Loading...
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