HomeMy Public PortalAbout1991A G E N D A
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING
DECEMBER 27, 1991
The Beaumont City Council met in a Special Meeting on Friday,
December 27, 1991, at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers,
with Mayor Leja presiding.
On roll call the following Council Members were present: Brey,
McLaughlin, Parrott, Russo and Mayor Leja.
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. Recess to Closed Session:
a. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 to Meet with
its Designated Representative Regarding Labor Relations
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 Beaumont - Cherry Valley
Water District vs City of Beaumont, et al., Case No.
211456, Riverside Superior Court.
The meeting was recessed to closed session at 6:03 p.m.,
reconvening to regular session at 7:25 p.m.
Let the record show direction was given in closed session to
the City Manager to terminate two part -time police officers,
two full time police officers, and one full time position
from the City Manager's department, effective January 2,
1992; with termination of one full time position from the
City Manager's department and two full time positions from
the Vehicle Maintenance Department, effective January 16,
1992.
Direction was also given to suspend further work of
attorneys and consultants pertaining to all aspects of the
water department, except for the completion of the EIR for
the City of Beaumont Assessment District 1991 -1.
3. Consideration of Appointment of a Water Committee.
Council Member McLaughlin and Mayor Leja volunteered to serve
on this committee.
Motion by Council Member Russo, second by Council Member
Brey, to appoint Council Member McLaughlin and Mayor Leja to
serve as the water committee.
AYES: Council Member Brey, McLaughlin, Parrott, Russo and
Mayor Leja.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
4. Action on Budget Related Items.
Ann Connors, 813 Elm Avenue, addressed the Council stating
Page 1
Beaumont City Council
Member 27, 1991
she had originally asked to speak to the Council regarding
the purpose of the meeting tonight, since a letter sent to
the employees indicated they would not be doing the budget
until January, but it appears they are doing the budget
tonight, and asked if this was correct.
Mayor Leja responded that the Council is discussing budget
items tonight, although this is not the completion of the
budget. And reminded Mrs. Connors they have been having
these budget meetings all along.
Mrs. Connors continued with her statement to the Council,
saying she had heard suggestions made for $10,000 worth of
equipment in the Finance Director's department, a new police
chief and a new hire in the public works department, and
something about a $400,000 fund, and there not being any
sacred cows. She went on that buying equipment and hiring
destroys morale and causes employee resentment when you are
laying off elsewhere, especially just two months after San
Francisco when the city paid for a dozen people for a
conference trip, including a City Manager and Finance
Director who knew the financial condition of the City.
So far as sacred cows are concerned, she felt this usually
relates to police and fire, but cutting departments in an
equal percentage is illogical because work in the City
Manager's office and planning department go down during a
recession, but crime goes up. She felt the City could live
with holes in the streets, but holes in people are another
matter, and layoffs of officers or dispatchers at the police
department, while hiring a public works employee, is obscene.
She then pointed out the two temporary part -time officers
have worked with no benefits whatsoever, as well as supplying
their own equipment, which is a savings to the City,
She emphasized that, in her opinion, they did not need to
hire a police chief before June as they have an adequate
department head with a better run department than under the
Chief who retired. They also have volunteers who save the
City bundles who are on call, as well as working for free,
many hours a month, and yet they often have only two officers
on the street when three is not enough.
She continued with statements pointing out problems which
would be encountered by the police department as a result of
this layoff, indicating in conclusion they don't need fewer
police officers, they need more, as the citizens should not
be left inadequately protected - lives should not be put at
risk and officer safety should not be put at risk.
Council Member Russo stated he recognized the concern
whenever there is a cut in services, especially one which
personally affects people. However, he thought it was
important to note that this Council, in his opinion, has
really reviewed those areas that would seem to have had some
room for additional cuts, and in the police department they
have used 1.5 officers per thousand people as the level,
which is fairly common in other cities, and it was his belief
that our neighboring city was very close to that same ratio.
Additionally, he thought it should be noted that hiring a
police chief will give them an opportunity to have someone
who has had administrative experience in police work, and
they will strongly weigh, or at least he will strongly weigh,
future decisions on staffing of the police department on the
recommendations of the Chief, who would be in a better
position to make that determination than any member of the
Council or member of the public is.
He continued those are his personal feelings, and he
certainly could appreciate the concern, however, he thought
Page 2
5.
Beaumont City Council
C ember 27, 1991
it was not a time to raise undue alarm. The City has not
grown substantially in population from the level the City had
in 1989 -90, and all the Council is really doing is returning
that level of service back to where it was, and judicially
hiring a police chief which, hopefully, will affect the
administration of the police department in such a way that it
will have a positive affect on the future services of the
police in the City.
Mayor Leja returned the discussion to the specific agenda
item, action on budget related items.
The City Manager stated that on December 16 the City Council
froze all hiring, however, at that time the city had already
interviewed for a part -time kennel aide, who assists the
animal control officer. He described the requirements of the
position, and the need to fill the position due to the fact
without the kennel aide the animal control officer is
required to work substantial overtime, since the animal
shelter has to be maintained seven days a week.
He then requested permission from the Council to fill the
part -time kennel aide position.
Council Member McLaughlin said it appeared it would be a cost
savings to hire the part -time aide rather than pay the animal
control officer overtime, and would be a good move on the
City's part, with Council Member Brey agreeing with this
statement.
There were no other comments from the Council.
The City Manager then presented a request for authorization
to proceed with the striping on Highland Springs Avenue in
cooperation with the City of Banning due to the safety
issues involved, and the fact the City of Banning has already
received bids to do this work. The approximate cost would be
in the neighborhood of $8,000, with the City of Beaumont
being responsible for one -half of that cost. The funding
will be obtained from the gas tax maintenance budget.
