 87- ND -18.
Applicant: TRS Enterprise. Location: S/W Corner of First
Street and Pennsylvania. A proposed 97 space RV Park.
A report was received from the City Manager concerning an agree-
ment arrived at between the developer and surrounding property
owners, which appears to mitigate the impacts previously found
by the Council.
Page 3
Beaum -nt City Council
Octo r 26, 1987
There was additional discussion, with questions from the Council
being answered by the City Attorney, City Manager and the deve-
loper, Mr. Schloesinger.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member Shaw,
to approve the adoption of Negative Declaration 87- ND -18, based
on the following findings:
1. The Agreement with Property Owners goes directly to the
issue of mitigating the impact on the rural environment
of those individuals.
2. The surrounding use, with the exception of the use to
the west, is unique in the fact that it is not RA, with
the exception of the one vacant parcel which will pro-
bably become ML since most of the parcel is; and because
of that uniqueness the City has an area where the City
can mitigate by these types of measures agreed to by
the property owners.
3. The property is unique in the above- mentioned aspect as
compared to other RA, which makes appropriate the simi-
lar use.
4. There has been a solution by the agreement to the issue
of the impact to the local shallow well.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
The meeting was recessed at 7:05 P.M., reconvening at 7:15 P.M.
10. ORDINANCE NO. 648 - FIRST READING - Repealing Beaumont Municipal
Code Sections 13.08.180 through 13.08.390 inclusive, and Sections
13.08.440, 13.08.480 and 13.08.660 and Adding to the Beaumont
Municipal Code New Sections 13.08.180 through 13.08.390, and
13.08.440, 13.08.480 and 13.08.660, Establishing the Procedure
for Setting Charges for Construction Review of, Connection To,
and Use of Public Sewers by Resolution of the City Council of
the City of Beaumont.
A report concerning this ordinance was presented by the City
Manager.
Motion to read Ordinance No. 648 by title only.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member Connors,
to read Ordinance No. 648 by title only.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
The ordinance was read by title only by the Deputy City Clerk.
Motion to Pass Ordinance No. 648 at its first reading.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member Connors,
to pass Ordinance No. 648 at its first reading.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
11. ORDINANCE NO. 649 - SECOND READING - Repealing Chapter 2.24 and
Sections 17.04.070 through 17.04.090, inclusive, of the Beaumont
Municipal Code and Adding to the Beaumont Municipal Code Chapter
2.24 Entitled "Planning Commission and Community Development
Department ".
Page 4
Beau ,.ont City Council
October 26, 1987
It was pointed out by the City Manager that at the first reading
of this ordinance, a textual change was made in Section 2.24.080,
4th line from the end of the paragraph, to read "City Manager"
rather than "City Council ", and the ordinance will be adopted
with this change made.
Motion to read Ordinance No. 649 by title only.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member Connors,
to read Ordinance No. 649 by title only.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
The ordinance was read by title only by the Deputy City Clerk.
Motion to Adopt Ordinance No. 649 at its Second Reading.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member Connors,
to adopt Ordinance No. 649 at its second reading.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
12. ORDINANCE NO. 650 - FIRST READING - Amending Beaumont Municipal
Code Title 17 by Adding a Portion to Section 17.40.305 to Comply
with the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter
Reduction Act.
A report was received from the City Manager concerning this
Ordinance.
The City Attorney requested that a Section 2 be added to the
Ordinance to reflect that it will be adopted pursuant to law.
Motion to Read Ordinance No. 650 by title only.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member Shaw,
to read Ordinance No. 650 by title only.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
The Ordinance was read by title only by the Deputy City Clerk.
Motion to Pass Ordinance No. 650 at its First Reading.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member Shaw,
to pass Ordinance No. 650 at its first reading.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: Council Member Waller.
ABSENT: None.
13. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -71 - Intention to Order Abandonment of a
Portion of 3rd Street. Applicant: Gary Wilson.
A report was received from the City Manager relative to this
proposed abandonment, with a recommendation that Resolution
No. 1987 -71 be adopted.
Motion by Council Member Shaw, second by Council Member Connors,
to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -71
Page 5
Beaumont City Council
October 26, 1987
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
14. Request for Authorization to Settle Pending Litigation, Masters
vs City of Beaumont.
The City Manager indicated that through the City Attorney's
office an agreement has been reached with the attorney for
Masters, with a recommendation that the Council authorize
settlement of the case.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member
Connors, authorizing the settlement of the case of Masters
vs City of Beaumont for the sum of $3,500.00.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
15. Request from Council Member Waller for Quarterly Information
Regarding the Code Enforcement Activities Within the City.
By previous motion, this agenda item was continued to the next
regular meeting.
16. Request from Council Member Waller for a Report on the Current
Status and (Near) Future Plans for the Position of Community
Development Director.
This agenda item was withdrawn by Council Member Waller.
17. CONSENT CALENDAR - All items listed under the Consent
calendar are considered to be routine by the City Council and
will be approved on one motion. There will be no separate
discussion of these items unless a Council Member or Citizen
so requests, in which case the item will be removed from the
Consent Calendar and considered as a separate item.
At the request of Council Member Connors, Item No. "d" was re-
moved from the Consent Calendar and will be considered separately.
a. Approval of Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of
October 12, 1987.
b. Approval of Payment of Warrants as Audited per Warrant
List of October 26, 1987, in the Amount of $74,577.69;
and Payroll of October 15, 1987, in the Amount of
43,247.29
C. Consideration of Approval of Final Parcel Map 22050.
Applicant: Charles and Sandra Moore. Location: N.
Side of Third Street between Beaumont and Maple. 86-
PM -5.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member Shaw,
to approve Consent Calendar Items "a ", "b" and "c ".
AYES: Council Member Connors, Shaw, Waller and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
17d. Report of Planning Commission Action at Meeting of October 20,
1987.
At the request of Council Member Connors, the following discussion
will be transcribed verbatim.
Page 6
Beai nt City Council
Octover 26, 1987
Council Member Connors: I brought this up in order to make it
more obvious, and what is being said now I would like to have
verbatim in the minutes, and I have asked for a verbatim report
of the minutes of the end of our joint meeting with the Planning
Commission.
The fourth paragraph of 17.d, reads Plot Plan 87- PP -17, for a
five -unit apartment project at 738 Chestnut, was continued to
November 17, 1987. It is my understanding that, due to the
study that was placed on that area by the Council and the
Planning Commission, for the Planning Department to do, we
would no longer have apartment projects moving through the
Planning process. And I want to voice strong objection to it.
I don't know why it is on there. The reason that I have asked
for a verbatim of that meeting is to be absolutely sure that I
have understood it properly.
I think that others have also understood it that way, as I have
asked them what they thought happened that day. And I do want
to make it absolutely clear that I am completely opposed to
this thing even being on the Planning Commission agenda.
Mayor Partain: Comments.
Council Member Waller: I will also become possibly a little
stronger in my support of Council Member Connors' motion. I
made the motion at the end of the meeting to approve of this
type of action, primarily because I was informed that this
would be much more palatable than a "moratorium ", and, yet
it would still accomplish the same thing.
This is the reason, and the only reason, in which I made the
motion, and that is it.
Mayor Partain: Comments, Mr. Shaw.
Council Member Shaw: No.
Mayor Partain: You know, I don't remember just exactly the
motion, but it certainly was my understanding that we had
come to an agreement that we were looking at all of the
areas where there were single open lots that were zoned RHD,
with single families on either side, and - I don't remember
what we did - but I was under the impression, also, that we
were in the process - or were going to - that we were in the
process of looking at, and we were going to put a stop to
that - on an interim basis. Do you remember that, Mr. Bounds.
Council Member Shaw: I don't remember, like I say, I can't
comment on it. I don't remember.
Mayor Partain: Do you remember, Mr. Ryskamp.
City Attorney: My understanding at that time is that we had
decided that, rather than pass an interim ordinance placing a
moratorium on that area, is we were going to administratively
stop those types of projects, to the extent possible; and if
it became apparent it was not possible, that we would then
come to you with additional - with an interim ordinance, if
the study was not in a position to be completed. That was
my understanding. I, likewise, was somewhat surprised when I
received my Planning Commission agenda, and called Mr. Bounds
immediately to discuss that particular project with him.
City Manager: He had a hard time getting to me because
everybody was trying to get to me.
Council Member Connors: It is nice to be popular.
City Manager: Yes.
Page 7
Beau. at City Council
October 26, 1987
Mayor Partain: I guess my question is - well, this has been
continued - so . . .
Council Member Connors: I had understood that it had been
withdrawn, and when I got this packet I saw that it had been
continued, and I . . .
City Attorney: At the request of the applicant.
Council Member Connors: Yes. And I thought it had been
withdrawn completely because of the planning study having
brought that up. I thought it had been withdrawn because of
that. Which was a misunderstanding on my part, but I am sure
in my mind that I understood the other part of it from that
other meeting.
City Manager: We will have the verbatim transcript fairly
quickly right now, and will have those comments and the
motion and so forth to see exactly what was said, and, I
presume, determine what can be done right away. But, we
do have a little extra time in that the Planning Commission's
normal next meeting is Election Day, and so they won't be
meeting until the 17th, so we will work on that and,
basically, you don't have to take any action on this report.
You will be getting the minutes back, and the minutes should
be one - no -
City Attorney: The minutes will be on November 9th's
calendar.
City Manager: Even though they are not approved.
City Attorney: Oh, so they won't be back then. That is
true. They need to go to Planning Commission first.
City Manager: One of the things that we can do is we can
look into this - as a matter of fact, I think probably the
proper thing to do at the present time is charge George and
I with looking into this matter and reporting back to you
on the 9th. That is prior to their meeting.
Council Member Connors: Okay.
City Attorney: I would say that you may want to take that
one step further and direct us to report back to you, and if
it is appropriate to place on the agenda an item to meet the
need.
City Manager: Well, I felt like reporting to them will be
an agenda item.
City Attorney: Okay, what I was suggesting is that we may
do more than report - we may need to place an action . . .
City Manager: I guess I was presuming that our report might
be in the form of action.
City Attorney: In the form of an action. Okay, fine. That's
fine.
City Manager: . . . for you to take on the 9th to direct them
to do thus and so, which may be . . .
Council Member Connors: And in the meantime between the joint
meeting and tonight, what would be the status of the . .
City Manager: Nothing can happen until the 17th . . .
Page 8
Beauiuont City Council
October 26, 1987
City Attorney: Nothing happening until the 17th, and you are
going to meet on the 9th.
City Manager: You are going to meet on the 9th, so we will be
back to you before the Planning Commission meets.
Council Member Connors: All right.
City Manager: And we will have an action item for you, what-
ever it is. A report and possibly an action item as well for
you to direct . . .
Council Member Connors: Okay. And I would appreciate this
whole discussion verbatim in these minutes.
Deputy City Clerk: Yes, I have that noted.
Mayor Partain: Okay.
City Manager: And as soon as we have the verbatim transcript,
we will go ahead and shoot that to you so that you can be
looking at it while George and I are also looking into it -
the legal aspects.
City Attorney: Something we ought to additionally, pardon me
Mr. Waller.
Council Member Waller: Does that need any action on behalf of
Council Member Connors.
City Manager: Yes, I am asking her to direct us through the
Council to bring back a report and /or action.
Council Member Waller: Okay.
Mayor Partain: I think it is a consensus here that, yes, that
is what we want. Certainly it is from my standpoint, and I
think that is understood. I think it is each of our under-
standing, as I look back, and everything, it was my understanding,
and it does present a problem, but accepting or approving the
Planning Commission - there is nothing on that.
City Manager: Technically, we put that on there. We do this for
a particular reason, to alert you to what they have done, even
before you see minutes because, remember, that you have a ten day
appeal time on a lot of this stuff, and you can't wait for their
minutes. Okay, so, technically, you could receive this in a way,
in a separate item that doesn't require any action, but we just
simply put it on the Consent Calendar as an item. You approve
the whole Consent Calendar. Technically, it is not even required.
But, by it being there, you have also been required to take notice.
And can't come back to us at a later time and say, why didn't you
alert me to that. So then I can come back to you, why didn't you
read it.
Mayor Partain: Okay, so us approving these has nothing to do with
any action. . .
City Manager: I would suggest that you don't take action tonight.
Mayor Partain: On this at all. Okay.
City Manager: It is not necessary.
Mayor Partain: All right. So that is where we are. All right.
Anything else then. Go ahead.
Council Member Waller: Is it proper to make it for the public
record members that are in attendance that are candidates, as
Page 9
Bear. .,nt City Council
October 26, 1987
well as the incumbent. Or, I would just like to have that said.
Okay. I would like to have it in the public record that other
than the incumbent, the only other member that is a candidate,
is Mr. Bauer.
There being no further business to come before the Council, on
motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member Shaw,
the meeting was adjourned at 8:28 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
N&I
.
RUMN
Page 10
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
NOVEMBER 9, 1987
The Beaumont City Council met in a regular meeting at 6:12 P.M., on Monday,
November 9, 1987, in the City Council Chambers with Mayor Partain presiding.
On roll call the following Council Members were present: Connors, Waller
and Mayor Partain.
The Invocation was given by Council Member Connors.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Council Member Waller.
1. Clerkts Affidavit of Posting.
The Clerk's affidavit of posting the agenda was read into the record
by the Deputy City Clerk.
2. Adjustments to Agenda.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member Waller, to
continue Agenda Item No. 5 to the regular meeting of November 23, 1987,
to extend Council Member Shaw the courtesy of allowing him to be here
for the reorganization.
There being no opposition, the motion carried with three ayes, one
absent.
3. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -72 - Reciting the Fact of the General Municipal
Election Held in Said City on November 3, 1987, Declaring the Result
Thereof and Such Other Matters as are Provided by Law.
Resolution No. 1987 -72 was read into the record in its entirety by
the Deputy City Clerk.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member Waller,
to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -72.
AYES: Council Member Connors, Waller and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Shaw.
4. Presentation of Certificates of Election and Installation of Newly
Elected Officials.
City Clerk Robert Bounds presented the Certificates of Election and
administered the Oath of Office prescribed by the State Constitution
of the State of California to William Bauer and Ann Connors.
5. Reorganization of Council:
a. Nominations for Mayor.
Roll Call:
b. Nominations for Mayor Pro Tem.
Roll Call:
By previous motion, this agenda item was continued to November 23,
1987.
6. ORAL COMMUNICATION:
There was no one requesting to speak under oral communication.
Page 1
Beaumc City Council
November 9, 1987
PUBLIC HEARINGS - 6:00 P.M.
7. APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO OPERATE A TAXI SERVICE. APPLICANT: Richard
Fife d b a Pass Taxi.
The Public Hearing was opened at 6:20 P.M.
Mr. Richard Fife, the applicant, addressed the Council in favor of
granting the permit, and answered questions from the Council.
There were no other proponents, and no opponents, requesting to
speak.
The Public Hearing was closed at 6:29 P.M.
a. Consideration of Application for Permit to Operate a Taxi
Service in the City of Beaumont.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member Connors,
to approve the application for a permit to operate a taxi service
contingent upon receipt of proof of insurance.
There being no opposition, the motion carried with four ayes and
one absent.
8. INTENTION TO ORDER ABANDONMENT OF PORTION OF 4TH & WALNUT.
APPLICANT: Scott.
The Public Hearing was opened at 6:31 P.M.
There were no proponents or opponents requesting to speak.
The Public Hearing was closed at 6:32 P.M.
a. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -73 - Ordering the Abandonment and Vacation
of a Portion of 4th & Walnut. Applicant: Scott.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member Bauer,
to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -73.
There being no opposition, the motion carried with four ayes, one
absent.
9. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 22524 - Applicant: Devcorp. Location: E/
side of Palm Avenue between Cougar and Brookside. A proposed
49 lot single family residential subdivision. (87 -TM -5, Am #2).
10. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 22525 - Applicant: Devcorp. Location: S/W
Corner of Brookside and Noble St. A proposed 57 lot single family
subdivision. (87 -TM -4, Am. #1).
11. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 22526 - Applicant: Devcorp. Location: W/
Side of Noble St., S of Brookside at East City Limits. A
proposed 52 lot single family subdivision. (87 -TM -6, Am. #2).
The City Manager advised the Council that a request had been re-
ceived from the applicant to continue consideration of these tract
maps to December 14, 1987, with a waiver of time being signed by
the applicant. He then recommended the Public Hearings be opened
to give anyone wishing to speak regarding the tract maps the oppor-
tunity to do so, and then continue the public hearings until the
meeting of December 14, 1987.
Responding to a question from Council Member Waller, the City
Attorney indicated the three tract maps could be considered at the
same time since they are all for the same developer in the same
area, and are basically contiguous.
Page 2
Beaumo City Council
November 9, 1987
The Public Hearing was opened at 6:38 P.M.
There were no proponents or opponents requesting to speak.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member Connors,
to continue the Public Hearing on Tentative Tract Maps 22524, 22525
and 22526 to the regular meeting of December 14, 1987.
There being no opposition, the motion carried with four ayes, one
absent.
12. ORDINANCE NO. 648 - SECOND READING - Repealing Beaumont Municipal
Code Sections 13.08.180 through 13.08.390 inclusive, and Sections
13.08.440, 13.08.480 and 13.08.660 and Adding to the Beaumont
Municipal Code New Sections 13.08.180 through 13.08.390, and
13.08.440, 13.08.480 and 13.08.660, Establishing the Procedure
for Setting Charges for Construction Review of, Connection To,
and Use of Public Sewers by Resolution of the City Council of
the City of Beaumont.
Motion to read Ordinance No. 648 by title only.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member Connors,
to read Ordinance No. 648 by title only.
AYES: Council Member Bauer, Connors, Waller and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Shaw.
The Ordinance was read by title only by the Deputy City Clerk.