Council Member Parrott stated this work was needed very
badly, and felt the City should proceed, with Council Member
McLaughlin agreeing with Mr. Parrott. There were no other
comments from the Council.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Parrott, to approve the City Manager's recommendation to fill
the part -time Kennel Aide position; and to approve the
striping of Highland Springs Avenue in cooperation with the
City of Banning.
AYES: Council Member Brey, McLaughlin, Parrott, Russo and
Mayor Leja.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Consideration of Setting Date for Special Meeting.
No action was taken on this agenda item.
Date Set for Next Regular Council Meeting, Monday, January
13, 1992, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers.
There being no further business to come before the Council,
the meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
Res ectfully submitted,
City
Page 3
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
SPECIAL MEETING
DECEMBER 16, 1991
The Beaumont City Council met in a Special Meeting on Monday,
December 16, 1991, at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers,
with Mayor Leja presiding.
On roll call the following Council Members were present: Brey,
McLaughlin, Parrott, Russo and Mayor Leja.
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. Review of Proposed 1991 -92 Budget.
Mayor Leja opened discussion on this agenda item by
requesting a report from Ronney Wong, Director of
Administrative Services.
Mr. Wong reported that before them they had the updated City
Manager recommended budget dated December 16, which contains
some minor revisions from the budget document previously
given to them dated December 2.
Those revisions are as follows:
Adjusted revenue figure of $4,121,774.
Typographical error on Page 29, which did show seven police
officers, requesting eleven - should be changed to read
eleven across.
Addition of capital items to transit budget on Page 69.
Total on capital expenditures on Page 66 was not brought
forward, and now shows a new total of $132,218, rather than
$66,918.
On Page 76, the general fund numbers for revenue projections
on the estimate has been changed to a new estimated fund
balance for June 30, 1992, with the transit fund balance also
to be corrected as outlined above.
In conclusion, Mr. Wong indicated that fiscal year 1989-
90 and 1990 -91 have been added to the entire document for all
departments, as requested by Council Member Russo.
Council Member Russo presented a report from the Finance
Committee, advising that he and Mayor Leja met with the
department heads,with the City Manager being unable to attend
the meeting due to illness, and the Assistant City Manager
attending in his place. The object of the meeting was to
convey the Council's direction to have department heads go
back to their own respective departments and to report back
on any proposed cuts in their departments which they could
make, with the understanding they knew and understood their
operations much better than the Council did. As a result of
this meeting, an additional report has been provided to the
Page 1
Beaumont City Council
December 16, 1991
Council from department heads, with a narrative of present
service levels and how those service levels would be affected
if changes were made, and containing any proposed cuts in
their budgets.
From the information that Mr. Russo has, he indicated it
would seem the departments responding have a total budget
reduction, if their proposals were accepted, of $144,278.
However, there is a caution in that the projected cuts in
community development, according to the narrative from the
department head, would be a "bare bones" cut from his
department, and his willingness to go that far into cuts
would be dependent, and justly so, on equal attempts by other
department heads to cut their budgets.
He went on that, in reality, what he is saying is the
response from department heads for further cuts in budgets
was minimal, and the issue as he sees it, at this point, is
that the Council is going to have to determine the service
levels by department. This is going to take more of a
department by department approach with the management team to
come up with that kind of proposed budget cuts.
He requested that Mr. Wong indicate to the Council at this
time where they sit with the changes, in terms of proposed
general fund revenues compared to expenditures, and he would
like that information included as part of this report.
Mr. Wong advised that at the end of November, which is the
most recent report incorporated into the budget, general fund
is estimated at a $600,000 shortage. He clarified this is
revenues, compared to expenditures that have been generated
thus far for these five months, result in a $600,000
shortage as of November 30, 1991.
Mr. Russo reiterated that as of November 30, 1991, they are
looking at a $600,000 shortfall, and if they were to continue
operations in the same fashion as they are presently
operating, and if revenues are to come in as estimated, the
City would be 1.2 million short.
Mr. Wong stated this is not correct in that some of the items
in the revenue are not received on an equal 1/12 basis,
therefore, even though five months have gone by, the City has
not received, in many cases, 5/12s of the revenue. As a
result, that presents a budgeting issue that the revenues
do not all come in in equal increments, whereas the
expenditure pattern is very close to equal twelfths. So at
November 30, it is a $600,000 shortage, but at the end of
January it could be as little as $200,000, or the City could
be totally positive. It is totally dependent on when the
revenues are coming in, and how much. It is very difficult
to estimate, and it could not be stated at this time that
the City would be 1.2 million short if they continued at this
pace until June.
Council Member Russo said this is critically important to
take into consideration when they are looking at proposed
budget cuts in either services or personnel. He wanted to
make certain, for both himself personally and members of the
Council, that everyone is aware that while the City is
running at that deficit level now, it does not necessarily
mean the City would multiply that by two by the end of June
30. He thought they needed to be certain they were clear on
the numbers, and then asked, in light of the suggestions made
by the accountants, and in looking at the revenues as they
are presently projected, what did Mr. Wong feel, since he is
in charge of finances for the City, would be a safe level to
project the revenues and what levels could be expected in
terms of expenditures to budget for the remainder of the
year.
Page 2
Beaumont City Council
December 16, 1991
Mr. Wong responded the first point would be that the auditors
recommendation of 15% reduction of expenditures would relate
to generally $700,000. With the remaining six months in this
fiscal year, the City would have to lay off half the force to
accomplish that, and he thought that was out of the question.