Motion to Adopt Ordinance No. 648 at its second reading.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member Bauer,
to adopt Ordinance No. 648 at its second reading.
AYES: Council Member Bauer, Connors, Waller and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Shaw.
13. ORDINANCE NO. 650 - SECOND READING - Amending Beaumont Municipal
Code Title 17 by Adding a Portion to Section 17.40.305 to Comply
with the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter
Reduction Act.
Motion to Read Ordinance No. 650 by title only.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member Bauer,
to read Ordinance No. 650 by title only.
AYES: Council Member Bauer, Connors, Waller and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Shaw.
The Ordinance was read by title only by the Mayor.
Motion to Adopt Ordinance No. 650 at its Second Reading.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member Bauer,
to adopt Ordinance No. 650 at its second reading.
Page 3
Beaumo City Council
November 9, 1987
AYES: Council Member Bauer, Connors, Waller and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Shaw.
14. Submittal of Resignation by Planning Commissioner Ralph Tapp.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member Waller,
to accept the resignation of Ralph Tapp from the Planning Commis-
sion.
There being no opposition, the motion carried with four ayes and
one absent.
The City Manager was directed to post notice of the vacancy on the
Planning Commission, with the due date for applications to be Decem-
ber 9, 1987, and the applications to be submitted to the Council
for consideration prior to their next regular meeting.
1$. Request from Council Member Waller for Quarterly Information
Regarding the Code Enforcement Activities Within the City.
(Continued from October 26, 1987).
Council Member Waller requested this be continued to the regular
meeting of November 23, 1987 to allow the City Manager and Chief
of Police additional time to prepare the report.
At the request of Council Member Connors, all discussion regarding
the following agenda item will be transcribed verbatim.
16. a. Report from City Attorney Regarding High Density Problems and
General Plan Amendment.
Mayor Partain: We have some requests to speak. I think what we
will do here, do you have a report ready, Mr. Ryskamp.
City Attorney: Verbally, yes.
Mayor Partain: I think what we will do is take your report as to
the problems, and then give these individuals an opportunity to
speak. Maybe some of their questions will be answered through your
report.
City Attorney: At our joint meeting with the City Council and the
Planning Commission - I don't remember the exact date, it was in
September though.
Council Member Connors: 18th and 19th.
City Attorney: 18th and 19th of September, we discussed the General
Plan, its - what we were attempting to accomplish at the time, and
the legal need for a revision because the five years have run. And
we also discussed some of the concepts that the City wished to have
incorporated into the revised General Plan. There were a number of
areas of concern, but probably the greatest concern was reflected
in the first motion, and I am reading now from the minutes, "the
Planning Commission is to study a General Plan Amendment and Zone
Change in the area from the western City Limits to Cherry, and
from 6th to 11th for the purpose to change the General Plan and
zoning from high density to single family ". That motion was
adopted, and the question then was raised at that point, does that
stop any types of projects other than single family residential in
that particular area. The indication from the Planning Director
and myself was that, yes, it will slow down those types of projects,
because we had previously adopted some modifications relative to
open space in our high density ordinance.
The City Manager, very correctly, pointed out that we cannot
totally stop it without some additional actions being taken
Page 4
Beaum : City Council
November 9, 1987
during the study period. At that time we did not have on the
agenda any additional action posted sufficiently, in conformance
with the Brown Act, to take any action, and we left it at that.
We further directed staff in a second motion, to review the needs
for review and revision of the General Plan, particularly the
housing element generally, and to come back with a proposal for
accomplishing that review and revision.
We have been in the process of discussing that. There have been
a number of factors that we have been waiting for, one of which
is the change in staff that is being contemplated, in terms of
wanting to work with the new full time Planning Director. And,
frankly, other needs of the City that have taken some precedence
over immediate implementation of a study plan and proposal to you.
Concern has then come up as a result of two projects that were re-
cently presented to the Planning Commission, and other inquiries
that have come to the Planning Department. At least so I have been
advised. I have not had direct contact. Relative to high density
residential use in the area that we are currently studying, where
the Council clearly indicated its interest and concern to change
both the General Plan and the zoning in that area from high density
residential to single family residential.
At this time, to fully accomplish that purpose, the law does permit
us to take urgent action - emergency action - by adopting an
urgency interim ordinance, that would rezone that area temporarily
for 45 days in any fashion we want to rezone it. The ordinance
that has been prepared, based on the verbatim minutes of this
meeting, and also based upon the comments that were made at that
time and all the evidence that was discussed at that time relative
to the needs of the City, relative to the amount of high density
residential housing that was already existing when the General Plan
was adopted, and how much has additionally been built within the
City, we have prepared one that would down zone that area from
high density residential to single family residential. Anywhere
where the high density residential is would become single family
residential in the areas bounded by the western City Limits to
Cherry Avenue, and from 6th Street north to 11th Street, including
both sides of 11th Street.
This would effectively stop all plot plans, subdivisions, use
permits, variances, building permits, or any other applicable
entitlements from being approved within the area for 45 days.
Whatever stage those projects are at, if they have an additional
entitlement, something they have to come to the City for appro-
val, it stops that project. This would include extensions of
existing permits. That is, if they have a building permit, they
would be fine. But if they allow that to elapse, and have to
come back and request additional entitlement, you are stopping
that.
This would apply to that area. It is good for 45 days, that is
spelled out in Government Code, and during that time period you
are required to have a report made to you that you would then
adopt, reviewing the progress in achieving the goal, and a public
hearing would be set for the 14th of December in which you would
then discuss extending that for up to ten months and fifteen days,
the interim ordinance. Of course, upon the termination of the
interim ordinance, either at the end of the 45 days, with no
additional action taken, or at the end of the extension, if you
should adopt it after the notice and public hearing, then the
zoning as it currently exists at this moment would be restored
to that area, assuming that there has not been a General Plan
amendment and zone change.
That basically is what is before you. I would additionally point
out that if action should be taken we ought to review some of the
Page 5
Beaumont City Council
November 9, 1987
facts so that we can make the findings that are called for in the
ordinance relative to the residential single family use versus
high density residential use in this area.
Mayor Partain: Okay. Thank you Mr. Ryskamp. We will probably
be back with you in a minute. All right. I have three requests
to speak. We have a Vincent Schiro. Would you come forward and
state your full name and address.
City Attorney: Mayor Partain. Prior to Mr. Schiro speaking, I
want to make it a matter of public record that I have represented
his brother Victor, and Vic's wife, on personal matters, and have
done some business work for him. I don't believe I have received
$250.00 in compensation in the last 12 months from them. I
checked the record today and did not find that to be the case,
although I do consider them among the clients that I have serviced
in the past, as well as the fact that Vic and his wife are personal
friends.
Mayor Partain: Okay. Thank you Mr. Ryskamp. Go ahead.
Vincent Schiro: My name is Vincent Schiro. My brother and I own
three blocks on Chestnut Avenue, 726, 738 and 716. We bought
this land with the opportunity to - for apartments. We have one
apartment at 726 now. Over the last few years - our plans are to
put a five unit on each of the other two lots. We really had a
tough time trying to figure out how we were going to do it with
the open area, but through the Planning Committee, or through the
Planning Engineer, we finally found a way to do it. So during the
summer we were able to put our plans together. We submitted our
plans, our first set of plans in approximately September. Our
last set of plans we did and submitted in the last week. We just
feel that it is unfair that when we bought the land the zoning was
such - now, today, if the law is changed, when we bought the land,
at that time, it is no longer the truth.
In essence, what I am saying is - if the speed limit is such today,
when we bought it the speed limit was something else. If you want
to change the law of the land, this is fine. But our particular
street is 80% apartments. Manny Baldi has got the west side of the
street, and we have three lots on the east side of the street.
That doesn't mean that our street is different than any other street.
I am sure that you must have - the reason why you had this motion
is to stop the growing of apartments. We are small builders. We
are very neat and very clean and we have nice buildings. We just
think that it is unfair for us to put a hold on our particular
project when we worked so hard to put it together.
That is primarily what I have to say. I just don't agree with this
motion to put a stop to us now. Our plans are in, we paid for our
- not our building permits - but we paid out money to go forward
as planned. That is all I have to say.
Mayor Partain: Okay. Any questions. Mr. Waller.
Council Member Waller: Yes. You were mentioning the Baldis.
Mr. Schiro: Yes, Manny Baldi.
Council Member Waller: Yes. What was it that you were alluding
to.
Mr. Schiro: His - on the west side of the street, he has approx-
imately five lots which he is building. He has the building
permits, about 32 units across the street. He is doing his
grading, I think, next week. We are across the street.
Council Member Waller: All apartments.
Mayor Partain: Mr. Gordon. Full name and address.
Page 6
Beat...,ont City Council
November 9, 1987
Norman Gordon: My name is Norman Gordon. I live at 474 Laraine
Drive, in Beaumont. I have since 1975. I am a local businessman
in the area. Before any action is taken I would like to just re-
iterate that people that have purchased property in a specified
zone have a right to expect the highest and best use of this
property. Before you put anything into effect that would restrict
their property rights, I would like to see the Council continue
this and allow some more public input be brought into the area.
Number one, I don't understand the boundaries. I am in the real
estate business, and have been for thirteen years. Some of the
boundaries that the Council is considering has no force and
effect because you have exceeded the current boundaries anyhow.
There is no R -3, RHD, north of half way between 10th and 11th.
You have extended it all the way to 11th Street to take in
existing R -1. There is no possible way apartments could go in
above that point anyhow.
So we just blanketed the area, and restricted people's property
rights. I know my zoning. That is how I . . .
City Attorney: The zoning - the resolution or the ordinance,
however, refers only to RHD zoning within that area. So it is
not affecting any of the other zoned areas except the RHD
zoning within those geographical boundaries.
Mr. Gordon: At any rate, you are addressing RHD. You have taken
in 80% of the RHD in the City of Beaumont and put a blanket mora-
torium. You don't want to call it that, but that is what it is.
It is only temporary. I would like to remind you that the income
tax was a temporary tax brought in 1912, and we all pay the tax
right now. It has never been removed. They have a way of staying
forever once they are instituted temporarily. Before you make this
decision I would like a continuance of this to allow informed de-
cisions made by informed people. I would like a study before you
institute this, because temporary becomes permanent in a very short
time. You will definitely be restricting people's property rights.
Assumption. Someone pays $28,000 for a lot under the current zone.
They can get four units, at $7,000 per unit. We, in our wisdom,
institute something that says, now you can only get one. We went
from four to one. We have a $28,000 single family residence lot
in the City of Beaumont, which makes them sell that property from
$110,000 to $120,000, or it doesn't happen. It is not feasible.
We take a piece of property and instead of four you get one. Now,
if you get one, we have $28,000 single family residential lot, and
there aren't any single family worth $28,000 in the City of Beau-
mont. Not today. Maybe someday in the future, but not today.
So, before you institute something, I would like a continuance on
this and have some more study before we put a temporary thing,
that becomes permanent, and restrict people's property rights.
Thank you.
Mayor Partain: Okay, any questions of Mr. Gordon.
Council Member Waller: Yes.
Mayor Partain: Mr. Gordon.
Council Member Waller: If there is a time limit, that would then
mean that without us doing anything it just naturally goes back
to - so there is nothing then . . .
Mr. Gordon: I am afraid of temporary, Mr. Waller. The income tax
was temporary.
Council Member Waller: I know. That is a nice analogy, but that
really is not set up the same way. Because that was not with a
specific date . . . I know history.
Mr. Gordon: Let me ask you a question sir. What harm would it be
in delaying this for another two weeks to allow other people to
put input in. Is there a necessity to make this decision now.
Page 7
Beaumont City Council
November 9, 1987
Council Member Waller: I wouldn't mind at all continuing the dis-
cussion on this, but I feel that as long as we are going to
discuss it, why not enact the Ordinance and stop things as it is.
Mr. Gordon: Why not delay it for two weeks and let other people
come forth. I only became aware of this within the last few days.
Council Member Waller: Because, then we are defeating the purpose
-- we are defeating the purpose, Mr. Gordon, of that which we want
to do, and that is to stop things until we can consider it. Now,
we are more than willing to consider it, and hear from all of the
people in the public.
Mr. Gordon: Have you heard from any organized organization, such
as the Board of Realtors.
Council Member Waller: Have I heard from them.
Mr. Gordon: I am talking about the Council. Have you heard any
input from the Board of Realtors on this.
Council Member Waller: I have heard from one realtor, that is
all.
Mr. Gordon: Not the Board of Realtors. I am talking about the
organization.
Council Member Waller: No - I - why.
Mayor Partain: I think we understand the point. I think we can
understand, Mr. Gordon. That's fine.
Mr. Gordon: I would like some more input before a decision is made.
Mayor Partain: I think we know what - we understand you.
Mr. Gordon: This is not a critical decision tonight, that has to
be made tonight. I don't think so, anyway.
Mayor Partain: We have one other request to speak. And that is
from Victor Schiro. Go right ahead. State your full name and
address.
Victor Schiro: My name is Victor Schiro, and I live at 3680 Banbury,
Riverside, California. I guess its - it has really been kind of
sketchy trying to figure out what the City Council wanted to do from
the 18th and 19th of September, because all we have really been able
to deal with is the minutes of that meeting. And just Friday after-
noon I happened to pass by and see what the agenda had to say for
today, or this evening, and noticed that you were about to do some-
thing like this, and I thought - whoa - you know, are we talking
about something that deals with a health and safety question, are
we talking about a fire hazard, are we talking about nuclear waste,
toxic waste, or radiation from one of the facilities in the
neighborhood. It is not like an intersection where children are
getting hurt coming home from school. I mean, we make this step
too quickly, we might have the execution of the prisoner before
we have the trial for the prisoner. And what I am trying to bring
up in that analogy is the idea saying, the study isn't back yet.
The City Planner has talked about - has tried to explain to me
what her role in this study is. I don't think we have the
answers to do something that stops something like this. My
brother kind of alluded to the fact that we are not big people.
It took us a long time to get the money just to get where we are
at, and to be stopped holding land until this moratorium may be
over - I am sorry - I didn't mean to say moratorium - for this
thing to be over, December of 1988, I guess, you know, next year
or so. Not that - I am thinking of the 4$ days, Mr. Waller, plus
the ten months, plus fifteen days, that it could go on past that
time.
Page 8
Beaumont City Council
November 9, 1987
So, again, where we are coming from - we have been coming to this
town since I was eight years old. I have got a picture - I was
going to bring it - a picture of me in my Cub Scout uniform over
at 14th and Pennsylvania - there used to be a cherry patch right
there - a cherry orchard. This isn't a new town to us. We have
owned land in this community for four years, and I just hate to
be treated like an outsider, when we have paid attention to what
has been going on over those years, but we just never were involved
like we are now. And now we are getting a little involved.
I think that - you know the cost of just making the plans to turn
into those projects that - you know - that is now on the City
Planning desk. What we are asking for, essentially, is if the law
hasn't been changed, if the General Plan hasn't been amended, if
the zoning hasn't been changed, then let's continue with what we
have, as opposed to stopping and saying - hey, we don't want what
is in this area. I don't know for a fact, but I believe the last
couple of projects that were happening up by Beaumont High School
were in the vicinity of 200, 250 unit apartments, a hundred and
some odd apartments. 200 units. Between the west boundary of
this town to Cherry Avenue, between 6th and 11th, takes up four
blocks, figuring five units per lot, because that is the most we
can put on a lot. And ten lots up, between those odd and even
streets. If you look at between 6th and 7th, it is only so long,
there are about ten lots there. I think there are eight or ten,
somewhere in there. But that project up there can take up four
of these lots down here. My brother and I are just little
businessmen here in town, and our business is providing a service,
and that service is the apartment buildings. And we are feeling
stifled by this abrupt change. And the idea of saying, this
interim project will stop things that have come in even before
my venture, well, no, I guess not. Before the September 15th or
18th meeting. That is almost making this decision tonight
retroactive to that period. And, you know, the analogy that
my brother used, changing the speed limit yesterday, on Beaumont
Avenue, being something else. It becomes, I feel, becomes a
retroactive move, and what we are asking for, not so much as a
continuance, is that this action, this abrupt stop, shouldn't
happen.
If you want to change the General Plan, or you want to change the
zone, then let's do it on what is prescribed, you know, in the
time limit, that is prescribed for certain things to happen. If
we are waiting for answers from a study, let's wait for the answers
of the study. We would like to see things continue that are
happening in City Planning.
Mayor Partain: Go ahead, Mr. Waller.
Council Member Waller: Mr. Schiro, are you familiar with the term,
judicial term, expo facto.
Mr. Schiro: Yes.
Council Member Waller: Do you realize that that in itself means
that you cannot enact laws which - which, and then go make them
retroactive.
Mr. Schiro: Yes.
Council Member Waller: Okay. Now, is it not the point that if you
had taken out a building permit, such as the Baldis, no matter how
long ago it was, you would not be then in this particular predicament
Mr. Schiro: Well, as a matter of fact, Mr. Baldi is in a situation,
that if he does not start his project, then his thing - which I
guess he has renewed his permit year after year, as Mr. Ryskamp has
said, if he allows that time to elapse, he is out of luck.
Council Member Waller: Okay.
Page 9
Beaumont City Council
November 9, 1987
Mr. Schiro: Now, I understand the expo facto, all I am saying is
this, if you want to make this effective, then let's make it
effective 12:01 tonight. You know, the idea is this decision wasn't
reached September 15, 18 or 19. This decision was made November 9.
So if we want to make it effective, and say, from this point for-
ward, no more will come in because a study is in effect. I think
that is fair, because you have the right to make that decision. But
you are pointing right to that expo factor by saying if the study
has the right to stop the projects that are in - and I understand
there are others that are in now, then, to me, that is expo facto,
because we stopped it back to September 1$.