As far as the revenue projections in the general fund, some
of these revenue estimates, in Mr. Wong's determination,
still may be a little high. He felt the City would be
fooling themselves if they thought they would collect 1000 of
the 4.121 million projected.
By the same token, he also thought they would be fooling
themselves if they thought they would spend 100% of the
projected amount, as the City generally does not. In this
last fiscal year $89,000 less was spent than what was
budgeted - so the City never really spends the entire
expenditure nor do they ever realize 100% of the estimated
revenues. So the challenge is even greater to attempt to
balance the budget.
Council Member Russo said, if he understood what Mr. Wong and
the auditors are saying, the City should be
ultra - conservative in terms of expected revenues, and trend -
conservative based upon best year scenarios for expenditures.
In other words, if they look at the trends of expenditures
over the past three or four years, and find a year that is
most comparable in expenditure to revenues expected, that
should be used as a base to determine their expenditures
in projecting the next six months, with Mr. Wong agreeing
this would be one method.
With that train of thought in budgeting, Mr. Russo continued
that it would seem to him that the City needs to take another
look at the revenue projections and make some cuts to protect
against any shortfall. And then, on the basis of
expenditures, whether they be services or personnel, they
take an approach of looking at department by department,
establish the service levels, and then work with department
heads to make appropriate budget cuts to do what they can to
relieve as much as possible of the shortfall.
He concluded that this is his recommendation to the Council,
realizing that still leaves a lot of work to do, but at this
point he knows of no other way, with the only problem to be
faced being the mechanics and exactly where it is going to
come from.
He also wanted it stated for the report that based upon
department head input, he is sad to report, but has to report
honestly, that he believes it is going to have to come from
this Council. Council is going to have to give direction in
service levels, and may even have to give further direction
individually in departments. If the department heads cannot
see the way to do it, in working with the management team,
the City Manager and the staff, then the Council will have to
determine what those levels are going to be.
There were no questions or comments from the Council or staff
relative to Mr. Russo's report.
Mayor Leja said they have two options at this time, and that
is to establish what their target area for reducing the
budget will be by the end of this fiscal year, realizing they
cannot reduce by 15 %, or even a $325,000 budget reduction,
but they need to come up with some type of a guideline or a
goal which they can achieve - a good percentage of the budget
which needs to be reduced. She then asked for staff input,
and in answering a question from the City Manager, indicated
she would like for them to quickly discuss a target area or
level for them to reduce to by the end of the fiscal year.
Page 3
Beaumont City Council
Member 16, 1991
Mayor Leja asked for guidance from staff concerning the
percentage they could look at without reducing the service
level drastically, or should the service level be evaluated
f irst .
The City Manager recommended they should evaluate the service
level first, since they couldn't cut 5o without cutting
service levels.
Mayor Leja suggested they re- evaluate the revenue projections
first and then, if there are no objections, they would go
through department by department discussing staffing levels.
She then directed attention to Page 2 of the budget document,
stating that it is both Mr. Russo's recommendation and Mr.
Wong's professional opinion that the revenue projections are
overly optimistic, so the Council should take a conservative
approach in reviewing these projections.
Mr. Wong recommended consideration should be given to
reducing the $317,070 shown under specific plans, with
Council Member Russo asking if that included the $277,000
from Lockheed. The City Manager confirmed that was correct.
Mr. Russo then suggested that amount be removed from the
budget at this time, and when the funds are received
appropriate adjustments could be made. In other words, treat
that as a separate budget for that specific project.
In arriving at the specific amount, Mr. Koules advised the
amount from Lockheed would be $280,885 of which $2,500.00 had
already been paid, for a net amount of $278,385.
Mayor Leja indicated they should deduct $280,885 from the
$317,070, with Mr. Wong stating that would leave $36,185 as
the total for specific plans in the projected revenues.
Responding to a question from Mayor Leja, Mr. Wong stated he
was comfortable with the remainder of the projected revenues.
The adjusted total, after reducing the specific plan amount,
was calculated to be $3,840,889.
Council Member Russo asked what percent, generally, of
expected revenues can now be anticipated, with Mr. Wong
answering he felt they would receive an amount very close to
the adjusted total of $3,840,889.
Council Member Russo then asked, given the revised budget,
where do they see the total general fund expenditures, with
Mr. Wong referring to Page 1 of the budget document, with an
estimated expenditure total of $4,314,673. In taking the
$121,026 beginning deficit, the projected revenues of
$3,840,889 in addition to the fund transfer of $22,845, and
deduct the projected expenditures of $4,314,673, there would
be an estimated deficit of $571,965.
Discussion was then directed to the proposed expenditures,
with Mr. Wong advising that within the operations and
materials of each of the departments, he felt cuts and
reductions have been done to a point where there are some
areas where they will have to look at possibly increasing
some of them due to the f act of the f ive months which have
already gone by. For the most part, capital expenditures
throughout the departments have also been reduced to zero,
which leaves salaries and benefits as the only area
remaining.
Council Member Russo asked if there was information
concerning capital expenditures expended so far this year,
with Mr. Wong stating there have been some expenditures such
as the air conditioning for the 911 room at the police
department, although a zero amount was budgeted. The City
Manager also called attention to the first three items in the
Page 4
aumont City Council
December 16, 1991
police department budget, which are monthly payments for a
new radio system for dispatching with the capability of
taping incoming calls, etc., for a period of 36 months.
There is also a monthly payment included for the leased cars.
Mayor Leja requested they start their discussion at the
beginning of the budget so it would not appear one department
is being singled out.