Council Member Waller: Now, didn't this, though, take place,
basically, the meeting, the joint meeting, November 9. I mean, you
know, although, it wasn't this exact ordinance, the intent and the
decision by the Council at that time, was it not then to implement
something like this.
Mr. Schiro: The information I have Mr. Waller, comes from two
sources. The minutes . . .
Council Member Waller: Well, I'll tell you, it is. I mean that was
the intent. And I am just . . .
Mayor Partain: Wait a minute. Wait a minute.
Council Member Waller: I made the motion.
Mayor Partain: You can - the motion at that meeting was for a study.
I voted for a study, but I had no intent at that time to completely
stop construction. And, in fact, speaking for myself, there are some
things about the urgency ordinance, as put forth in Item B here that
I am not in favor of. And I will express my point at that time, but
as far as that meeting, the only thing that I voted on was the study,
and I think that should be clear.
Council Member Waller: If I am not mistaken . . .
Mayor Partain: Do we have any more questions directed here. Let's
let him set down, and then we can get into our discussion. Do you
have any questions. Council Member Connors.
Mr. Schiro: If they don't, can I just summarize very quickly.
Council Member Waller: Well, I would like to know. When was it
that you submitted your building permit.
City Manager: Plans.
Council Member Waller: Have you taken out a building permit.
Mr. Schiro: No, because we have to go through City planning, and
still go through the program. We submitted our plans . . .
Council Member Waller: Well, if we did this effective 12:01
tonight, you still wouldn't be able to do it.
Mr. Schiro: Okay. What I am asking you not to do is stifle the
City planning, and say - well, let me address what you have
asked. I do not have a permit. I submitted plans and went
through the normal procedure that I expected to go through. 30
days of a waiting period for a notice to the community. I pro-
vided labels, the neighborhood got, you know, all their things.
And I was ready to go the middle of October, I believe it was.
That was just the way the time phased out. And then, I don't
know what happened, and it seemed best to kind of wait and see
what was really going on, because the only information, and this
is alluding to the question you asked, Mr. Waller, was what in-
formation did I have about the joint meeting on whatever dates
Page 10
Beaumont City Council
November 9, 1987
that was. I only had the minutes, and the newspaper account. So
I understood, from the minutes in particular, that there were two
moves. One by Mrs. Connors, and one by you. Which kind of said
about the same thing. There was no definition in the minutes that
what yours said, and what hers said. Hers was first, then yours,
as I remember those documents. But it talked about a study, so
I thought, well, it is only a study. You are trying to find the
answer to the question. And, I didn't mean to insult anyone with
my analogy of shooting the prisoner before the trial. Because I
feel this is just too abrupt. My question, or my request, at 12:01
tonight, if you want to stop the City planning from accepting any
more projects, that is fine. I don't consider that the expo facto
that you and I were talking about. I think that if at this time
that no other projects can be accepted would be fine. But on
September - the date, you know - in the minutes of your last
meeting there was no indication that this was going to happen, so
we proceeded, and now we feel that we have been stopped, and don't
understand why.
Mayor Partain: Okay. Questions. Council Member Connors. Do you
have questions or comments at this time.
Council Member Connors: Oh, yeah, I do.
Mayor Partain: Okay, go for it.
Council Member Connors: On September 18 and 19, in fact before that
at our Council meeting before that, I had requested that joint
meeting for the purpose of getting that area back into residential
single family. Everybody here knew that. Everybody up here. We
got to that meeting, and we understood that that is what happened.
I understood it that way, Council Member Waller understood it that
way. And, I am surprised to hear that now we didn't understand it
that way. And I am pretty upset about it. That is why we didn't
wait until the end of the study, because we thought the study
stopped it. We asked about it directly. Council Member Waller
and I, and the Planning Director told us that she would advise the
developers of the study, and that their projects would be contin-
gent upon the results of the study.
Now, the reason that you found this out later, was because the
property at 738 Chestnut showed up on an agenda for the Planning
Commission, and when it showed up I questioned it. And that is
how it came about that you found out this is what we understood.
And, apparently you still do not understand that we were under
the impression that the study stopped the building of multi-
family projects in that area. But that is what we understood, and
I still believe that is what was said. I have always believed
that was what was said because we asked directly.
As far as whether it is critical, or whether it is a necessity, it
is. Because, if we postpone it, then projects will keep going
right on through. Now, the apartments that are up somewhere else
have nothing to do with this. These single family houses are
finding apartment buildings in different blocks. There will be a
few houses, and then there will be an apartment building, and then
a few more houses. And the fact that there may be more in one
block then there is in another, still does not change the problem
for the entire area. Now we have an older single family residential
area that we need to preserve. And we have a lot of apartments,
as you pointed out yourself, and whether you are good people, or
neat and clean - and good or not - is also irrelevant to this
issue. And, the reason this misunderstanding came about is
because we understood one thing, and apparently the developers
were not being told that. And we didn't know it until that
project showed up on the Planning Commission agenda.
Mayor Partain: Comments, Mr. Waller.
Council Member Waller: Yes. Just to re- emphasis what Council
Member Connors has said, I did ask directly, when it was mentioned
T_ - - 4 4
Beaumo City Council
November 9, 1987
that the word moratorium was a word that real estate brokers,
developers, all disliked, and I said, well, I really am not that
concerned about having it where we have a moratorium. All I feel,
and I hope the developers understand, is that for the citizens of
Beaumont I feel it is our duty, responsibility and obligation to
study this so they don't have in the vacant lot next to them, a
five or six unit apartment building jumping up in the next couple
of minutes. I asked directly, will this - making the motion as a
study - cover the fact that there will be no more building until
the study is complete. I think it was mentioned that it had a
time limit, and therefore whether the study was complete or not,
you know, it would run its gambit, and therefore we would have to
extend it, or whatever, but, I am fully confident that the
Planning Commission can handle this situation before the 45 days.
I don't know. Five unit apartments. Is your unit next to the
lot that you have, is that not a fact that it is six in there now.
Yeah, so it is not five.
Mayor Partain: You can't get six anymore Marshal.
Council Member Waller: Yes, I know, but they weren't supposed
to get six in there in the first place, but it got through,
somehow.
Mr. Schiro: Councilman Waller, we were allowed seven, when we
put the six in. It was seven units, but it wasn't approved.
We put six. Now, with your open space, we are putting five, and
that is what is allowed.
Council Member Waller: Well I am just thinking of the plot plan
that was submitted, it had five, and all of a sudden there was
six in there, and, you know, that in itself was something that
I didn't actually feel was something that would be appreciated by
the neighbors, but there was the tremendous amount of communica-
tion, I understand, and everybody was pacified. That is all I
have to say.
Mayor Partain: Mr. Bounds? No. I would agree - - did you wish
to say anything.
Council Member Connors: Not right now, no.
Mayor Partain: Are you waiting for me.
Council Member Connors: I might later.
Mayor Partain: I didn't understand from the meeting, and still
don't, that the study would, in fact, stop any building. I never
understood that. I just didn't understand it that way. However,
I am in favor of a study. I want you to know that. I am not in
favor of, in fact, of the complete stoppage of construction
throughout that entire area. I am, however. . .
City Attorney: Can I clarify something for you Mayor Partain.
There is not a complete stoppage of construction.
Mayor Partain: I understand that . . .
City Attorney: By the ordinance there will be no further grant-
ing of privileges to build or develop property . . .
Mayor Partain: For high density.
City Attorney: For high density. So that if a building permit
is already issued, construction even for high density would
continue.
Mayor Partain: I understand that.
City Attorney: Okay.
Page 12
Beaumont City Council
November 9, 1987
Mayor Partain: I certainly agree with what Council Member Connors
has raised all along. We do have areas that, and, for instance,
right up in through here, here, here and here, where we have high
density. And, even in this area here, where it is high density are
primarily single family areas. I would question, and even argue,
from Pennsylvania, through this area on Pennsylvania, that single
family is there any longer. Simply because the minute you cross
6th Street on to Pennsylvania, the first thing you have are apart-
ments. And they continue to be apartments, totally, in that area.
And that is one thing - there is some land through that area, I
would say from 6th to 8th, and from 8th - yes, from 6th to 8th,
and from Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, primarily this area in
through here - and maybe even including Chestnut. And I think we
do need to look at it.
I do agree that the whole area needs to be studied. I agree with
that 100 %, but I do not necessarily agree that this should be
single family anymore. Simply for the reason that from 8th Street
to 6th Street, all through that area, is primarily apartments. And
I don't think it would be wise to allow single family back into
that area. In the high density area.
Council Member Waller: Well . . .
Council Member Connors: But that will show up in the study.
Council Member Waller: Yes, that would.
Mayor Partain: However, what you are saying here is that if some-
one wanted to develop in that area, and you are saying, yes, we
agree, it should be high density, let's stop it anyway.
Council Member Connors: We are saying it might be. We will have
to see what the study says.
Mayor Partain: I am also a little bit concerned. I do not see how
the Planning Commission can, in fact, be back in 45 days with the
study complete.
City Attorney: Let me point out what we have going on here.
Mayor Partain: I think it is going to be extended, and that concerns
me.
City Attorney: Realistically, the Planning Commission cannot com-
plete the study that needs to be done, nor can the staff do that in
45 days. Basically, what would happen within the 45 days would be
a definite determination as to a schedule for accomplishing this,
and a proposed plan in terms of costs, personnel use, etc., and, I
should think also, and Mr. Bounds would need to make a statement to
this, that, at this point, I couldn't make a statement as to whether
or not it ought to be the whole area or not, not being familiar with
it. I don't know that anyone on staff could make that broad a state-
ment, and I think that is the reason why you have, by law, the 45
day limit, is to give a chance for public input. To give a chance
to stop everything while you take an initial look at determining
what ought to be done. And then you put your extension into place.
And it is going to take an extension. There is no way possible
that we can amend the housing element on the General Plan perman-
ently - the work that needs to be done to accomplish that, in 45
days.
Council Member Connors: When is the date of the 45 days. What is
the date.
City Attorney: The 45 days is - from tonight - runs close to
Christmas.
Mayor Partain: Go ahead Mr. Bounds.
City Manager: A report is being typed at the present time. This
one that nobody thinks is going to be ready, and it is going to
Page 13
Beaumont City Council
November 9, 1987
shock everybody. Thank goodness there was some stopping before
the single family homes got created into apartments quickly. It
will be shocking when you see the numbers.
Mayor Partain: The report is ready.
City Manager: It is being typed right now.
Mayor Partain: It is being typed.
City Manager: We hope to have it out tomorrow afternoon.
Mayor Partain: You hope to have it out when, Mr. Bounds.
City Manager: Tomorrow afternoon. But I - let me assure you, that
if you do not do something, then don't come back at us and complain
when we accept about ten applications. We could give out ten ap-
plications tomorrow morning. Everybody wants an application now,
because everybody wants to rape the property.
Council Member Waller. Yes. Right.
City Manager: And they are doing it right by your grandmothers
and mothers, and this and that. They are not really being con-
siderate of what is around them when they have been asking.
Council Member Waller: I just wanted to make the comment, when
Mr. Ryskamp said 45 days - of course, as we have found the re-
port will be ready - that 45 days, we have got a more than
efficient staff, and actually, from September 19, when this
motion was made to now, has been just around that, and - well
no, even less, even less than 45 days. And, they have been
able to accomplish it. I think extending it - I mean, not ex-
tending it, making this 45 days, that will give us time to sit
back and really understand the impact of this study. And I can't
see any other way of doing it.
Mayor Partain: Mr. Bauer.
Council Member Bauer: Well, I feel what I read here in front of
me is Ordinance No. 651, an urgency interim ordinance of the
City Council of the City of Beaumont, and I believe that it is
intended to be an urgency, interim ordinance. And I feel that
we should go ahead with this thing, and set it up, and then if
in the course of time we find that there has to be some retraction,
or retrenchment, do so. But I feel strongly that we should start
right now and pass this ordinance.
City Manager: In answer to Mr. Gordon's situation on income tax,
or whatever, the ordinance reads this is an interim ordinance,
shall be of no further force and effect 45 days from its date of
adoption, unless extended. It calls for a public hearing on the
14th of December, which is in the 45 days. It calls for a report
to be made, which is the report that you are looking for. And it
gives plenty of time to get all of the people together that are
desirous of being here to represent their property. I don't know
how many are going to get their plans together by December 14,
and if they do, how many can get started before the rains. Maybe
it is not going to rain, I don't know.
Mayor Partain: Go ahead Mr. Ryskamp.
City Attorney: Just to go back to what Mr. Bounds is saying, the
purpose of the law, and all of this is coming straight out of the
Government Code, is designed to do just that. Freeze everything
to give opportunity for public input, to give opportunity for a
report on direction of the study of the plan, and so that there
is the input, to make a decision on the extension to allow time
as needed to properly complete the change without having the
Page 14
Beaumon, City Council
November 9, 1987
fact that the change is being discussed only create more of the
problem that you are analyzing. And that is its purpose. That
is why these exist is to accomplish just that. Freeze things
before the situation gets any worse. To be certain so that you
can step back and analyze it, and determine what is best for the
City.
Mayor Partain: I don't think it is the action, I think it was
the report that had me concerned. I realize the action, but if
the report is ready, I don't have any problem with it.
City Attorney: Well, I guess I do have a question I am wanting to
clarify. The report we are talking about is to analyze the
situation in this area to an extent that we are going to amend
the housing element. Or is it a report on them indicating what
needs to be done to amend the housing element and the General
Plan. I guess - I don't want to overestimate again, Bob, what
we are doing.
City Manager: I think the report is going to show that we have
got a lot of blocks in this area that are all single family homes,
have been single family homes, and are ready to be raped as long
as they stay zoned as they are. I wouldn't like my cul -de -sac
to be changed to RHD.
Mayor Partain: Not only that - and I agree with that - particu-
larly in these areas over here. And that is what I say - and
then some areas . . .
City Manager: And that is what the report will show - it will
show all of that.
City Attorney: Will the report also give us an analysis. I
thought Mr. Schiro's testimony was of excellent value, pointing
out the 274 unit apartment building that has been approved. Will
we be able to get . . .
City Manager: Well, the 274 apartment unit north of the City has
no single family any place around it.
City Attorney: No, no, the significant issue is the City has
provided high density apartment dwellings. That is significant
in terms of the analysis, you know, the allegation was made you
are cutting out 90% of the residential high density. Well, the
reality is we are cutting out a large area that is basically
single family, and there is a provision already in the City for
residential high density. If you have got a 274 unit apartments
approved, then you are not opposed to residential high density.
We are dealing with a problem area.
City Manager: When you start trying to divide up, and say that
you can get four or five units on a lot, what you are saying is
we have got a lot of side yard that has to be taken up when we
deal with individual lots. When you deal with a complex, you
can get open space, swimming pools, and things like that, that
small units can't get because they are being taken up by side
yard, front yards, back yards, that have no value to the people.
And so, to say that is an argument, I don't feel that is an
argument, personally.
City Attorney: I was suggesting the contrary. That the City
has been meeting the need for residential high density in other
areas, with large projects that can be properly planned. The
274 unit one being a good example of that in an area outside of
this kind of core area that is primarily single family residen-
tial.
City Manager: Well, you are going to be shocked when you see
the number of lots that are single family, and there is 900 and
some odd lots in the study area. That is the reason it took a
little bit of time to get the report ready.
Page 15
Beaumonc City Council
November 9, 1987
Mayor Partain: Do we need any further input.
Council Member Waller: No.
Mayor Partain: Okay. You have before you, under Item 16, Ordin-
ance No. 651. You have two portions. One to read the Ordinance
by title only, and then the Ordinance itself will be before you.
Mr. Bounds.
City Manager: I have one correction of a typo that is on Page 2,
Section 6, the last word. It says entended - e - n - t - e - n - d,
should be extended - e - x - t - e - n - d - e - d.
Mayor Partain: Okay, everybody got that. All right. Anything
else. All right.
City Manager: Mr. Mayor, does everybody under
if you adopt this, a public hearing to be held
ber. The report to be back. That if there is
public hearing, that this ordinance dies in 45
taken out of effect on the night of the 14th.
permanent about it unless extended.
stand. This calls for,
on the -14th of Decem-
no ordinance from this
days, or could be
There is nothing
Mayor Partain: Yes. I don't have any problem with it. Does
everybody understand. Okay.
Motion to read Ordinance No. 651 by Title only.
Motion by Council Member Bauer, second by Council Member Waller, to
read Ordinance No. 651 by title only.
AYES: Council Member Bauer, Waller and Mayor Partain.
NOES: Council Member Connors.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Shaw.
MOTION FAILED.
The Ordinance was read in its entirety by the Deputy City Clerk.
Motion to Adopt Ordinance No. 651 as an Urgency Ordinance at its
first reading.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member Connors,
to adopt Ordinance No. 651 as an Urgency Ordinance at its first
reading.
AYES: Council Member Bauer, Connors, Waller and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Shaw.
17. CONSENT CALENDAR - All items listed under the Consent
calendar are considered to be routine by the City Council and
will be approved on one motion. There will be no separate
discussion of these items unless a Council Member or Citizen
so requests, in which case the item will be removed from the
Consent Calendar and considered as a separate item.
Council Member Connors requested the minutes be corrected as
follows: On Page 2, Section 5, the last paragraph, should
be shown as Council Member Roosevelt Williams rather than
Council Member Roosevelt, with the same correction to be made
on Page 3, Section 8, second paragraph.
a. Approval of Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of
October 26, 1987.
b. Approval of Payment of Warrants as Audited per Warrant
List of November 9, 1987, in the Amount of $60,392.24;
and Payroll of October 29, 1987, in the Amount of
$43,021.60.
Page 16
Beaumo... City Council
November 9, 1987
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member Waller,
to approve the Consent Calendar with the corrections to the minutes
as noted.
AYES: Council Member Bauer, Connors, Waller and Mayor
Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Shaw.
18. Recess to Closed Session Pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(a) Regarding Pending Litigation.
Identification of such litigation would jeopardize the City's
ability to conclude existing settlement negotiations to its
advantage.
The meeting was recessed to Closed Session at 7 :51 P.M.
The meeting was reconvened to Regular Session at 8:35 P.M.
Let the record show a report was given by the City Manager and
direction was given to him regarding pending litigation, but no
definitive action was taken.
Date set for next regular Council Meeting, Monday, November 23,
at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers.
There being no further business to come before the Council, on
motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member Bauer,
the meeting was adjourned at 8:36 P.M.
Reskectfully submitted,
ty City Clerk
Page 17
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
NOVEMBER 23, 1987
The Beaumont City Council met in a regular meeting at 6:04 P.M., on Monday,
November 23, 1987, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor Partain pre-
siding.
On roll call, the following Council Members were present: Bauer, Connors,
and Mayor Partain. Council Member Shaw and Waller were excused.
The Invocation was given by City Manager Robert Bounds.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Council Member Bauer.
1. Clerk's Affidavit of Posting.
The Clerk's affidavit of posting the agenda was read into the record
by the Deputy City Clerk.
2. Adjustments to Agenda.
The City Manager advised he had received a request from Council Member
Shaw to hold the reorganization of the Council until he is able to
attend the meeting; and Council Member Waller had indicated that on
Item No. 10, the report can be given to him as soon as it is ready,
which is anticipated to be prior to the December 14 meeting, as a
result Item No. 10 should be deleted from the agenda.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member Bauer, to
hold Item No. 3 over until the December 14 meeting and to delete
Item No. 10 from the agenda.
There being no opposition, the motion carried with three ayes, two
absent.
3. Reorganization of Council: (Continued from November 9, 1987)
a. Nominations for Mayor.
Roll Call:
b. Nominations for Mayor Pro Tem.
Roll Call:
By prior motion, Item No. 3 was continued to the regular meeting of
December 14, 1987.
4. ORAL COMMUNICATION:
There were no requests to speak under oral communication.
5. PUBLIC HEARING - 6:00 P.M. - INTENTION TO ORDER ABANDONMENT OF A
PORTION OF THIRD STREET. (Applicant: Gary Wilson).
The Public Hearing was Opened at 6:08 P.M.
There were no proponents or opponents requesting to speak.
The Public Hearing was Closed at 6:09 P.M.
The City Manager presented his report concerning this proposed
abandonment, and answered questions from Council Member Connors.
Page 1
M1
7•
Beaumont City Council
November 23, 1987
a. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -74 - Ordering the Abandonment and Vacation
of a Portion of Third Street. (Applicant: Gary Wilson).
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Mayor Partain, to adopt
Resolution No. 1987 -74•
AYES: Council Member Bauer, Connors and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Shaw and Waller.
RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -75 - Providing the Method of Drawing Warrants
or Checks on the City Treasury.
Mayor Partain indicated he had requested this item
that since Council Member Shaw's illness, there ha
in getting checks signed in a timely manner, since
until he can get here after work. As a result, he
additional signatures be authorized to sign checks
will not continue to occur.
.;X._
due to the fact
s been difficulty
they have to wait
is suggesting that
so this problem
The City Manager pointed out that two signatures are required on each
check, and when one authorized signature is ill, another is out -
of -town, and one on vacation, the problem then occurs of not being
able to get anything signed. He then advised that the Government
Code states the Mayor and City Clerk shall sign all checks, but
does provide that the Council may prescribe a different method if
they so desire.
There was lengthy discussion concerning who should be authorized, and
it was the consensus of the Council Members that the following should
be authorized to sign all checks drawn on the City Treasury:
Council Member
Council Member
Council Member
City Treasurer
Director of Ad:
Ronney Wong
Fred Shaw
Bill Bauer
Ann Connors
Donald Houston
ninistrative Services,
Motion by Council Member Bauer, second by Council Member Connors, to
adopt Resolution No. 1987 -75, with the five authorized signatures as
listed above included in the body of the resolution.
AYES: Council Member Bauer, Connors and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Shaw and Waller.
RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -76 - Providing the Method of Drawing Warrants
or Checks on Accounts of Assessment District 1983 -1.
The City Manager reported there are only two authorized signatures
for this particular account, and for the same reasons as indicated
under the preceding agenda item, additional authorized signatures
are needed. Additionally, interest must be paid in a timely manner
for the assessment district, and if one of the authorized signa-
tures is not available there would be a definite problem.
Motion by Council Member Bauer, second by Council Member Connors,
to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -76, to include Council Members Shaw,
Bauer and Connors, City Treasurer Donald Houston and Director of
Administrative Services, Ronney Wong, as the authorized signatures.
AYES: Council Member Bauer, Connors and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Shaw and Waller.
Page 2
Beaumont City Council
November 23, 1987
8. Consideration of Claim Filed by Timmy Don Zuelke.
A report was received from the City Manager, with the recommenda-
tion for denial of the claim since it is unclear and the damages
have not been set forth in an ascertainable amount.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member Bauer,
to deny the claim based on the findings that the claim is not
clear and the damages have not been set forth in an ascertainable
amount.
AYES: Council Member Bauer, Connors and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Shaw and Waller.
9. Consideration of Establishing a Water Reclamation Committee.
The City Manager presented his report concerning the reason for
establishing this water reclamation committee. This report is
a matter of record in the Clerk's file.
Since all members of the Council are not present at this time,
it was felt this should be continued until the next regular
meeting.
Motion by Council Member Bauer, second by Council Member Connors,
to continue this agenda item until the meeting of December 14.
There being no opposition, the motion carried with three ayes,
two absent.
10. Request from Council Member Waller for Quarterly Information
Regarding the Code Enforcement Activities Within the City.
(Continued from November 9, 1987).
By prior motion, this agenda item was deleted from the agenda.
11. CONSENT CALENDAR - All items listed under the Consent
Calendar are considered to be routine by the City Council and
will be approved on one motion. There will be no separate
discussion of these items unless a Council Member or Citizen
so requests, in which case the item will be removed from the
Consent Calendar and considered as a separate item.
a. Approval of Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of November 9,
1987.
b. Acceptance of Planning Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting
of October 6, 1987 and Regular Meeting of October 20, 1987.
C. Approval of Payment of Warrants as Audited per Warrant List
of November 23, 1987, in the amount of $244,356.09; and Pay-
roll of November 12, 1987, in the amount of $41,041.00.
d. Authorize the Mayor to Execute a Special Counsel Agreement
with the Law Offices of Brown & Diven Relating to Proceed-
ings in a new Wastewater Treatment Plant Project.
e. Authorize the Mayor to Execute a Letter Agreement with
M. F. Whipple & Co., Inc. to Provide Financial Consulting
Services Relating to Proceedings in a New Wastewater
Treatment Plant Project.
f. Authorize the Mayor to Execute an Agreement with the City
of Banning for Maintenance of the Traffic Signals at High-
land Springs Avenue and Sixth Street.
g. Report of Planning Commission Action at Regular Meeting of
November 17, 1987.
Page 3
Beaumon.,, City Council
November 23, 1987
Mayor Partain asked that the minutes of November 9 be corrected to
reflect the vote on Agenda Items No. 7, 8, the combined item of 9,
10 and 11, and No. 14, is four ayes, one absent, rather than three
ayes, one absent.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member Bauer,
to approve the Consent Calendar with the minutes as corrected.
AYES: Council Member Bauer, Connors and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Shaw and Waller.
There being no further business to come before the Council, on motion by
Council Member Connors, second by Council Member Bauer, the meeting was
adjourned at 6:31 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
City Clerk
Page 4
ZI
7•
Beaumont City Council
November 23, 1987
a. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -74 - Ordering the Abandonment and Vacation
of a Portion of Third Street. (Applicant: Gary Wilson).
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Mayor Partain, to adopt
Resolution No. 1987 -74•
AYES: Council Member Bauer, Connors and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Shaw and Waller.
RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -75 - Providing the Method of Drawing Warrants
or Checks on the City Treasury.
Mayor Partain indicated he had requested this item
that since Council Member Shaw's illness, there ha
in getting checks signed in a timely manner, since
until he can get here after work. As a result, he
additional signatures be authorized to sign checks
will not continue to occur.
..'C.
due to the fact
s been difficulty
they have to wait
is suggesting that
so this problem
The City Manager pointed out that two signatures are required on each
check, and when one authorized signature is ill, another is out -
of -town, and one on vacation, the problem then occurs of not being
able to get anything signed. He then advised that the Government
Code states the Mayor and City Clerk shall sign all checks, but
does provide that the Council may prescribe a different method if
they so desire.
There was lengthy discussion concerning who should be authorized, and
it was the consensus of the Council Members that the following should
be authorized to sign all checks drawn on the City Treasury:
Council Member
Council Member
Council Member
City Treasurer
Director of Ad
Ronney Wong
Fred Shaw
Bill Bauer
Ann Connors
Donald Houston
ninistrative Services,
Motion by Council Member Bauer, second by Council Member Connors, to
adopt Resolution No. 1987 -75, with the five authorized signatures as
listed above included in the body of the resolution.
AYES: Council Member Bauer, Connors and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Shaw and Waller.
RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -76 - Providing the Method of Drawing Warrants
or Checks on Accounts of Assessment District 1983 -1.
The City Manager reported there are only two authorized signatures
for this particular account, and for the same reasons as indicated
under the preceding agenda item, additional authorized signatures
are needed. Additionally, interest must be paid in a timely manner
for the assessment district, and if one of the authorized signa-
tures is not available there would be a definite problem.
Motion by Council Member Bauer, second by Council Member Connors,
to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -76, to include Council Members Shaw,
Bauer and Connors, City Treasurer Donald Houston and Director of
Administrative Services, Ronney Wong, as the authorized signatures.
AYES: Council Member Bauer, Connors and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Shaw and Waller.
Page 2
BeaumoiLc City Council
November 23, 1987
8. Consideration of Claim Filed by Timmy Don Zuelke.
A report was received from the City Manager, with the recommenda-
tion for denial of the claim since it is unclear and the damages
have not been set forth in an ascertainable amount.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member Bauer,
to deny the claim based on the findings that the claim is not
clear and the damages have not been set forth in an ascertainable
amount.
AYES: Council Member Bauer, Connors and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Shaw and Waller.
9. Consideration of Establishing a Water Reclamation Committee.
The City Manager presented his report concerning the reason for
establishing this water reclamation committee. This report is
a matter of record in the Clerk's file.
Since all members of the Council are not present at this time,
it was felt this should be continued until the next regular
meeting.
Motion by Council Member Bauer, second by Council Member Connors,
to continue this agenda item until the meeting of December 14.
There being no opposition, the motion carried with three ayes,
two absent.
10. Request from Council Member Waller for Quarterly Information
Regarding the Code Enforcement Activities Within the City.
(Continued from November 9, 1987).
By prior motion, this agenda item was deleted from the agenda.
11. CONSENT CALENDAR - All items listed under the Consent
Calendar are considered to be routine by the City Council and
will be approved on one motion. There will be no separate
discussion of these items unless a Council Member or Citizen
so requests, in which case the item will be removed from the
Consent Calendar and considered as a separate item.
a. Approval of Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of November 9,
1987.
b. Acceptance of Planning Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting
of October 6, 1987 and Regular Meeting of October 20, 1987.
C. Approval of Payment of Warrants as Audited per Warrant List
of November 23, 1987, in the amount of $244,356.09; and Pay-
roll of November 12, 1987, in the amount of $41,041.00.
d. Authorize the Mayor to Execute a Special Counsel Agreement
with the Law Offices of Brown & Diven Relating to Proceed-
ings in a new Wastewater Treatment Plant Project.
e. Authorize the Mayor to Execute a Letter Agreement with
M. F. Whipple & Co., Inc. to Provide Financial Consulting
Services Relating to Proceedings in a New Wastewater
Treatment Plant Project.
f. Authorize the Mayor to Execute an Agreement with the City
of Banning for Maintenance of the Traffic Signals at High-
land Springs Avenue and Sixth Street.
g. Report of Planning Commission Action at Regular Meeting of
November 17, 1987.
Page 3
Beaumo� -- City Council
November 23, 1987
Mayor Partain asked that the minutes of November 9 be corrected to
reflect the vote on Agenda Items No. 7, 8, the combined item of 9,
10 and 11, and No. 14, is four ayes, one absent, rather than three
ayes, orie absent.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member Bauer,
to approve the Consent Calendar with the minutes as corrected.
AYES: Council Member Bauer, Connors and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Shaw and Waller.
There being no further business to come before the Council, on motion by
Council Member Connors, second by Council Member Bauer, the meeting was
adjourned at 6:31 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
i
City Clerk'�'
Page 4
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
DECEMBER 14, 1987
The Beaumont City Council met in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Monday,
December 14, 1987, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor Partain pre-
siding.
On roll call the following Council Members were present: Bauer, Connors,
Shaw, Waller and Mayor Partain.
The Invocation was given by City Attorney George Ryskamp.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Council Member Connors.
1. Clerk's Affidavit of Posting.
The Clerk's affidavit of posting the agenda was read into the record
by the Deputy City Clerk.
2. Adjustments to Agenda.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member Bauer, to
remove Item No. 5 from the agenda indefinitely, or until such time
that it is brought back and public hearing renewed.
There being no opposition, the motion carried unanimously.
3. Reorganization of Council: (Continued from November 23, 1987)
The meeting was turned over to the Deputy City Clerk to conduct
the reorganization of the Council.
a. Nominations for Mayor.
Nominations for Mayor were declared open.
Council Member Shaw nominated Council Member Waller for Mayor.
Council Member Connors stated that because of his natural ability
to be Mayor, the good impression he makes as the City's representa-
tive, his great popularity with the citizens, together with his
on- the -job experience, she feels the best choice is Jim Partain
to continue as Mayor, thereby nominating Council Member Partain
for Mayor.
There being no further nominations for Mayor, nominations were
closed.
Roll Call on nominations for Mayor.
Council Member Bauer: Jim Partain.
Council Member Connors: Jim Partain.
Council Member Shaw: Marshal Waller.
Council Member Waller: Marshal Waller.
Council Member Partain: Jim Partain.
Council Member Partain will continue as Mayor on a vote of 3 -2.
Page 1
Beaumont City Council
December 14, 1987
b. Nominations for Mayor Pro Tem.
Nominations for Mayor Pro Tem were declared open.
Council Member Shaw nominated Council Member Marshal Waller.
Council Member Bauer nominated Council Member Ann Connors.
There being no further nominations for Mayor Pro Tem, nominations
were closed.
Roll Call on Nominations for Mayor Pro Tem.
Council Member Bauer: Ann Connors.
Council Member Connors: Ann Connors.
Council Member Shaw: Marshal Waller.
Council Member Waller: Marshal Waller.
Mayor Partain: Ann Connors.
Council Member Connors will serve as Mayor Pro Tem on a vote of 3 -2.
4. ORAL COMMUNICATION:
There was no one requesting to speak during oral communication.
Let the record show Council Member Shaw was excused at 6:10 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - 6:00 P.M.
5. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 22524 - (87-TM -5, Am. No. 2). Applicant:
Devcorp. Location: East side of Palm Avenue between Cougar and
Brookside. A proposed 49 lot single family subdivision.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 22 2 - (87-TM -4, Am. No. 1). Applicant:
Devcorp. Location: S W Corner of Brookside and Noble St. A
proposed 57 lot single family subdivision.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 22 26 - (87-TM -6, Am. No. 2). Applicant:
Devcorp. Location: W Side of Noble St., S/ of Brookside at
East City Limits. A proposed 52 lot single family subdivision.
By previous motion, this agenda item was removed from the agenda
indefinitely.
6. a. Presentation of Recommendation of Planning Commission and
Report of Staff Regarding RHD Zoning in the special study
area and proposed measures to take to alleviate the condi-
tion which led to the adoption of Interim Ordinance No.
651, and discussion thereof.
The recommendation of Planning Commission and Report of staff was
received by the City Council.
The new Community Development Director, Mr. Steve Koules, was
introduced by the City Manager. Mr. Koules then presented a
verbal report concerning this special study area.
There were no questions from the Council.
b. Consideration of Adoption of Report proposing measures to
be taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption
of Interim Ordinance No. 651.
A report was received from the City Manager concerning the
adoption of this report, with additional input from the City
Attorney. Brief questions were asked by Mayor Partain and
Council Member Waller for clarification.
Page 2
-
Beaumont City Council
December 14, 1987
Motion by Council Member Bauer, second by Council Member Connors,
to adopt the report proposing measures to be taken to alleviate
the condition which led to the adoption of Interim Ordinance No.
6,51.
The motion carried with three ayes, Council Member Waller opposed,
and Council Member Shaw absent.
c. EXTENSION OF URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 651 - An Urgency Interim
Ordinance Rezoning from Residential High Density to Residential
Single Family that Portion of the City Within the Following
Boundaries: From the Western City Limits to Cherry Avenue, and
from 6th Street to 11th Street.
The Public Hearing was opened at 6:28 P.M.
Artie McMillan, 1277 Pennsylvania, speaking in favor of Ordinance
651: I represent a group called the Beaumont citizens for single
family zoning in the study area of Urgency Ordinance 651. I am
here to present a set of petitions signed by people who support
our stand. We have 230 signatures. We are sure that if the
ordinance is extended we can obtain many more signatures, because
the committee has not had sufficient time to completely canvass
the City. Each person who signed my petition was shown the map,
and the petition was read to them. The reaction was that they
really hadn't understood what was going on with the high density
zoning. They didn't even know that they were living in a high
density zone. So now they are adamant that they want the pro-
tection of single family zoning. It is up to the City Council and
the Planning Commission to provide this protection. The matter
should be resolved on the basis of the needs of the people, and
not on the interest of outside people, and a few builders. I
want to thank you.