The review then began department by department as follows:
City Council:
Council Member McLaughlin stated that since they are starting
with the Council budget, and are commenting about how the
budget has to be cut, and everyone has to bite the bullet, he
feels the Council should set a standard showing they are
willing to also go along with cuts, since the City has a very
good staff who do an excellent job. He proposed they cut
their salaries from $18,000 to $15,000 for a $3,000 savings;
and operations and materials from $11,900 to $7,550 for a
savings of $4,350; with the overall budget for the City
Council reduced from $30,210 to $22,860, for a total savings
of $7,350.
He went on to say he felt if the Council is going to tell the
departments they are going to have to do something about
staff, or take a cut in pay, the Council should set the
standard, and although this may not be a remarkable
reduction, at least the Council would have made a start.
When asked by Mayor Leja if he could be more specific
concerning exactly what should be cut to arrive at his total,
Mr. McLaughlin said he didn't know if the amounts for office
supplies and dues and subscriptions were needed, so he hasn't
changed anything there. So far as travel, training and
meetings, he suggests reducing that to $6,000, and also
suggests reducing community promotion to $2,000.
The City Manager pointed out one problem with Mr.
McLaughlin's suggestion is that $6,738.39 has already been
spent for 1991 -92 for travel, training and meetings, and
$1,157.08 has already been spent for community promotion.
Mr. McLaughlin said, naturally, his figures were subject to
adjustment based on actual spending, however, he feels
strongly that the Council should participate in cuts to the
best of their ability to demonstrate to all other City
departments.
Mayor Leja felt one of the areas that could be cut is spouse
expenses presently paid for by the City.
Discussion continued relative to the operations and materials
portion of the Council's budget, with questions being
answered by the City Manager and Mr. Wong regarding exactly
what each budgeted item is used for. Mr. Wong also pointed
out that additional costs have been incurred in the first 16
days of December which are not yet recorded, and if the 0 & M
is reduced to the current level right now, that would freeze
that account for the remaining six months of the year,
precluding the Council from spending anything further in
these particular categories. That is the reason he
originally suggested the operations and materials accounts
should not be touched at this time.
CITY MANAGER:
The City Manager addressed the increase of salaries and
benefits from 89 -90 to 90 -91 as being the addition of an
Assistant City Manager and secretary for a portion of 90-
Page 5
Beaumont City Council
cember 16, 1991
91, and the difference between 90 -91 and 91 -92 is the four
full time people (City Manager and Secretary, Assistant City
Manager and Secretary), and one half time person in the City
Manager's office for a full year.
Council Member Russo asked for a review of the actual
expenditures shown on Page 7, with expenditures shown for 89-
91 of $141,371.15, 90 -91, $181,017.48, and requested for 91-
92, $281,575.00, which would indicate a $100,000 increase
over the previous year, and $140,203 over fiscal year 89 -90
actual.
The City Manager pointed out that salaries and benefits
represent over $100,000 of that budget, with capital
expenditures having been decreased to almost nothing. He did
call attention to the fact one item had been added as a
result of the Assistant City Manager advertising for
personnel, which previously had been charged to
Administrative Services.
CITY CLERK:
The City Manager reviewed the comparison of the three years
shown, advising that the increase in elections was due to the
fact the cost of an election increased by almost $5,000.00.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
Mr. Wong advised there is a transfer from this department
into the sewer department and transit department for salaries
and benefits, which was an oversight on his part to reduce
the figure shown at this time, so it looks as if it has been
over - expended.
Council Member Russo commented it appeared this department is
looking at $3,000 in expenditures over the previous year,
with Mr. Wong agreeing, with that amount being in salaries
and benefits.
Mayor Leja questioned the capital expenditure shown of
$10,000, with Mr. Wong referring them to Page 17 which shows
the three system upgrades for the computer system,
explaining the benefits that would be derived from this
upgrade.
CITY ATTORNEY:
The City Manager explained that the two firms charged to this
account are Mr. Ryskamp's firm and the City's special police
counsel, which it is anticipated is budgeted short due to two
new cases which have been filed.
Mayor Leja asked why the attorney for water was not carried
over into 91 -92, with the City Manager explaining this was
moved into the developer field, and will not be taken from
the general fund.
Council Member Russo wanted to know what the reality is in
reference to the City Manager's comment that the police
attorney is budgeted low. Mr. Bounds responded that he
needed to work with the firm a little more to get a better
estimate, but he thinks it will be an additional $20,000.
Mayor Leja said she also anticipated there would be an
increase in the City Attorney budget due to their searching
for a new City Attorney and expecting the rate will be more
than that which Mr. Ryskamp has been charging.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
The City Manager reviewed the comparative figures of the three
Page 6
Beaumont City Council
:ember 16, 1991
years, calling attention to the fact that in the contractual
services field $63,000 of the $67,000 budgeted has already
been spent, so they will be short there.
Mayor Leja wanted to know what this covered, with the City
Manager replying this would cover approximately $7,000 for
Kleinfelder Co., who is producing the City's plan for waste
management as required by the State, with the balance being
the City Engineer.
Mr. Koules, the Community Development Director, emphasized
the department was under budget on the operations and
materials, with the large amount being contractual services
and staffing.
Mr. Wong pointed out one new
not in the 1989 fiscal year,
fee for Fish and Game.
GENERAL GOVERNMENT:
item had been added which was
and that is the County posting
The City Manager explained certain items included in this
budget, including the amount used for renovation of the
multi - purpose room, which will be paid for by community
development block grant funds.
Council Member Russo asked what is included in contractual
services, which Mr. Wong could not answer at that time. Let
the record show he returned to the Council later in the
meeting with the information this covers the maintenance
agreements for the photocopy machine and postage meter.