A copy of the petition was given to the City Council, and will
be retained as a matter of record by the City Clerk.
Mayor Partain: Thank you. Nancy Tadeus.
Nancy Tadeus, 660 Pennsylvania, speaking in favor of Ordinance
No. 651: I am in favor of rezoning to R -1 because the apartments
and high density make the neighborhood really cheap, and there is
parking problems where I am. There is a blank lot behind me, and
it could be an apartment or some high density, and it could block
my view. It gives you a crowded feeling.
The people who live in these apartments they don't value their
surroundings as single family homes does. When they are renting
they don't treat their homes - they don't treat their apartments
like their home - they just run down the neighborhood. I am in
favor of R -1. Thank you very much.
Mayor Partain: Are there any other proponents. Anyone else wishing
to speak in favor of. Okay. Tom you didn't mark yours, so I didn't
Tom Daniel, 38114 Cherry Valley Blvd, Cherry Valley, speaking neither
in favor or against: I own several pieces of commercial property
along Beaumont Avenue in the study area. The ordinance, or the
emergency ordinance, has been specified as a residential battle be-
tween high density and single family. I didn't mark my ballot
because I don't particularly want to get into the residential battle,
but I do feel that the entire study area should be studied. The en-
tire general plan should be looked at, and decided how big a City you
want. How many people you want living in the City limits, and in
that area. Regardless of what it comes out, I feel that the commer-
cial zoning available along Beaumont Avenue currently isn't adequate.
And that the commercial zoning should be extended on the west to
Euclid, and on the east to Magnolia, rather than just going to the
alleys in the middle of those blocks.
Page 3
Beaumont City Council
December 14, 1987
If you are indeed going to look at the entire general plan, and
pass an ordinance that gives you time to study it, and this needs
to be addressed, so I am in favor of a study of this area, and an
expansion of the commercial zone along Beaumont Avenue. Thank you.
Mayor Partain: Okay. Any other proponents.
Valerie Monroe, 666 California, speaking in favor: As I was going
around getting petitions I found that many people, especially up
California who know about the apartment complex that went up
between 10th and 11th on Edgar behind Mrs. Potts' property, were
quite outraged that it ever even went up. And, I just, I want the
City of Beaumont to be a nice town, and I want - I am sure that the
continuity of the town has to be considered also. Because you have
a nice home here, like Mrs. Potts' place, she has a really nice
place, and then right up behind her house there is this huge apart-
ment complex towering over this cute little home, and then you have
a cute little home next to it. It looks like hell. And I wouldn't
want to live near it.
Council Member Waller: A question on that.
Mayor Partain: Go ahead, Mr. Waller.
Council Member Waller: I just wanted to make sure. Next to the
property that you are talking about, on the north, is there not
apartments.
Ms. Monroe: Yeah, there is. Mrs. Potts is the one to the south
of the apartment, and then there is another apartment building
behind this apartment, but it is not the two story. And then there
is housing.
Council Member Waller: But there is an apartment.
Ms. Monroe: Yes.
Mayor Partain: I believe this is for the record, Mr. Bounds, and I
am sure that the Council Members each would like to have a copy of
that. Okay. We will go down the list here of those wishing to
speak, and I appreciate so far those that have kept their comments
to the point, and let's continue to do that. Mr. Weaver, you are
next in line here.
Lew Weaver, 690 Euclid, speaking neither in favor or opposition:
I would like to just state that I support what Mr. Daniels has
stated, that I think the Council and the City needs to look at the
master part of the City. We need to develop a commercial corridor.
I think on 6th Street and Beaumont Avenue, which part of it has
been zoned commercial. I own commercial property on 6th Street
and Beaumont Avenue, and I would like to see consideration taken
for what Mr. Daniels stated, the commercial zone extended between
Euclid and Beaumont Avenue, and also to the east to Magnolia.
Because if proper commercial development is to be done, sometimes
these half lots between the streets is not wide enough.
I would also like consideration given between 6th and 7th Streets,
running east and west, also for commercial development. Thank you.
Mayor Partain: Kay Adams. Okay, the rest of these are marked in
opposition. So these are opponents starting - those so far weren't
marked. I am sorry, go ahead. State your name and address.
Kay Adams, 861 California, speaking in opposition: I am from one
of the founding fathers here. We have owned property here in
Beaumont, two particular parcels, since the early 1900s. They
were rezoned to your high density in the early COs, as I understand.
I would hate to see these downgraded. We are currently - behind us
there is multi family. Beside us there is multi family, across the
street from us is multi family. We are surrounded by multi family.
Page 4
Beaumont City Council
December 14, 1987
This is at 861 California.
Mayor Partain: Okay.
Ms. Monroe: And like I said, we currently have two pieces of pro-
perty, and I wouldn't like to see it downgraded.
Mayor Partain: Do you live in - did you say that you live in a
multi family, or are you single family.
Ms. Monroe: We are single family, which has been there since 1907,
I believe, - we have owned it since then, I'm not that old. But it
has been in our family since that time. Roy C. Adams built it, and
he was one of the founding fathers here in Beaumont.
Mayor Partain: Okay.
Ms. Monroe: Okay.
Mayor Partain: Thank you. Mr. Mitchell.
Irish D. Mitchell, 402 E. 6th Street, Beaumont: The property in
question was zoned R -2 for a number of years. And then a few people
with special interests had it changed to R -3. That was back in the
late 60s. It remained R -3 up until now, and then when the General
Plan went in, the new General Plan, they made it residential high
density, raising it from 16 units up to 32 units to the acre.
Now, the best thing to do is use an example of good development,
and how development in this area can be done in such a way that it
can be compatible and fair to all parties concerned. I was strenu-
ously against one proposition of a two story apartment in 1980.
Some people may remember that. It was between 10th and 11th on
Wellwood. We opposed that because they wanted to put a two story
apartment, with six units, on a ten thousand square foot lot,
contiguous to two single family residences. We were able to stop
that then. It was wrong then, and it is wrong today, to have
that type of development.
They subsequently obtained another lot on Wellwood between 8th
and 9th, and they put in their apartment there, and to this day,
that apartment has never been signed off by a City inspector. It
is in violation of eight or nine City ordinances, right at the
present time. It has been there for a long time, which is a direct
result of dishonesty. It was put through by a special deal with the
then Planning Director, the then Building Inspector, the then City
Manager, and the then . . .
Mayor Partain: Excuse me, Mr. Mitchell, would you - you have three
minutes, is all, and you have used some of it, and, I realize you
are going back to give a little bit of history, but I think we are
familiar with things that happened. Will you speak to the ordinance
itself sir. Right to the ordinance.
Council Member Waller: As long as he stays within the three minutes,
he can talk about the history of Beaumont as long as he wants, can't
he.
Mr. Mitchell: My name is Mitchell, sir. You took a few of my min-
utes, so I will go ahead.
Mayor Partain: Go ahead, Mr. Mitchell. Speak to the agenda item.
Mr. Mitchell: The viable situation - solution, is available. Care-
fully blend listening capacity, common sense, honesty and integrity
and follow this concept. One, do not at this time change the zoning.
Modify the conditions. The average depth of the lots, in the study
area, are 160 feet. Change the density to sixteen units to the acre.
Number two, have front foot restrictions. A sixty foot front, a
maximum of two units. A seventy -five foot front, a maximum of three
Page 5
Beaumont City Council
December 14, 1987
units. A 120 foot front, a maximum that can be passed on design
for garden type apartments - all one story. Number three, 180
foot front for any two story building, with a minimum of a 30 foot
setback on each side adjacent to a single family residence. That
would not take away light or air from the single family residence.
Following this plan, it would not take away the values of property
of a number of people. We have lots in this area at the present
time that could not be built into single family. It would not be
compatible because you would be building in between houses that
are 50 to 60 years of age that are ready to fall down. And we
have some of the worst blight throughout this entire study area
that I have ever seen in any City that I have ever been in. There
are some nice places and there is a lot of blight all the way
through. I will give you an example of what can be done. Of the
current examples, of my concept of upgrading the quality of our
housing inventory, we have a two story, fourplex on the corner
of 7th and Orange Street. Anyone going past there, having known
that before, can see how that has enhanced the value of everyone
around them. All other property owners. That was built by Bert
Partain, the builder - owner.
Another example of a duplex is between 7th and 8th Street on
Magnolia. It is a duplex, and it was built by Larry Partain,
the owner - builder. A remodel of an old home into a three apart-
ment on the northwest corner of Euclid and 8th, put in by a
gentleman by the name of Shubert. Now those are all multiple
housing into areas that were in blight in an area that you want
to make single family residential. I'll take just one more
minute if I may.
Mayor Partain: Sum up Mr. Mitchell, yes, and before you do Mr.
Mitchell, I would like to have a copy too. Could you give me
a copy.
Mr. Mitchell: I have a copy for all of you.
Mayor Partain: Okay, I appreciate that.
Mr. Mitchell: And, the one thing that I am concerned about is that
when this moratorium - or when this hit the paper that we are going
to go into all one family residence in areas that were in R -3. I
had many calls on it, from people that I have talked to - industry
and so forth - coming into the area, and when their people were
studying demographics - see that we have put on moratoriums on
affordable housing - and I know that you will mention yes, we have
places for many, many apartments - but true affordable housing is
in the perimeter area of what you have talked about. People can
upgrade some of the old houses - if they can put another unit on
there, and then you can keep it down without going into the high
prices. Many people today, that are working men, cannot afford
$700 and $800 a month. They cannot afford the new apartments of
$700 and $800. And many of these young people do not have the
benefit of possibly having their parents or someone else back them
up. And you will have to understand what affordable housing is.
That is what a working man can afford to pay, working for the
industry that you are trying to get. Thank you. I will give you
a copy of this.
Mayor Partain: Okay, Mr. Mitchell. Glenn, it looks to me like it
starts with an S. Sorry, I don't mean . . . state your full name
please.
Glenn A. Stull, 10355 Beaumont Avenue, Cherry Valley: I have a
business in the area, Cherry Valley Realty. I will read this little
memo I have, and provide you copies. I am opposed to the extension
of the moratorium by the way. If the present City officials change
the zoning from R -3 to R -1, the landowners could have the following
financial damages. One - purchases of R -3 lots with the intent to
build units would suffer immediate damages. Two - owners of existing
Page 6
Beaumont City Council
December 14, 1987
R -3 lots, with the units now in place, would have a non - conforming
zoning. Three - owners of existing units lost because of fire may
be stopped from rebuilding their apartment units. Four - owners
of existing apartment units could have problems obtaining financing
because of non - conforming zoning. Five - owners of single family
homes which suffer a loss because of resale value, and a loss of
their right to build another rental unit or duplex on the unused
portion of their land. Six - owners of older single family homes
could lose a major portion of their value because most of the
value is in the R -3 lots. Individuals that purchased their pro-
perty in good faith would be having their property rights
reduced because of down zoning. The courts have held in the past
that a down zoning of property is the same as a condemnation, and
the owners are entitled to compensation for damages. We feel the
existing zoning should not be changed. Rezoning is proper when
requested by the individual landowners involved, and it doesn't
adversely affect the surrounding community.
I would like to also say that I represent J. L. Lamberson, who
purchased an R -3 lot with the intent to build four small senior
citizen type apartments on it, from Mrs. Potts in the City of
Beaumont. And he paid the price based on the fact that it was
R -3. He had a meeting with your people in the City Planning
Department that said there was no problem - that he could do
that. He has had difficulty getting his plans approved. He has
made several applications. And about the same time he made his
application, there was an application for seven units on a lot
next door. That the young lady talked about earlier. Now the
seven units are just about finished, and as a result of this
moratorium, and other problems with the City, his vacant lot is
still setting over there, vacant. He purchased the property on
the basis of building four small units for senior citizens, and
he has run into a lot of problems. And it really hurts the City
as far as the reputation goes.
And I definitely agree with Mr. Mitchell that if you pass a mora-
torium to shut the City down for ten months, it is just going to
add to the bad reputation that you already have. If you want to do
your studies and so forth, that's fine. But you ought to leave the
people alone with their land to go ahead and utilize it and do what
they want to do. Not start shutting down projects that are under-
way, or in process and financed and everything else. So that is my
remarks. Thank you very much.
Mayor Partain: Mrs. Klein.
Mrs. Gladys Klein, 1015 Euclid Avenue: I also have with me tonight.
Mayor Partain: Excuse me Mrs. Klein. Ladies and gentlemen, could
we have it down in back. It makes it difficult for us to hear the
speaker even though she is speaking in the microphone. I am sorry
to interrupt you.
Mrs. Klein: That's all right. I have with me two neighbors. Mr.
Wilson, who lives at 1014 Euclid, and Margarite Eveland, who lives
at 1025 Euclid, right next door to me. We all have R -3 lots, and
naturally, we don't want them downgraded. Because, for my husband
and myself, we are - I myself have lived here 30 some years, and
in the present location for fifteen. I bought the place with the
idea that when I retire then I would have something to supplement
my social security. As you know you can't live on social security
alone. So this has been a help to us, naturally, to have a rental.
I do live in the area where they are talking about this high rise
apartments that went up, which do not look very good. There is no
place around that is that high. But that be as it may, I am just
speaking for my own self. For my personal income. We keep a
decent looking lot and property, but we would like to keep our
rental too, and keep it as such. So we would like to not have our
property downgraded, because, naturally, it brings down the value
Page 7
Beaumont City Council
December 14, 1987
of our property too.
Mayor Partain: Let me ask you a question. Your concern is then,
in your particular situation, that your income is derived from the
apartments. And if you were non - conforming, if the zone was
changed, and you were non - conforming, you would be concerned as to
what they would do to the value of the property, if anything ever
happened, your assuming the apartments couldn't be rebuilt.
Mrs. Klein: This is true.
Mayor Partain: Okay.
Mrs. Klein: And, then too, we live in an apartment area. Whether
we like it or not. I don't like the looks of the apartments be-
hind me either. And the parking problem that they present. But,
that be as it may, I am speaking individually for our own property.
Mayor Partain: Thank you. Kenny.
Kenneth Fago, 435 Cherry Court, Beaumont: My main reason for
being against this ordinance mainly is, I don't feel we need - not
that I feel we do need a study, but people have had this property
for a number of years, and I. myself, have a few R -3 lots which
happen to be in an area where there are primarily apartments all
around them. And, I have heard a lot of comments about the apart-
ments being two story. I. myself, have never been to a City where
they haven't had two story apartments. I think that is real
common. Now whether it is real common - real common in different
areas, you know, throughout different communities. I think an
open space - Beaumont does have a lot of open space, and I think
it is a little easier to handle something like that. I think a
study ought to be made so far as open space areas to make allow-
ances for different densities in these areas when they do come
into the City, or when the City does annex different areas, which
they have in the past. I think it is a shame to take such a hard
look as the sphere of influence this ordinance has. It does take
in an awfully big area. And I think it does hurt, you know, a lot
of different people that are looking to subsidize their income,
people that have invested in this property. Myself, I have had it
for probably fifteen years, the parcels I am concerned about. And
I would hate to see them being down zoned to single family, because,
naturally, it wouldn't be something that I would be interested in
doing for the simple reason I think it would be just the opposite.
In my particular case, what I am talking about, because I would be
living in a single family house around a bunch of apartments, and
that I can't see either.
So I know it is a tough thing to decide on, but I think what we do
have we should be allowed to keep. I think a study should be made,
and that study should be looking for as many of these open space
areas that the City has. And we can make allowances for different
densities at that time. I know we went through this last - these
last changes the last time the City had, and we happened to have
even a commercial piece of property abutting the freeway they zoned
single family. That is kind of a hard example, but that is the
kind of example I am referring to. We have apartments in an area,
and then they are going to ask us to build a house. You know, a
couple of houses in this area where there are all apartments. We
can't see anything wrong with a two story building either. You know,
actually it is a little bit higher. You know, its, I myself do
build some, but I think they are very attractive. I have no parking
problems. As a matter of fact most of the time I am parking other
tenants in other buildings around us. So I can't see that has ever
been a problem as far as anything we have had. Thank you.
Mayor Partain: Okay, Tobbie Lynn Davis.
Tobbie Lynn Davis, 13554 - 5th, Yucaipa: I live in Yucaipa, but I
just bought a unit up here, or a piece of property. I am going to
Page 8
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
NOVEMBER 23, 1987
The Beaumont City Council met in a regular meeting at 6:04 P.M., on Monday,
November 23, 1987, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor Partain pre-
siding.
On roll call, the following Council Members were present: Bauer, Connors,
and Mayor Partain. Council Member Shaw and Waller were excused.
The Invocation was given by City Manager Robert Bounds.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Council Member Bauer.
1. Clerk's Affidavit of Posting.
The Clerk's affidavit of posting the agenda was read into the record
by the Deputy City Clerk.
Z. Adjustments to Agenda.
The City Manager advised he had received a request from Council Member
Shaw to hold the reorganization of the Council until he is able to
attend the meeting; and Council Member Waller had indicated that on
Item No. 10, the report can be given to him as soon as it is ready,
which is anticipated to be prior to the December 14 meeting, as a
result Item No. 10 should be deleted from the agenda.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member Bauer, to
hold Item No. 3 over until the December 14 meeting and to delete
Item No. 10 from the agenda.
There being no opposition, the motion carried with three ayes, two
absent.
3. Reorganization of Council: (Continued from November 9, 1987)
a. Nominations for Mayor.
Roll Call:
b. Nominations for Mayor Pro Tem.
Roll Call:
By prior motion, Item No. 3 was continued to the regular meeting of
December 14, 1987.
4. ORAL COMMUNICATION:
There were no requests to speak under oral communication.
5. PUBLIC HEARING - 6:00 P.M. - INTENTION TO ORDER ABANDONMENT OF A
PORTION OF THIRD STREET. (Applicant: Gary Wilson).
The Public Hearing was Opened at 6:08 P.M.
There were no proponents or opponents requesting to speak.
The Public Hearing was Closed at 6:09 P.M.
The City Manager presented his report concerning this proposed
abandonment, and answered questions from Council Member Connors.
Page 1
Beaumont City Council
December 14, 1987
let my real estate man talk to you about it.
Mayor Partain: The address is.
Mr. Davis: 13554 - 5th, Yucaipa.
Magnolia.
The property in question is 949
Carl Waltney, real estate agent for Tobbie Lynn Davis, repre-
senting Inland Empire Discount Realty, Yucaipa: He purchased the
property from me under the understanding that in the future he
could build some units. I went to the Beaumont Building and
Safety, and we were under the understanding that in the future we
could build four units. So we just wanted to reinforce and stand
behind Glenn Stull and Mr. Mitchell that, you know, we don't want
the new ordinance to pass.
Mayor Partain: Bernie.
Bernie Fagot, 9477 Avenida Miravilla, Cherry Valley: I am cer-
tainly not against a study. Actually, if you have a multi - family
lot in the center of nothing but residential, something is not
right. But, I have some reservations on whether we actually need
ten months. Glenn Stull did make a point. You stick a moratorium
on for any length of time, and it really scares everybody away. I
think maybe you should consider shortening the time, unless you
really feel that that amount of time is really necessary. Like I
say, I am certainly not against the study. I am a builder myself,
and I don't think a multi - family lot, with nothing but single
family homes around it is the right thing. But putting a ten
month moratorium on, I think it is just a little bit long. Thank
you.
Mayor Partain: Okay. Vic.
Vic Schiro, 3680 Banbury, Riverside. I own three properties on
Chestnut. I am in opposition to Resolution 651, but I think what
I am mostly in opposition of is in the study. It seems that the
study that I have read that Valerie Beeler had done, was something
very similar to what we heard this evening. And that was a tabu-
lation of how many homes we have versus how many apartment
buildings, and I think that Mayor Partain, in the meeting of
November, discussed that there are pockets, or a greater number
of apartments versus a greater number of homes. I don't think
that the numbers that are coming up are very valid. I think that
we ought to look at the pockets in the area as opposed to the area
from the western part of town to the eastern part of town, let's
break this up in the middle. Use Beaumont Avenue, and say what is
east of Beaumont Avenue and what is west of Beaumont Avenue. I was
surprised to hear about Euclid and California not going over to that
side of town that much, and I almost said that there was nothing
over there. But, there certainly is something on the east side of
Beaumont Avenue. In the area that we are talking about.
So, again, I guess, what I am saying is I am against the resolution
of making a change based on this study - or these studies. I feel
that if we extended this, that would be fine if the study came up
with an answer other than how many houses and how many apartment
buildings we have. I would like it broken down. Someone used the
word, you know, the idea of demographically. Let's break this thing
and be more specific.
I also bought properties with the idea of building multi family
homes. Multi family dwellings. And I am also at a loss, I feel -
we talked with other plans - some of the more professional people in
town and medical staff, of building something more senior citizen
type of set up, closer to the hospital. But this moratorium is
scaring us out of town. I am one of the people that everyone here
seems to be talking about, about being afraid of the word moratorium.
I think I can beat my three minutes, the other thought I had is I
don't feel - it is a bandwagon type of idea to say, sir you own a
Page 9
Beaumont City Council
December 14, 1987
piece of property in a residential high density area. Your home burns
down, and we, as a City Council and City Planning do not have the
kindheartedness to say we will grant the variance that the rest of us
pay for when we ask for a variance, to allow that man to rebuild his
home. I think it is bandwagoning, it is kind of grandstanding to
say, aha, you are stuck, and I would hate to think in the validity of
the 230 signatures, that we are telling these people that I am sorry,
the City Council and City Planning - on the line, it says the rule is
no homes in a multi family dwelling. That is not the case. I have
asked for variances, I think Bernie has asked for variances, other
people have asked for variances, and the City Council and City
Planning have worked with us or against us, depending on the attitude
toward the variance that we are asking for. I just don't want the
cold hearted idea that says - no, this is the law and we don't vary
from it. I think the City Council and the City Planning do bend and
look at the situation as a whole. And the person whose home burned
down in a residential high density area would probably be allowed the
variance that he might ask for so that he could rebuild his home.
Mayor Partain: Okay. That is all the requests that I had to speak
as far as written form. Is there anyone else that wishes to speak.
You wish to speak. Come forward and state your name, address.
Bruce Edward Willingham, 832 Magnolia: If somebody would tell me
just exactly what R -1, R -21 R -3 means, then I could figure this
out. R -1 means one home. Am I not right.
City Manager:
Mr. Willingham:
One dwelling unit.
And R -2. . .
City Manager: We don't have R -2 i
would be residential multi family,
medium density, and allows sixteen
residential high density, which is
residential high density allows up
you can get the open space.
a zoni:
it is
units
being
to 32
ag in the City. What we have
called. It is also called
per acre. Then we have
referred to as R -3 tonight,
units per acre, providing
Mr. Willingham: Okay. I just wondered - I am against it and for it
both at the same time because I was thinking about building a duplex
behind my property, but I have four apartments next to me already,
and I really don't mind the apartments, but I do mind the people that
rent them, because they can't seem to - there is a big dumpster there,
and the dump truck has already ripped my chain link fence up and they
won't fix that. And the people can't hit this dumpster, and you know
how big they are. It all comes into my yard. And, that is all right,
but I would mind if they decided to build two story apartments next
to me. I would mind that because that would block my sun and there
is a law against blocking the sun from another residence, a lot of
people don't know about it, but, I don't think, if you have single
family homes you should start putting two story apartment houses
right next to them. I really don't. If they are all over the
place, that is fine, but to isolate something like that, I am
against that.
But I was thinking, maybe in R -2, I wouldn't mind, you know, single
story, if they had like four apartments on a lot size. I think mine
is 60 by 160. And I think four apartments is plenty for something
like that. Now I was thinking maybe in R -2 would cover something
like that, I don't know. But I have heard mention of R -2 in the
paper, or in something that I read, and they were talking about
that. So I am right in the middle right now, because I don't have
any interest in building at the moment. Thank you.
Mayor Partain: Okay. One more. Come right ahead. Come ahead,
mam. State your name, address, if you are in favor of or against.
Bobby Saylor, Elm Street: I am for both. I live at the other end
of town by Elm Street, near Wellwood School. Years ago when I
bought my property, I have two properties - I bought it as an R -3.
In 82 they rezoned - the City rezoned it to C -2. My husband had a
Page 10
Beaumont City Council
December 14, 1987
plea, or a duplex, or whatever. So, I drew something up. I came
down to the City here. I got the right -of -ways, where they stipulate
X amount of square foot of green grass, and so on and so forth. So
I designed - I am a very simple person - I designed a very comfort-
able triplex by attaching it to my existing two bedroom house. A
real comfortable place. It happened to fall under the high density
ordinance. This is the way I was able to do this. A creative
design. Have one unit above some parking. Have a tandem parking
situation. Have excellent green grass, you know. A place where I
would live. You know, or I don't know - it was four units total is
what would be on that property, which I felt was adequate, you know.
Four units. Bring me a lot of - about $160.00 a month, you know.
Something that - what I am trying to say, is if they reduce my
property to R -1, I am just, you know, ten years down the drain -
R -1, I am just sitting there going - geez - this backyard I have
been saving for ten years - you know - what I am trying to say is
I just had a dream, you know, put my kids through college. A couple
or three units in the backyard. Something neat. Something that
would improve the City of Beaumont, you know, whatever. But that is
the thanks. I came late.
Mayor Partain: Vincent.
Vincent Schiro, 726 Chestnut: I put the plans in for 738 and 718
Chestnut Avenue, it would be five unit apartment houses. The homes
that I am knocking down are well over forty years old. We counted
the layers of roof that were on the house. We had six layers of
roof. We don't know the exact amount of years, but we do know the
house needs work. The sewer has got a problem. So we feel we are
doing the City a favor by knocking these homes down, and replacing
the homes in that area that is designed for apartment houses.
In that area, there is one home within fifteen years old. The rest
of them are well into the years. The homes that are there all need
work. Who is going to do the work unless you knock them down com-
pletely, and rebuild them. The cost to rebuild a home in that area
would be very expensive, by the time you do the sewer hookups, and
you see what the City has and the State has, it wouldn't be feasible
to knock them down and replace them with a one unit apartment or a
one unit house. So we feel, the homes are old to start with. We
bought the homes, they were high density. When we submitted our plans
they were high density. And now, with this study going on, we are at
a stop. We did our work in good faith. We really feel that in these
particular areas, they do have the water flow, should maintain the
high density areas. That is all I have to say.
Council Member Waller: I have a house forty years old. Do you want
to knock mine down. You know, it seems as though, you know, there is
a limit - you consider four year old houses as being something that -
or more - as being not up to standards, and yet I can remember the
housing in Redlands, and various other cities, built in the 1890s,
that are more than superior to any housing that I have seen today.
Mr. Schiro: I agree with you. There are homes that are mansions
that were built 100 years ago. They are mansions. But the homes
that we are talking about are just cracker boxes. The home that I
have at 738, you cannot enter the rear bedroom without going out-
side and coming in. I mean, you walk into the front door, there is
the kitchen, the one bedroom, and then you go outside . . .
Council Member Waller: That was an add on then.
Mr. Schiro: Whatever.
Council Member Waller: Well -
Mr. Schiro: Whatever. But like I said, this was built many years
ago. And, I agree with you, there are some homes that were built
Page 12
Beaumont City Council
December 14, 1987
very well. But some homes are just destructive. They are falling
apart. They are termite infected. We just feel that these homes,
in this area, this particular street, should maintain the zoning
of high density. That is what we feel. There are other streets in
the area that - I agree - these homes should be maintained. But
some areas, above 6th Street, that should maintain the zone of R -3.
Do you have anything else.
Council Member Connors: Yes. Did you say you lived on Chestnut
also.
Mr. Schiro: No, I have the apartments. I am going to move into
726 Chestnut Avenue. I own the apartment house.
Council Member Connors: You are not planning to change that when
you are going to live there - at 726 Chestnut.
Mr. Schiro: I am going to move in there now, yes. No, no. What
I am saying is the one next door. Right now you must maintain a
23 foot driveway. So you need two lots adjoining each other.
Council Member Connors: Okay. What I am asking you is where do
you live. Do you live on Chestnut.
Mr. Schiro: I live in Los Angeles right now.
Council Member Connors: Thank you.
Mayor Partain: I think we had another question over here, Vincent.
City Attorney: We don't have that gentleman's name. For the record.
Mayor Partain: Did you state your name. We know who you are but
Mr. Schiro: Vincent Schiro.
Mayor Partain: Okay. One thing I don't want to do is prevent any-
body from speaking that wishes to speak, because I am sure it is
important to everyone here. So if there is anyone else that wishes
to speak, let's do it. Yes, come right ahead, because everybody
should have the opportunity to have input here. Just state your
name and . . .
Dorothy Stoltman, Banning: My mom lives at 885 Cherry Avenue. She
is the reverse side of what most of you have been - what most of
the people here have been saying. She has one single family home
surrounded by apartments. She is 75 years old. Just bought a
mobile home that she is going to move into, and hopefully develop
that single family residence that is zoned R -3 right now. What
does she do with it if you pass this. Do you think anybody else
is going to want to buy this as a single family residence
surrounded by probably 40 - 80 - maybe 90 apartments, and most of
them two story. It makes it really hard, you know, when that was
her original plan when she was going to move out.
Jim Palmer, 1014 California: Recently I bought - I guess five
years ago my father -in -law bought a piece of property on Cali-
fornia Street, with the intentions on tearing it down. It is a
wreck of a house - it is forty years old. It wasn't a carpenter
who built it - or a tradesman - it is a forty years old dump, and
there is a lot of them like it in the neighborhood. It is
sickening to see it like that, but within a stone's throw there
is one, two, five duplexes. And I had the intention on tearing
the wreck down and putting in a nice duplex - one story - and I
hate to see that ordinance go through like that. There is a lot
of old houses that need to be tore down around here and replaced
with either single family houses, or nice looking apartments or
duplexes. It doesn't matter where you go in Beaumont, there is
going to be a dump on the street. You know. It doesn't matter
Page 13
Beaumont City Council
December 14, 1987
where you go. And those places need to come down. They are not
worth putting any money in to. They just need to be torn down.
And I am opposed to the ordinance. Thank you.
Mayor Partain: Anyone else.
Georgia Crudo, 501 Cynthia: We have only lived here since July.
We moved out of a forty year old almost dump that I got a darn
good price for, because it was a nice dump. But I moved out
because of the apartments. They had built apartments up and
down Gary Avenue in Pomona. They built them on Town Avenue.
They built them just above me and, if you check with the Pomona
PD, you will find out all three units, and they are big ones,
are the best places in the world to buy dope. I am against apart-
ments because of that. And I think that they probably have very
poor managers. But single family neighborhoods seem to do
better. Thank you.
Mayor Partain: Okay. It is 7:15.
City Manager: Mr. Mayor, before you close the public hearing,
there was one letter that was received this morning from James
and Dorothy Fields, of San Gabriel, that were in opposition to
the special study area. They want their property at 694 Michigan
Avenue to remain R -3 zoning, as is mentioned in their letter. So
for the record it should indicate that this couple, who are owners
of 694 Michigan Avenue, are opposed to continuation of the studies.
Mayor Partain: Okay. Thank you Mr. Bounds. All right. It is
7:15 now. If there is no one else, we will close the public
hearing at 7:15.
The Public Nearing was closed at 7:15 P.M.
(NOTE: Normally, only public hearings are transcribed verbatim.
Due to the importance of the discussion regarding the extension
of this Ordinance, discussion at the Council level will also be
transcribed verbatim).
Mayor Partain: Item No. D then is - - first of all, Mr. Bounds,
do you have anything you would like to say.
City Manager: No, I don't have anything further at this time.
Mayor Partain: Okay.
City Manager: Well, there is one thing, Mr. Mayor. Excuse me.
As the ordinance has been drafted, we basically have merely
given you a skeleton in the proposed 654, which, at this time,
merely indicates an extension of the time of the urgency ordin-
ance, No. 651, and, as written, if it were for ten months and
fifteen days, it would be twelve months from the original date
of passage of 651, and would end no later than November 8, 1988.
Secondly, it indicates that other than the time limit, that 651
would remain in force and effect as set forth in the original
ordinance. We have done this just, as I said, as a skeleton to
start from. If there is a desire on the part of the Council to
change the boundaries in any way, that can be done through an
ordinance, if that is what you desire. The comments have been
made that the ten months and fifteen days is too long. One of
the things that I will remind you, that any zoning requires
public hearings in Planning Commission and in Council, which
cannot be done in, for instance, some have said in the past to
me, something about 60 days. That would be absolutely impossible,
to have the public hearings, and let everyone have the opportunity
to speak in that short a period of time.
If you should extend the ordinance tonight, by using ten months
and fifteen days, this does not mean that it would take you
that long to complete everything that is required. And I think
that one of the things that, if you do extend 651, that one of
your charges should be to the Planning Commission to move as
Beaumont City Council
December 14, 1987
rapidly as possible. And to staff that we move as rapidly as
possible in the studies necessary to work with the housing ele-
ment. And with reviewing the study area, and having it ready
for the first public hearing as soon as possible.
Mayor Partain: Okay. Mr. Waller. Comments. We will start
with you down there.
Council Member Waller: Yeah. It takes four people to vote yes
to extend it. Right.
City Manager: That is right.
Council Member Waller: Okay. Now, if it were extended, how
might it be brought back on to the agenda, and dealt with, say
like in one month. Does it take three votes.
City Manager: Well, your purpose would be to ask the Planning
Commission . . .
Council Member Waller: Can I put it on the agenda in one month.
City Manager: If you do that, I would suggest that you just not
adopt it at all, because there is absolutely no way that you
could have public hearings in the Planning Commission, and then
notification and publication for Council, and it would . . .
Council Member Waller: I feel like this, and a lot of other
things that I have had contact with, with the staff, has taken
too long. And I am really getting tired of this. For us to -
I am totally in favor of a study, and I am really not too much
in favor of R -3, but, with the existing zoning that we have now,
and with the people that own the property and the possibility of
an ACLU fight in us, involve the City in litigation further than
what we are now, and already paying an exorbitant - well, anyway,
to me. I don't want to prolong this. I want to put a time limit.
I want to be able to know that I can bring it back. And I want
to know that I am not going to be defeated by three votes against
me. If I can't do that, then I am going to have to vote no
against this.
Mayor Partain: Mr. Ryskamp, go ahead.
City Attorney: The, I believe a request, puts an ordinance on
to repeal the ordinance. It doesn't require anybody but you,
Mr. Waller, making the request that it be put on.
Council Member Waller: Okay. To get it dealt with, there has
to be three . . .
City Attorney: In fact, any ordinance, it requires that vote.
Council Member Waller: Well, then, we might as well forget it
then. Because there is always going to be three against -
okay,
Mayor Partain: Council Member Connors, anything.
Council Member Connors: Yes. It seems as though what the con-
cern is, is that the staff move fast enough rather than putting
it off, and letting it go, and not getting the work done. Would
it be enough if we had a monthly report from the staff on where
we stand on it. Would that be . . .
Council Member Waller: I have asked for a report on code enforce-
ment for a year now, and I haven't gotten it. You know. I am . .
Council Member Connors: If we were to make that part of our
deliberation here tonight, to get a monthly report on where staff
is . . .
Page 15
Beaumont City Council
December 1¢, 1987
Council Member Waller: That wouldn't help, because that would
mean that every month we would listen to it for ten months.
Mayor Partain: Further comments.
Council Member Connors: Well, I feel that maybe this is being
used for the reason to vote against it, rather than being an
actual concern, because there doesn't seem to be any compromise
available to us that we are willing to discuss at all.