POLICE:
The City Manager again reviewed the comparative figures, with
a specific comment concerning the purchase of vehicles last
year, and the fact no new vehicles would be purchased this
year.
Mr. Wong called attention to the fact the holiday retroactive
payoffs which have been made this year, shown on Page 29, is
a one -time add -on.
The meeting was recessed at 8:16 p.m., reconvening at 8:30
p.m.
Council Member Russo again wanted to compare the three fiscal
year expenditures and receive input on the increases shown.
The City Manager indicated the differences are in 1990-
91 the D.A.R.E. Officer was added, and three part -time
investigators was changed to two full -time investigators,
which increased the staffing of sworn officers from 17 to 20,
and increased the expenditures from one million two to one
million five. In addition one additional vehicle was
purchased, the first payment was made on the new radio
equipment, and County booking fees were added, increasing
operations and materials from $141,955 to $186,754 and
Capital expenditures from $39,922 to $112,449.
Mayor Leja asked for information concerning two positions
presently in the police department for which the City was
searching for officers, with the City Manager explaining
there are two positions which are vacant which are being
covered by part -time temporary employees, drawing first step
police officer salary with no fringe benefits. The City has
not moved to fill those two positions at this time. Mr.
Bounds did call attention to the fact the City has advertised
for a police chief, and a determination needs to be made
whether or not that should be slowed down, because it closes
on December 20.
Page 7
Beaumont City Council
cember 16, 1991
Council Member Parrott asked if the Council would be
reviewing the Police Chief applications as he thought they
should, with Mayor Leja indicating the Council would set up a
criteria or philosophy the Council would like to see
emphasized in the type of person that is hired, whether it is
by the Council or by some other means.
Council Member Brey asked what the total percentage would be
so far as fringe benefits are concerned for the two police
officer positions just discussed, with the City Manager
advising it is almost 50% of the salary. Mr. Wong stated the
starting first step for police officer is $28,739 annual,
with the fringe benefits related to that being $15,572, for a
total of $44,311.
FIRE:
The City Manager advised the biggest change they would see in
fire is the contract service charge, with the 89 -90 contract
service charge showing an overage of money due to the fact
the last payment of the prior year was not paid until fiscal
year 89 -90 resulting in a misnomer - the actual contract
price was $313,631 that year. The increase for this fiscal
year is roughly $50,000, which results from the County
stating that contract cities should pay their own way, and
the contracts are being increased by approximately $50,000
per year for a period of five years in order to arrive at
what they considered the correct figure to be for the cities
to pay their own way.
Chris Wurzell, Battalion Chief, Riverside County Fire
Department, gave the Council background information
concerning how the fire department arrived at the
determination they were basically underfunded in the contract
services, and explaining that the figure for Beaumont is
$165,000, to be phased in over a three year period. The fire
department has agreed to operationally take the budget
shortfall, with the first year increase being $55,000 (91-
92). Fiscal year 92 -93 would be an additional $55,000 and
93 -94 an additional $50,000, which would bring it up to the
full service charge.
Mayor Leja commented she would be interested in seeing how
the County Board of Supervisors arrived at this figure and to
see how this is "paying our own way ", and what the
comparative is for other cities who contract with the County
and other methods of fire protection. She then asked the
City Manager if this is paying the City's own way, or would
it be generating more money for the County that is above and
beyond the services which are received, or how would having
the City's own department compare to contracting.
The City Manager said he was not prepared to make comparisons
at this meeting, however, all the print -out material
furnished by the County was given to the Council when they
approved the contract in August, and this information could
be given to them again.
Mayor Leja said these were areas of interest on which she
would like information, and it would be good to receive this
information again in order to re- evaluate it, and, also,
there are two new Council Members who should have this
information.
Council Member Brey asked if they could receive a study
regarding forming the City's own fire department.
Batt. Chief Wurzell indicated he could provide information
from studies by the County.
The City Manager said after this information is received,
staff could also do some comparative work, such as examining
Banning's costs, etc.
Page 8
Beaumont City Council
cember 16, 1991
BUILDING INSPECTION:
In reviewing the comparisons for the three fiscal years, the
City Manager said it would be better to compare 90 -91 and 91-
92 as 89 -90 was 100% contract, whereas 90 -91 and 91 -92 are
based on a full time City Building Inspector. The
contractual services shown for 90 -91 and 91 -92 are for plan
check work that is done by plan check engineers.
There were no comments or questions from the Council.
PUBLIC WORKS:
The City Manager again reviewed the comparative figures,
explaining the larger range is in contractual services,
which includes adding the maintenance contracts for the fuel
system, electric gates, etc., to this account. He did call
attention to the fact this account is mostly an
administrative function, with all of the fuel for the various
vehicles that are operated by Mr. Aguirre's departments
charged to this one account, and all the uniforms charged
to this one account for simplicity. The handi talki budgeted
under capital expenditures is to replace one which was
stolen.
Council Member Russo questioned why this particular
department increased from $76,946 in 89 -90 to $101,304 in 90-
91, back down to a City Manager recommendation of $80,149 for
91 -92.
Mr. Wong responded that in 90 -91 there is a $12,000 vehicle,
as well as the fuel system maintenance Mr. Bounds had already
addressed, with the City Manager explaining further there was
an amount of $75,116 actually requested in 90 -91, however,
due to the f act he was allowed a pick -up over and above the
approved budget, and the costs involved for the fuel system
in contractual services due to a fuel leak and extra testing
as a result of the leak, an over - budget amount actually spent
was $101,304.77.
Replying to a question from Council Member Russo, the City
Manager stated the Public Works Supervisor is the supervisor
of the street maintenance department, the parks department,
the pool maintenance department and the building maintenance
department, and the people who work in those various areas.
The reason for the department known as Public Works, is the
budget follows the State's recommended guidelines, and the
State has certain things that they ask for you to report to
them, and part of that comes out of this section called
public works. He explained further how the salaries are
charged to the different departments.
There were no further questions from the Council.
STREET MAINTENANCE:
The City Manager explained that under 4060, the $303,000
amount shown was an error, as the supervisor had requested
work to be done on streets which is not charged to this
account. In looking at the comparison figures, the changes
are basically in the amount of materials to be used and the
number of people doing the work. Public Works as a whole,
which includes street maintenance, is operating two men short
at the present time, and those vacancies will not be filled
unless authorized by Council action.
Mayor Leja wanted to know exactly how many people are working
for public works, including the supervisor, as of today, with
the City Manager responding there are a total of four. He
did explain the building maintenance man, who has been off on
disability, is due to be back to work the last week in
Page 9
^-�aumont City Council
: cember 16, 1991
December.
Mayor Leja then wanted to know how they function, with the
City Manager explaining one of the ways they have been
functioning the last couple of weeks is through working
trustees, however, this is not skilled labor, and they do
need skilled labor on many of the jobs.
Mayor Leja asked what percentage of the labor force is in
street maintenance, with the City Manager replying it is 1.6,
a little over one and a half, not filled.
Council Member Parrott wanted to know what buildings have to
be taken care of, with the City Manager answering they
include the Civic Center Building, the parks buildings,
corporation yard buildings, sewer plant buildings, police
department.
Responding to a question from Mayor Leja, the City Manager
continued that this department takes care of the streets,
(other than contract maintenance work such as overlays and
street striping), the street sweeping, trimming of tree limbs
around street signs and stop signs which threaten visibility,
grading of alleys after rains, taking care of tumbleweeds
that obstruct City streets, flooding problems.
Mayor Leja requested they review parks at this time since it
is a part of the whole picture for public works manning.
PARKS:
In reviewing the comparative figures, Mr. Bounds pointed out
that in 91 -92, the CDBG block grant program to replace the
roofs on the buildings in Stewart Park and to purchase
playground equipment, is included, which will be paid for by
the block grant funds. There is also an amount of $5,660
which was the remainder due on the sprinkler system in
Stewart Park, and is a State park grant, payable after July
1. These improvements to the parks increase the capital
expenditures over the prior years, but are all paid by grant
monies.
Answering a question from Mayor Leja, Mr. Bounds advised that
pool maintenance is also provided by the public works crew.
Mayor Leja stated that in handling all of these tasks -
street maintenance - parks - pool maintenance - building
maintenance, they are short two people, with a third person
off on disability, and it is her feeling this is one area the
Council should consider authorizing staff to fill one of
those positions.
STREET LIGHTING:
The City Manager explained that street lighting is not a
general fund account, but rather an assessment district
account, and, basically, this is where the energy source for
the street lights, and the maintenance on street lighting and
traffic signals, comes from.
There were no questions or comments from the Council.
SEWER SERVICE:
The City Manager advised that sewer service is an enterprise
account, meaning there is no general fund money used in the
system. In reviewing the comparative figures, he stated the
personnel remained the same - the 0 & M expenses move around
a little bit, especially this year under contractual services
they have requested more money due to some of the new State
Water Quality Control Board regulations they are having to
Page 10
adhere to.
There were no comments or questions
SANITATION:
Reaumont City Council
; cember 16, 1991
from the Council.
The City Manager described this account in that it is for the
pick -up of trash, and is billed along with the sewer bills.
The City then pays the contractor, Inland Disposal. The
contractor is paid for 100% of the city whether the money is
received or not. If the bills are not paid, they are placed
on the tax rolls for collection.
There were no comments or questions from the Council.
VEHICLE MAINTENANCE:
The City Manager reviewed the comparative figures, indicating
that one me hank was added for a portion of 90 -91 and all of
91 -92, and increase of one -half of a clerk- dispatcher in
this budget. A portion of the mechanics, and one -half of a
clerk- dispatcher is charged to transit.
Referring to the 0 & M costs, he pointed out the costs for
each department are charged to this account. Also, the
entire radio system, regardless of the department in which
they are used, are charged to this account.
He called attention to Account N 6 althou e
requested budget amount if $5,579 as actually spent 6 27
thereforerill have to be increase
There were no questions or comments from the Council.
SENIOR CENTER:
Mr. Bounds stated the only changes in the comparative figures
are in the 0 & M costs, with no capital being requested this
year.
There were no comments or questions from the Council.
POOL:
There were no additional comments concerning the pool budget,
since pool maintenance was previously discussed along with
public works /street maintenance.
TRANSIT:
The City Manager advised this is an enterprise account, with
the City in partnership with Riverside County since we
provide service to the unincorporated area of Cherry Valley.
The comparison figures were reviewed, with the big change
being the addition of new buses, which were budgeted in 89-
90, but did not arrive until 90 -91. 91 -92 also shows the
addition of one new bus.
Council Member Russo asked what percent of the financing of
this department comes from the general fund, or does it all
come from another source along with the return from the fare
boxes.
The City Manager stated the financing comes from fare box
recovery, Article 4 money (a gas tax fund on sales tax of
gasoline) , and money received from the County which is a
portion of their Article 4 money for the Cherry Valley run.
The buses are paid from a fund known as the "stay" fund,
which is a fund that Riverside County Transportation
Commission is able to get to help in capital costs.
Page 11
Beaumont City Council
cember 16, 1991
Council Member Russo wanted to know what else Article 4
monies could be used for, with the City Manager providing
information that if it could not be used for transit, it is
converted to Article 8 money and can go for street work. It
cannot be used for anything else.