Council Member Waller: Let's be creative. Let's be creative.
Council Member Connors: I do object to having one of the
Council Members claim that I will always vote a certain way
when something comes up. I do object to that.
Council Member Waller: Fine. You know. Object as much as you
want.
Council Member Connors: But I am, I have nothing against having
reports on whether this gets done. In fact I agree completely
with that because I feel that there was a problem originally in
September when we thought something had been done that wasn't,
and there are other things that, sometimes, aren't being done
fast enough, and I would like to see progress made. But I think
we should, at least, discuss some kind of compromise, or some
kind of meeting of the minds, because this is too important to
say, oh these three are going to vote one way, and therefore we
shouldn't do this at all. I think it is much too important an
issue . . .
Council Member Waller: I said let's be creative. You don't need
to . . .
Council Member Connors: Well, what other solution would you
accept.
Council Member Waller: Well, let's see what you can come up with.
Council Member Connors: I came up with the idea of us having a
monthly report from staff on where they stand, to be sure that
they are moving quickly enough. That should be sufficient for
the City Council.
Council Member Waller: That doesn't tell us if there is going to
be anything done. I mean, they can report every month.
Council Member Connors: They could give us a time table, and then
report back so that we can see they are following it and respond-
ing to it.
Council Member Waller: You know, a lot of this information could
have been gone through by the farm book, and we could have gotten
all this information, you know, which has all the information
that was received according - I mean, quarterly, supposedly by
our then Planning Director, as to the residence, and there would
needn't be the drive around and all this. All that could have
been done by that book. And which is available to any real
estate broker by calling an 800 number. Mr. Stull, I don't know,
I think that is true. Isn't it called the farm book. That you
can get all the lots and you can find out the information. It
took us three months to get this information, and it could have
been gotten in one week.
Mr. Stull (speaking from the audience): We have a list of all
the land owners. We have plot maps. I might mention that there
are several hundred people that own land out of the area.
Council Member Waller: Okay, well as far as I am concerned it
just seems that it took us too long, and I would like to see . .
Page 16
Beaumont City Council
December 14, 1987
City Manager: Mr. Waller, are you saying that by the book that
Mr. Stull is talking about, that it will tell you how many units
is on the piece of property - living units.
Council Member Waller: Yes, but it won't show us the demographic.
I know that.
City Manager: That is what the drive through was for. I thought
that was what you wanted to determine. What was out there, not
just who owns the property.
Council Member Waller: No, no, no. It will tell how many resi-
dents.
City Manager: I would like to see a copy of that.
Mayor Partain: Mr. Bauer, do you have anything that you would like
to say at this time.
Council Member Bauer: Well the only thing I would like to say is
this. We had one gentleman up here, I do not recall his name, who
implied that most of the people who signed this petition, signed
it because they were afraid of not being able to replace their
single family homes in case of fire. Now nothing could be further
from the case. I am closely allied with many of the elder citi-
zens, senior citizens, in this city. I am active in the Senior
Center. I am also, by the end of this week, will be President of
the local chapter of the American Association of Retired People.
And I know full well why many of these people have signed this
petition. And it boils down to this. Many of the people that
own homes in Beaumont, single family residences, at one time
lived in LA and the intercity. And upon retirement, sought to
come to Beaumont for a nice, quiet community in which to spend
their days. And, right now, they readily visualize the situation,
having seen many apartment houses coming up, they readily visua-
lize the situation that according to the zoning - as they have
found out just recently - these apartment houses could be
surrounding them. And this is the reason why they signed those
petitions.
I hear this kind of stuff all the time from the elderly in this
community. And those represent the majority of the homeowners.
But I assure you that nobody signed that petition merely because
they were afraid of not being able to replace their single
family homes. This is a gross twisting of facts. That is all
I have to say.
Mayor Partain: Okay. I have a couple of things, if we are down
to that. A couple of points, I think, that were brought up - or
a couple of things that were brought up. I get the impression
from listening to many of you speak that you feel that this
ordinance is automatically going to down zone your property for
ever and ever. And that is not the case. What it is, is to allow
only single family to be built in those areas until a study can
be made to find out what is - what are - what is built in the
local areas, and then decide on a course of action that would be
best suited for the City of Beaumont.
And another thing that I have personally had concern over from
individuals, as has been stated by some here, is the fact that
if they are non - conforming, if their apartment is in a single
family zone, and something was to happen to it - burn down or
whatever, that they would not be able to rebuild it. That was
one of the concerns that I had, however, Mr. Ryskamp did, in
one of his memorandums, on November 2$, did in fact discuss
that very thing in that memorandum. And I think this is some-
thing that the Council will look at, and I think that we should
consider, and I am sure will be looked at, that if there is a
non - conforming structure already existing, that there is the
possibility that the ordinance could be changed to allow that
Page 17
Beaumont City Council
December 14, 1987
to be reconstructed in case of burning down, or whatever, other
disaster.
And all of those things would be looked at within the realm of
the study. I dare say, I have lived here probably as long as
anybody, or most anybody in the room. And, although I may not
agree entirely, upon some of the areas that I feel should be
down zoned, or shouldn't be down zoned, as some of the colleagues
on the Council. I do believe a study is necessary, because, I
believe, now is the time that we need to decide in which
direction the City is going to go. And, I understand Mr.
Waller's concern, oftentimes, on the length of things. Being
in construction, and those of you who are in construction you
know how important it is to make the decision and get on with
business. And I have found that when you are dealing with the
rights of individuals, that things of necessity have to move
a little bit slower because everyone's rights need to be
protected, obviously, and it is not an easy decision.
I think what the study will do, the study will allow the
Planning Commission, the Council, to look at it as a whole and
come to a good decision in which direction the City should go
from here. And I think it is time that it should be looked
at. Needs to be looked at. Mr. Ryskamp.
City Attorney: If I might provide some of the input from staff,
since I have been deeply involved in what has been prepared up
to this point, I think Mr. Marshal -
Council Member Waller: Waller.
City Attorney: Pardon me, Mr. Waller. Sorry about that, Mr.
Waller. Mr. Waller has a valid point that there was a period
from the 19th of September until the first week in November
when nothing really came from staff responding to the meeting
that we had on the 19th of September. I would hope there is
the recognition that staff, in terms of putting together the
meeting on the 19th of September, did spend quite a bit of time,
and I might point out time that was not billed to the City, in
an attempt to begin to deal with the issues that were raised
that brought that meeting on, recognizing the problems that
exist.
I can't, and won't offer, any justification for the delay from
then to the first week in November. But staff has been
attempting to provide information and meet deadlines, and
answer any request since that time. I know we personally put
out two memos in response to questions that have been raised,
in an attempt to identify issues. The concern in doing any
changes is that we want to make certain that they are done
properly, and also, that we adequately reviewed the areas that
don't fit into the pattern. I have heard enough testimony
tonight to really make me wonder about that area on the south-
eastern section, and also wonder what is going on on the
southwestern section, over by Wellwood School, just because
those are two areas I have been able to focus on. But I think
issues have been raised that there is not an answer for yet.
Our concern is that, as far as staff is concerned, has been
trying to provide the information since the request, the
interim ordinance came down, or the request for it came in
that first week in December. And there has been a real
effort put out for the kind of information, and any questions
that were raised, such as Mr. Bauer's question on the issue
of the non - conforming uses - we right away went to work and
provided you with a memo with some possible solutions to that,
and pointing out some weak points in Title 17. I think every-
one knows I am not a defender of Title 17 as it stands right
now.
Page 18
stroke. I tried to sell it. I ca
like to see three apartments on my
way. And, if you are going to put
section, I would like to know does
right across from Wellwood School.
business up by the school.
Beaumont City Council
December 14, 1987
alt even sell it now. I would
empty lot, or one home, either
the zoning, R -3, around my
that include me on Elm Street,
No one wants to build a
Mayor Partain: I think maybe the answer to your question is, is
this, maam, that until the study is completed, no decision will be
made. If I understand it, if we do go into that. And, there will
not be a spot zoning, that is illegal, you can't just take one
property and make it one zone, and take the next property . . .
Mrs. Saylor: I understand that, but around my section they have
all kinds of zoning. Business, schools, churches, apartments down
the street and homes across the street. It is all mixed up. And
I am really for either R -3 or R -1.
Mayor Partain: It is probably the same zone with non - conforming
in a lot of instances, I would assume, in that area. Or some . .
City Manager: It would all be studied if there is to be a study.
Mayor Partain: If there is to be a study, that would all be taken
into consideration.
Mrs. Saylor: That would be in this section, because . . .
City Attorney: There is commercial zoning down in that area in
what is primarily residential type use right now though.
Mayor Partain: In that area - but it would be - that is part of
the study area, if a study is done.
Mrs. Saylor: Because no matter what you do, if you do go the R -1 or
R -31 I would like to know, and if you did go R -3, I wouldn't go
double decker, I would go single, because I am right by a school.
Mayor Partain: That area would be, as we pointed out, if this study
is done, and of course, it would be in that area too. That area
would be part of the study.
Mrs. Saylor: Okay, thank you.
City Manager: And there would be other public hearings prior to
any changes being made.
Mayor Partain: Come ahead sir.
Gary Cody, 928 Magnolia: I have been a resident there for about nine
and a half years, and I have three children, young children . . .
Mayor Partain: Please speak into the mike, it is easier for every-
body to hear you.
Mr. Cody: Okay, basically I am talking to these guys right here.
Mayor Partain: Well, if you speak into the mike, they can hear you
back there.
Mr. Cody: I just don't want to be rude and turn my back to every-
body. There is less people up here then there is back here. So .
I have three children, three, seven and nine, and they are real
bright children. They go to the Beaumont School District, and I am
real proud of the Beaumont community, and I thought that - what I
thought is that I would buy this home - a 20 x 20 on a 160 x 60
lot, which I mentioned, right up the street, and that some day I
might build a triplex or a duplex in the backyard, and put my kids
through college with that income. My property will be paid for in
about five years. So, then I could have a creative financing deal,
or build a triplex, which I am in construction, I can build a tri-
Page 11
Beaumont City Council
December 14, 1987
whether it should wait, discuss the factors that might lead us to
change the zoning, and whether the City Attorney would need find-
ings for us to extend the ordinance.
City Attorney: You definitely need findings to extend the
ordinance. There is no question that we do need some indication
of problems that have been identified thus far. And reasons why
there needs to be an extension. Why you can't make a decision
tonight.
Council Member Connors:. Well I do have some findings with me, and
I wondered whether this was the time that we should use them for
the extension, or whether that was down the road.
City Attorney: I guess - the question is, in terms of the findings,
you normally need a motion which you are supporting with findings.
I am not sure what your findings are, Mrs. Connors. I am not posi-
tive.
Council Member Connors: Well, I went to the police department, to
begin with, and they did a set of statistics for an apartment
house. They have districts, and this apartment house was built
between 1980 -81, and they had the crime figures for 1980, and that
district, which does not include any schools or public buildings
that are in the district - only residential. And they have the
statistics for 1986 also. And those statistics show that after
the building of that building, which is a large apartment building,
the burglary rate went up 59 %. Domestic violence went up 83 %.
Disturbing the peace went up 25% and assaults went up 79 %. The
increase in calls for service went up 36.16 %. The police Depart-
ment did not grow correspondingly. The apartments do not really
pay for the services that they require.
I also went through the study area, and I took snapshots of
houses and apartment buildings that were adjacent, or across the
street from each other, to show what the apartment building's
affect was, aesthetically, on the neighborhood. And I brought
these photographs with me for any Council Member that would like
to see them, along with their addresses and their location
toward each other. And those are the findings that I would like
to vote with to extend it.
Council Member Waller: Well it is a little difficult to vote for
something if you have got all the findings, and we don't have any
of them.
Council Member Connors: Well, this came from the Chief of Police,
and I just read it to you. And here are these . . .
Council Member Waller: Well I think the information that is .
Council Member Connors: Well, if you don't have any confidence
in the Chief of Police either, I can't do . . .
Council Member Waller: I didn't say that. I have never said that.
I don't really think that was called for at all. I am sorry if you
don't feel that I have confidence in the Police Department, you
are sorely mistaken.
Council Member Connors: I was hard pressed to - then you will
accept the findings of the Police Department.
Council Member Waller: I don't know for sure what you have got
over there. You could have gotten them from the Banning Police
Department. This is done in just your handwriting.
Council Member Connors: This is done in Chief Funston's hand-
writing.
Council Member Waller: You haven't even told us where this
location is. Where is this.
Page 20
Beaumont City Council
December 14, 1987
I met, as soon as I had the opportunity, as soon as we had identi-
fied our new Planning Director, he and I met over dinner at one of
the fine restaurants here in town, and talked at length about how
we could work together, and where the problem areas are. And we
both agreed and don't see why it should take ten months to accom-
plish the task, unless we have to totally redo our housing element.
In that case we are going to be up against problems with the State.
Other than the fact that we have to send into the State Clearinghouse
all of the proposed documents, and we have to get responses from a
variety of State agencies. If, in fact, and the facts are not
totally gathered yet to indicate this, if in fact we do not have
to modify the housing element, I should think that this should
comfortably be done, working with all of us together, in six months,
perhaps a little less. Much less, no. Because realistically you
have got to gather the rest of the information, and then you then
have to have public hearings - at least one - at both Planning
Commission and the - at least one each at both the Planning
Commission level and the City Council level. And the time pro-
cess to accomplish that is going to be a minimum of about 90 days,
plus whatever time it takes to gather data.
Mr. Waller, if I can answer any other questions in terms of what
is legally needed, or for that matter anything that you feel
hasn't been adequately responded to, I would be happy to.
Council Member Waller: Okay, the meeting of September 19, why
was it that that entire morning, we virtually did nothing until
the last thirty minutes, and then we finally got on to the issue
at hand, and that being nothing more than what we are talking
about now. This is ridiculous. Now we have got an issue here
that should have been dealt with two years ago. I was the one
that made the motion that we put it into a study. For us to -
with what is going on as it is in Moreno Valley, and us just sit
here and do nothing about it, is absurd.
Mayor Partain: One statement in regard to that, let me start .
City Attorney: I would point out the September 19 meeting I was
just handling the last half an hour, so, I was trying.
Mayor Partain: And again, and I realize that Moreno Valley - and
that keeps being thrown up - and there is a difference . . .
Council Member Waller: I know, there is a difference, they were
not a City, they just had their birthday three weeks - I mean -
Mayor Partain: That's right. They were not a City. They were in
the County. And there is a difference. Moreno Valley - and as it
stands, it is a little different . . .
Council Member Waller: I have got students out here in the audience,
I know.
Mayor Partain: Okay, any further comments. Mr. Bauer.
Council Member Bauer: I think that one thing we have to recognize
is the fact that in recent months, since this thing was originally
initiated, we had a part time director. Right now we have a full
time director, and I would assume, that with Mr. Koules' knowledge
and experience, this thing can be moved along at a much faster
rate.
Mayor Partain: Okay. Any further comment.
Council Member Connors: Yes.
Mayor Partain: Go ahead.
Council Member Connors: I wonder if we should, this evening, or
Page 19
Beaumont City Council
December 14, 1987
Mayor Partain: Okay. Okay.
Council Member Connors: The addresses are next to the pictures
Mr. Waller.
Council Member Waller: Oh. Well is that for public record.
Council Member Connors: There is also a sheet next to each
picture telling you how it relates to the picture next to it.
Council Member Waller: So I will get that later.
Council Member Connors: That is there. Right there. Next to the
pictures. If you will read the things next to the pictures, it
• will tell you exactly where they are, and what they are next to.
Council Member Waller: I know that. You said there were statis-
tics. I don't even know where that place is located.
Council Member Connors: It is located on 15th Street. It is the
Mountain View Apartments.
Council Member Waller: Oh, okay.
Mayor Partain: Okay, further comments. Mr. Bauer, do you have
anything. Anything further.
Council Member Bauer: The only thing that I might state at this
time that I think that we should go right ahead with this and get
something done, and get the study on the road, and get the thing
resolved in proper fashion. I see no logical reason why we
shouldn't do that. I think that is one way in which we can
establish the confidence of the citizens of Beaumont. By ducking
and avoiding the issue we will be certainly not creating confi-
dence on the part of the citizens.
Mayor Partain: Council Member Connors, anything.
Council Member Connors: In the course of the conversation, I
forgot one other finding that I would like to present.
While I was taking the picture of one of the apartment buildings
that was next to a house, an elderly woman came out to ask me
what I was doing. And I told her that I was trying to document
the aesthetic relationship between apartment buildings and houses.
And she told me that she had not had the problems living in her
house that she had once that apartment building was built. She
said that there had been a lot of police calls. That there had
been a lot of people running in and out as though there were
drug deals going on. That there had been a lot of fighting and
that, one day, she came home from somewhere else, and she went
into her house, and decided to have some lunch. And there was
nothing, absolutely nothing, in her refrigerator. She pointed
up to the apartment building next to her, at the windows on the
second story, and I could see from there that the apartment
building windows faced both of her doors. Her side door and her
front door. You could tell from that apartment building, when
she was home and when she was not.
She lives in fear from then on, which I find to be a greater loss
than any financial loss that can be measured. I think that that
is a consideration that we have to think about as much as we
think about any other loss or gain in that area. She told me
that she had had bottles broken in her driveway that were
thrown over the fence. That she had had garbage thrown over
into her backyard. And this is not the way people should be
expected to live. And when you buy a house you don't expect
to have to live that way. And I think we should at least give
these people the opportunity to be heard, and we should at
least give them the chance, by at least doing the study, if we
Page 21
s.:
Beaumont City Council
December 14, 1987
don't change the zoning, we should at least have a good reason
why. We should look into it and make sure we are doing the
right thing.