Council Member Russo then said if they look at the 0 & M for
89 -90 at $74,169, and then 90 -91 at $87,080, it would appear
that most of that difference is reflected by the depreciation
expense, which is not a direct cost of operation in terms of
the cost of maintaining vehicles. Then in looking at the 0 &
M for 91 -92 at $128,450, most of this increase is again
reflected by the depreciation expense. He went on to say he
is confused at the percent of increase to actually maintain
vehicles in relationship to the percent of increase in the
labor to maintain them and the people to run the buses. His
question is has the City put that many more buses on the
street in terms of transit.
Mr. Wong pointed out there were three new buses purchased in
90 -91, with Mr. Bounds clarifying that although three were
purchased, two were replacements, so there actually was one
additional bus placed in service.
Mr. Russo stated he is not looking at capital expenditures,
he is looking at salaries and benefits compared to actual
operating costs for the vehicles themselves (fuel & oil,
etc.), and he doesn't see that great of an increase. He
continued there is a $100,000 increase in salaries to operate
the same number of buses, wondering if he is reading this
right.
Mr. Wong said the five bus drivers and the five part -time bus
drivers are not currently fully funded. At this time there
are not five full time bus drivers and five part -time bus
drivers, so the cost that is anticipated to fill these
positions currently does not have the ten total. There are
not ten bus drivers out there.
Mr. Russo wanted to know how many there actually are at this
time, with Mr. Swoda, the transit superintendent, advising
there are four permanent, and three part -time. Mr. Russo
then recapped that it would appear they started out with
three full time and three part -time, then they added one, so
the projection of the addition of two full time and two part
time would be an additional $100,000 in salaries and
benefits. He went on that if the Council were to freeze this
right now, and not hire those two positions, the salaries and
benefits in this department could be reduced without
affecting anybody presently working. Mr. Wong confirmed this
would be correct, however, it would not affect the general
fund.
Mr. Russo said he realized that, however, if Article 4 money
isn't used for transit, it can be converted to Article 8 and
the City could use it for street maintenance, asking if it
could be used for salaries too. The City Manager advised it
could not be used for salaries, but it could be used to pay
for contract services but it cannot be a repair job, it has
to be a construction job. For example, if an inch and a half
overlay is done, that is called construction. If you go out
and do a six by six square, you are maintaining the street.
Mr. Russo questioned if this is what the auditors were
referring to when they said the City had underestimated, with
the City Manager saying that was the maintenance of effort
and Measure A money, which is something entirely different.
Mayor Leja asked what source of funding could be used for the
striping at Highland Springs Avenue. Mr. Bounds replied that
2107 gas tax fund for maintenance could be used for the
project.
Page 12
Beaumont City Council
; cember 16, 1991
Council Member Russo said, while he recognized that Article 4
monies could not be used for anything else, especially for
general fund, his personal approach in looking at the entire
budget picture is to provide parity across the board if they
are looking at additional costs - and they should look at all
departments irrespective of where the revenues come from and
try to do the best job they can to balance that, so there is
no one department that has the luxury of having everything,
and some who don't - not that transit has everything, but
they need to look at the balancing act.
The City Manager said if you get money into the Article 8
account, it draws interest and you can do other things with
that.
There were no other questions or comments from the Council.
GAS TAX /STREET CONSTRUCTION /MEASURE A:
The City Manager advised that some time ago they indicated to
RCTC that Measure A monies would be used for two projects,
one of which would be the resurfacing of Beaumont Avenue from
5th Street to 14th Street, with this resurfacing involving
grinding the street to get the high crown out, and doing
either a remix or resurfacing program. The second project
would be the signal at Beaumont Avenue and Sixth Street,
changing from a timed signal to a computerized signal which
would be operated on demand and not on timing.
He then summarized the three projects scheduled for which gas
tax funds will be used would be 1) the completion of the
signal costs at Pennsylvania and Sixth as well as Beaumont
Avenue and Fourteenth Street; 2) the resurfacing of Beaumont
Avenue; and 3) changing signals at Beaumont Avenue and Sixth
Street.
There were no comments or questions from the Council.
This completed the department by department review of the
budget, with Mayor Leja asking for comments from staff or the
Council.
Council Member Russo said he would like to present something
purely for discussion purposes, asking if they were to look
at 89 -90 actual expenditures, using that as a base for
reference, and if they were to say to the City Manager they
want him to go back and look at 89 -90 actuals, and the
present recommendations, and determine somewhere in between
there, a way to balance the budget with the department heads,
would that be an unrealistic suggestion or request.
The City Manager stated if they were going to try to balance
it with 0 & M costs it would be unrealistic, as there just
was not that much 0 & M costs in the budget, and there are so
few capital expenditures left that are not already funded or
expended there would not even be $100,000.
Council Member Russo then asked if there were any other
revenue sources, with the City Manager saying he was not
aware of any.
Mayor Leja then asked what was left, with the City Manager
saying the only thing left is employees, continuing that if
they went through the 0 & M he questioned if they would be
able to find another $3,000 total.
Mayor Leja said there was a suggestion made at the staff
meeting that before they would start announcing cuts in
departments, that they consult with the department heads,
which is what it appears they will have to do.
Page 13
-eaumont City Council
cember 16, 1991
Mayor Leja then asked if there were other areas that needed
to be addressed, or if the Council would like to continue
this discussion after they have met with department heads
privately.