Council Member Waller: I know that our local newspaper has
kind of got this mixed up, but, I think the record should show,
it had better show, that I was the one that came up with this
request for the study. I have lived in Beaumont much longer
than any of the others except you, yourself. I know the - I
have taught Beaumont history at the high school, which, I think,
should be brought out - I thought sure would have been brought
out in our celebration. I also feel that not only are the people
that are here have single family, such as myself, and I am
surrounded by the Pennsylvania apartments, which I know what they
are like. And I know what goes on over there, and I don't like
any of it. And then I find out that there is going to be another
apartment house right on the corner of 8th and Pennsylvania.
I am being surrounded. I don't like that. But, I also feel that
there is another segment of the community. Some of them, of
course, that being the developers, that live out of town, who,
of course, we could say we don't have any responsibility towards
them. Well, you know, they will be bringing affordable housing,
and that is something we have to consider whether that is what
the members - the citizens of this community want. I feel a
study is in order. Never let it be said that I do not want a
study. But I do not want a study to last ten months.
Mayor Partain: Okay, anything further.
Council Member Connors: Yes, if we extend the study for a
shorter period of time, at that time could we extend it again,
and keep doing it until we are done. Or do we have to decide
on the amount of time it will take.
City Attorney: Let me respond to that first with a comment.
The issue is not - there are two issues here. One is to direct
staff to continue the study. The second one is to extend the
interim ordinance. That is, without the interim ordinance the
study could go on, be completed and you could rezone this area.
However, the problem with doing that is, we were fortunate in
the fact that our study - our adoption of the interim ordinance
came at a point where, with the possible exception - I heard
one comment today - something about already being approved and
not having built that I wasn't aware of. My understanding is
that there were no projects for which plans had been submitted
and approved, but for which building permits had not been
issued. So it didn't leave somebody having spent all of the
money of completing a project approval, and then stop them
before they get the building permit. So we came at a fortunate
time. If the interim ordinance is not extended, we may not be
so fortunate when we rezone, and we may actually catch some-
body who has got projects approved, but are not at the building
permit stage, and then we are going to have the legal problems,
or, at least, there really shouldn't be much legal problem,
there will be the great frustration and complaint by those
individuals that they have spent all this money developing this
project, have the City approve it, and suddenly you have cut
them off before they can get their sewer permit fees paid,
their financing arranged, and get their building permit.
So, there is that difficulty. If you study and rezone without
extending the ordinance. So those are two separate issues and
we need to keep that in mind.
Yes, you can extend the ordinance. The law provides that an
interim ordinance can be extended up to 22 months and fifteen
days from today's date. Our ordinance, however, mandates that
you can do it no more than ten months and fifteen days on your
first extension. As I have indicated to you, it is our opinion
Page 22
Beaumont City Council
December 14, 1987
at this time, and it would appear that we can do it without touch-
ing the housing element, in six months or a little less, through
the whole process. That is assuming staff would have the informa-
tion to you, ready to go, with public hearings, within sixty days.
And assuming then, it would take approximately three months to go
through Planning Commission, public hearings, approval, come up to
this body, complete public hearings, and go on.
Planning Commission was concerned about breaking the area up, and
looking at the area in smaller units, as well. Which is part of
why we based our estimates on that six months to allow an analysis
of some of the different areas, since they do not all appear to be
within the study area, to have the same characteristics. So, yes,
the answer to it is, yes, you can extend for a shorter period, and
could then extend additionally. I would hope that isn't necessary.
Another potential solution would be, if the housing element is an
issue, it may be possible to look outside the study area, identify
additional areas where residential high density might be appro-
priate, and are not allowed now, and as long as you balance to
provide affordable housing, although I honestly don't think there
is an issue on affordable housing at this point. I think we have
met our share, but I haven't seen the facts and statistics come in
to show that. I don't think we have a problem. We didn't have a
problem in 81. Our general plan said we were meeting our share in
81. We need to look at that, and I haven't seen the statistics.
I wish they had been forthcoming, but they haven't been yet. We
do need those statistics.
But an alternative to avoid the housing element issue completely,
would be to provide residential high zoning of the equivalent
amount in another part of the City, in an area where larger pro-
jects can be developed, with nicer amenities, and provide better
low income housing because of the size of the project. So, there
are counter balances that can be proposed to eliminate the
question of the housing element, which is our great fear as we
are looking at it from planning standpoint, and from a legal
standpoint, we do not want to be inconsistent with the general
plan. We do not want to go through that problem. We are going
to have to do the general plan in any case, but they don't have
to be tied together with some proper planning.
I would have thought it would have been more efficient to have
done it all at once. However, recognizing the concerns here, it
may be better to just say we will look at the housing element as
a total issue down the road, along with other parts of the
general plan. And, at this point, deal with the study areas as
quickly as possible.
Realistically, I think, it will take at least five months just to
put the pieces together, and allow for the fact that during the
holidays things are not going to move as quickly as they should.
And, six months would give us comfortable time to be able to
handle it.
Mayor Partain: Do you agree with that.
Community Development Director: Yes.
Mayor Partain: Any comment Mr. Bounds.
City Manager: I just want to be sure we understand there is no
way you can have two public hearings in sixty days. It won't
work. The time is, by law, not allowed. So if the issue is
to get it down to sixty days, forget it, it won't work.
City Attorney: 120 would be very, very difficult.
City Manager: Right.
Page 23
r
Beaumont City Council
December 14, 1987
City Attorney: Six months gives us a little bit of room to gather
the adequate statistics.
Council Member Waller: Okay, can there be a motion to extend it a
certain length of time, and then for it to be extended it then
must have four votes. I mean, if I were to extend it, if I were
to make a motion to extend it, would that be under the stipulation
that then the next time it were . . .
City Attorney: Any extension of the interim ordinance will always
require four votes to continue.
City Manager: You understand that the reason for that is that you
are adopting an ordinance in one reading. Any time an ordinance
carries its second reading, five days - at least five days after
its first hearing, and then having a second reading, then it takes
thirty days to go into effect. If you do that with this particu-
lar ordinance, then you open up the zoning again for all the
permits that you can get in in that length of time.
City Attorney: In addition, the government code section that
allows interim ordinances specifies that any extension thereof
requires a four - fifths vote.
City Manager: That is what I am saying.
Council Member Waller: I would like to make a motion.
Mayor Partain: Okay. Any further comments.
City Attorney: May I add one suggestion. Perhaps if there is
concern about staff, there is nothing that says there could not
be a provision that if certain information and reports are not
provided, say within 90 days - I hate to say 60, because I hate
to put too much pressure on our new Planning Director - that if
certain information was not provided, and you were not at a
certain point to have the public hearing in front of the
Planning Commission, that the extension would automatically die
too, if there was concern about staff not completing. In other
words there could be other options in terms of how you structure
it. The key, though, is if you are going to try to do it, and
you are going to try to fit it in, give us time to do it legally
and adequately.
Community Development Director: May I make a comment, Mayor
and members of the Council. I think the reason we talked about
ten months and fifteen days, which is a very unsavory term,
because people say why do you want to study something for ten
months, that is certainly a long time. It is not the intention
to study something for ten months, but to study it earlier, and
if there is conclusions and a vote by your Council to make
changes, then the implementation of those changes of any magni-
tude could require as much as a ten month period. And I am
thinking especially of the housing element. So that is why, I
think, staff's recommendation was for that time of period. It
certainly should be kept in mind that staff does not intend to
study something for ten months and come back to your Council
and say that nothing can be done.
Mayor Partain: Okay. Go ahead Mr. Waller.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member Connors,
to extend Beaumont Interim Ordinance No. 651 for ninety days, at
that point in time it is to be reviewed for findings and if need
be possible further extension.
AYES: Council Member Bauer, Connors and Waller.
NOES: Mayor Partain.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Shaw.
MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF 4/5 VOTE.
Beaumont City Council
December 14, 1987
Mayor Partain: Let me explain why I voted no. You cut me off when
you called for the question. I didn't fully understand what I was
voting for. Again, I have some questions. If the first one is for
90 days, then, what you are saying, the way that thing reads, the
first extension can be up to ten months, fifteen days.
City Attorney: It says it may be for ten months, fifteen days. But
then it goes on to say there can only be two such extensions, which
- I understand that it can be less than ten months and fifteen days.
Mayor Partain: Okay. So, if this one is - we are talking about is
90 days, then it comes back, and then the next one has to be for
the length of time, for one year . . .
City Attorney: For up to one year.
Mayor Partain: For up to one year.
City Attorney: Once again, it says for one year. I am understanding
that is not mandating that it has to be that full time. Recognizing,
of course, that - in any case - you can complete the work and have it
done, even if it is the longer time. You can lift the moratorium, and
the interim ordinance, at any time during that time period, by repeal-
ing it. I just thought of an interesting question. Some of this has
not been raised. But I am not certain if it takes - to repeal the
ordinance, if it is done as a - - I am raising a question that I don't
have an answer to at this point. It would appear, though, that if you
were to pass the repeal as an ordinary ordinance, allowing for the 30
days effect, that you could always do it even on less than a 4/5 vote.
That probably isn't relevant at this point, in any case.
Council Member Waller: No, but I would like to be provided with that
information, so I know what is going on.
Mayor Partain: Go ahead, Mr. Bounds.
City Manager: One of things that I think that, as you go through the
timing, datewise, and so forth, first of all, Ordinance 651 is a 45
day urgency ordinance. Any extension of that is extending from the
45th day, and therefore, the 90 days, and I have done this quickly
and I could be a day or two off, 90 days would be approximately April
24.
Mayor Partain: So, it is 45 on top of - or 90 on top of the 45•
City Attorney: 45 runs the 24th.
City Manager: The 24th, right.
Mayor Partain: Do you want to try again.
Council Member Waller: Yes, the same motion.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member Connors,
to extend Beaumont Interim Ordinance No. 651 for ninety days, at
that point in time it is to be reviewed for findings and if need
be possible further extension.
AYES: Council Member Bauer, Connors, Waller and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Shaw.
The meeting was recessed at 8:05 P.M., reconvening at 8:15 P.M.
Immediately after reconvening the meeting, the City Manager pointed
out that in order to extend Ordinance No. 651, another ordinance
must be adopted.
The Deputy City Clerk read the previous motion made by Council Member
Waller.
Page 25
Beaumont City Council
December 14, 1987
Suggested corrections to proposed Ordinance 654 were made by the
City Attorney, as follows: Change the title to read "for a
period of Ninety (90) Days ". Change Section 1 to read "Urgency
Interim Ordinance No. 651 is hereby extended for a period of
Ninety (90) days, ending at midnight on March 23, 1988 ".
d. ORDINANCE NO. 654 - An Urgency Interim Ordinance of the
City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, Extending
Urgency Interim Ordinance No. 651 for a Period of Ninety
(90) Days.
Motion to read Ordinance No. 654 by title only.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member Bauer, to
read Ordinance No. 6S4 by title only.
AYES: Council Member Bauer, Connors, Waller and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Shaw.
Motion to Adopt Ordinance No. 654 as an Urgency Ordinance at its
first reading.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member Connors,
to extend Ordinance No. 654 for ninety days to March 23, 1988,
based upon the following findings:
a. Petitions were presented that requested a study of
the area in order to prevent certain types of
housing and possible crime increase from high
density, etc., that might be in the area.
b. Testimony given to the Council.
C. There had not been adequate information provided
by staff and there was concern that staff complete
it within 90 days in terms of answering all the
questions that were raised.
The Ordinance was read by title only by the Deputy City Clerk.
Vote taken on motion to extend.
AYES: Council Member Bauer, Connors, Waller and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Shaw.
7. Consideration of Claim Filed by Mary Hanacek.
A report was received from the City Manager. This report is a matter
of record in the Clerk's file.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member Bauer, to
deny the claim, citing the four findings proposed by the City Attor-
ney, as follows:
a. The claim is for an uncertain general damage amount.
b. There has been no investigation sufficiently detailed
to support a finding of any liability on the part of
the City or its employee.
C. There has been insufficient discovery into the true
nature and extent of the claimed injuries relative to
damages.
d. There has been insufficient discovery into the true
nature and extent of comparative fault of the claim-
ant and /or other persons.
Page 26
M
2
10.
11.
Beaumont City Council
December 14, 1987
AYES: Council Member Bauer, Connors, Waller and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Shaw.
Council Member Waller was excused at 8:31, returning to his seat at
8:32.
Acceptance of Letter of Resignation from 75th Anniversary Steering
Committee.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member Bauer,
to accept the letter of resignation from the 75th Anniversary
Steering Committee, with the Council's thanks and gratitude for
a job well done.
AYES: Council Member Bauer, Connors and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Shaw and Waller.
Consideration of Establishing a Water Reclamation Committee.
Council Members Bauer and Waller indicated they would be willing
to serve on this committee.
Motion by Mayor Partain, second by Council Member Connors, to
establish a water reclamation committee, with Council Member
Waller and Council Member Bauer be those representatives on
the committee.
There being no opposition, the motion carried with four ayes,
one absent.
Consideration of Applications Received to Fill Vacancy on Planning
Commission.
A report was received from the City Manager in which he named the
applications which had been received, and noted this appointment
would be to fill the unexpired term of Mr. Ralph Tapp ending on
December 31, 1988.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Mayor Partain, to appoint
Richard Bruner to fill the vacancy on the Planning Commission.
In the discussion following the motion, the majority of the Council
felt they needed more time to review the applications and possibly
interview the applicants.
The second by Mayor Partain, and motion by Council Member Waller
were withdrawn.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member Bauer, to
extend consideration of Item No. 10 until the next regular meeting.
AYES:
Council Member Bauer,
NOES:
None.
ABSTAIN:
None.
ABSENT:
Council Member Shaw.
Connors, Waller and Mayor Partain.
Request from Council Member Connors for Consideration of Changing
Curfew Hours of Citizens 18 Years Old and Younger.
Council Member Connors said it had recently come to her attention,
as the result of an incident in the City, that the current curfew
requires young people under the age of 18 years old to be off the
streets by 10:00 at night. She felt this was unrealistic since
many school activities are not over by 10:00, and most young people
like to go out and get something to eat after an activity.
She then suggested the curfew be changed to 11:00 on Friday and
Saturday nights only, thereby offering a compromise to the
young people to which they would respond in a positive way.
T - - - A -
Beaumont City Council
December 14, 1987
There was discussion concerning the current curfew hours contained
in the Municipal Code, with the City Manager pointing out the Code
terminology has to do with loitering. This means if you are in a
restaurant eating, or taking someone home in your car, that is not
considered loitering. Loitering is when the person is doing some-
thing other than moving to your home from wherever the activity
was, or stopping to eat on your way home, but just out in the
parking lot of an establishment doing nothing.
There was continued discussion regarding the possibilities avail-
able to amend the ordinance, and the fact that businesses who are
having problems with vandalism, etc., also have to be considered.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member Waller,
directing the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance amending
Chapter 9.24 for presentation to the City Council on January 11,
1988, indicating that the curfew timing be extended on Friday and
Saturday nights to 11:00 P.M.
AYES: Council Member
NOES: Mayor Partain.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member
Bauer, Connors and Waller.
Shaw.
12. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -77 - Amending Sewer Fees and Charges for
Connection, Construction and Service, and Establishing an Admin-
istrative Fee for Delinquent Charges Placed on the Property Tax
Roll Pursuant to Ordinance No. 648, and Repealing Resolutions
No. 1978 -27 and 1982 -70 and All Parts of Resolutions in Conflict
Herewith.
A report and recommendation was received from the City Manager.
This report and recommendation are a matter of record in the
Clerk's file.
Motion by Council Member Connors, second by Council Member Bauer,
to adopt Resolution No. 1987 -77.
AYES: Council Member Bauer, Connors, Waller and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Shaw.
13. Request for Authorization to Expend Additional Gas Tax Funds on
the Current Street Overlay Project.
Motion by Council Member Bauer, second by Council Member Connors,
to authorize the City Manager to expand the street overlay project
to a total cost not to exceed $600,000.00, with the additional
$90,000.00 to be expended from Article 8 Street Improvement Funds,
Account No. 9080 -6020.
AYES: Council Member Bauer, Connors, Waller and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Shaw.
14. CONSENT CALENDAR - All items listed under the Consent Calendar are
considered to be routine by the City Council and will be approved
on one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items
unless a Council Member or Citizen so requests, in which case the
item will be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a
separate item.
Council Member Waller requested that Item No. 14.f be removed from
the Consent Calendar and considered separately.
Page 28
Be&4*o4V City Council
aC:at"e� 4, 1987
a. Approval of Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of November
23, 1987.
b. Acceptance of Planning Commission Minutes of Regular Meet-
ing of November 17, 1987, as corrected.
C. Approval of Payment of Warrants as Audited per Warrant List
of December 14, 1987, in the amount of $400,386.59; Payroll
of November 26, 1987, in the amount of $41,761.39 and Spe-
cial Payroll of December 4, 1987, in the amount of
$10,656.29.
d. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 -78 - Approving Final Tract Map 20011 -1,
and Authorizing Recordation.
e. Authorize the Mayor to Execute the Notice of Completion for
work completed as of December 1, 1987 by Matich Corporation
on Street Overlay Project.
g. Report of Planning Commission Action at Meeting of December
1, 1987.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member Connors,
to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item No. 14.f
AYES: Council Member Bauer, Connors, Waller and Mayor Partain.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Shaw.
15. Approving the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (Audit) for Year
Ended June 30, 1987, as Submitted by Conrad & Associates.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member Connors,
to hold Item No. 15 over until the next regular meeting.
There being no opposition, the motion carried with four ayes, one
absent.
Motion by Council Member Waller, second by Council Member Connors,
to set the date for the next regular meeting for Monday, January
11, 1988, at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers.
There being no opposition, the motion carried with four ayes, one
absent.
There being no further business to come before the Council, the
meeting was adjourned at 9:23 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
PEI 000
City Clerk
Page 29