Council Member Russo said he would like to get a feeling from
the Council to allow the Council appointed committee to
continue to work with the staff for the next round of talks
regarding the proposed cuts. In that way they would have the
ability to come back with a proposal so the Council does not
have to end up going through things again. He asked for
authorization for the committee to go ahead and work with the
department heads and actually talk about numbers and whatever
has to be done, and come back with some kind of a format and
proposal for budget cuts, revenue additions, whatever
solutions might be available.
Motion by Council Member Parrott, second by Council Member
Brey to authorize the special finance committee to contact
the City Manager and Department Heads to discuss budget
cuts, revenue additions, or any other solutions which might
be available, and to bring a formatted proposal from staff
and the Council committee back to the City Council.
Council Member McLaughlin said since they are talking about
re -doing this in three months, and as Mr. Wong has stated
several times this evening there will be money coming in that
may change this picture, he sees no sense going back to staff
at this time to see if they can cut employees, as it appears
to him they barely have an adequate staff to maintain
whatever the City needs for the citizens of this community.
He went on to say he doesn't have the same desperate feeling
the rest of the Council has in this matter. He feels like
they have a staff that is on top of this, and watching it
very carefully. There is deficit spending in almost
everything that is involved today - in schools, etc. - but
before staff is cut he feels like they should give it a
little more time to see what the economy does in the next
three months.
He continued that he felt they should go ahead and adopt the
budget, as they will be into next year's budget before they
ever adopt this year's budget at the rate they are going.
Council Member Russo disagreed wholeheartedly with Council
Member McLaughlin, saying the City is already into its sixth
month of this fiscal year and it doesn't look good, and if
they continue on he could not see how they, in good
conscious, could let the City go into a deficit further
without making every attempt they can to do as much as they
can to reduce that deficit by the end of this fiscal year.
Even if the economy were to turn around he could not see how
they could get as much as is needed to even end up with half
the deficit unless the Council takes some action.
He went on this is not the f irst year the City has been in
deficit spending as it appears that has been the case for the
last three years, and if the Council does not bite the bullet
and face the issues head on, it will not be the last.
Mayor Leja said in the past the City has had the reserve
fund, but that is exhausted now, and although she knows they
need to think of the employees, they have got to think about
next year_ if the economy doesn't turn around. How does the
City pay its bills -
Council Member Brey stated he would like to see the committee
be able to negotiate with the department heads and bring the
information back to the Council.
VOTE TAKEN ON PREVIOUS MOTION to authorize finance committee
Page 14
3.
4.
5.
Beaumont City Council
; cember 16, 1991
to contact the City Manager and Department Heads to negotiate
budget cuts.
AYES: Council Member Brey, Parrott, Russo and Mayor Leja.
NOES: Council Member McLaughlin.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Consideration of Formation of Search Committee to Fill
Position of City Attorney.
Mayor Leja stated she would like to nominate two Council
Members who she feels would serve in this capacity in a very
good way, and those are Mayor Pro Tem Frank Parrott and
Council Member Matt Brey.
Motion by Council Member Russo, second by Council Member
McLaughlin, to appoint Council Members Brey and Parrott as
the Search Committee to fill the position of City Attorney.
AYES: Council Member Brey, McLaughlin, Parrott, Russo and
Mayor Leja.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Recess to Closed Session Pursuant to Government Code Section
54957 to Consider Public Employee Personnel Matters.
The meeting was recessed to closed session at 9:43,
reconvening to regular session at 11:14 p.m.
Let the record show no action was taken in closed session.
Action on Budget Related Items.
Council Member McLaughlin commented it was his understanding
nothing would be done with the budget until after the
committee had met with the department heads and the City
Manager.
Council Member Russo said he would like for the Council to
consider freezing all capital expenditures and all hiring,
transfers and promotions.
Council Member McLaughlin stated this should come to the City
Manager, with the City Manager bringing it to them if it is
necessary.
Mayor Leja indicated she felt one department was extremely
overworked and she would like for Council to consider filling
one of the vacancies in public works /street maintenance, as
they are, in her opinion, way understaffed.
Responding to a question from Council Member Brey, the City
Manager stated the position had been vacant since October,
and responding to a question from Mayor Leja, he stated the
salary would be $23,500 for a year.
There were no objections from the Council in filling one
vacancy in the public works /street maintenance department.
Mayor Leja then asked for input from the Council concerning
continuing to pursue the hiring of a new Police Chief.
The City Manager pointed out the closing date is December 20,
therefore, if a hiring freeze is in place all applicants
would have to be contacted that a freeze has taken place.
Council Member Russo said his approach for a freeze is not
necessarily to stop that particular process, just that the
Page 15
Reaumont City Council
: cember 16, 1991
Council would be able to review any hiring, etc., before they
take place. Therefore, he personally is not in favor of
stopping the search for a police chief, and wants to see it
proceed.
The City Manager asked for clarification that they are to
continue to the point of making offers.
Council Member Russo said he had no problem with that, with
Mayor Leja stating they will have to find out how much money
they have to offer, or how much money they would work for.
The City Manager pointed out you don't bring people here and
go through the interview process unless you are going to make
some offers.
Mayor Leja said they are going to be hiring a police chief,
as she saw no way around that - it has to be done.
The City Manager said he thought the freeze meant the City
would hold off everything at the present time.
Council Member Russo said the freeze would be with those two
exceptions - the public works vacancy and the hiring of the
police chief.
There were no other comments from the Council.
Motion by Council Member Parrott, second by Council Member
McLaughlin, to place- a hiring freeze on all vacant positions,
with the exception of replacement of a public works employee
and the continuation of the hiring of a police chief, with
this freeze to also be placed on all transfers and
promotions.
AYES: Council Member Brey, McLaughlin, Parrott, Russo and
Mayor Leja.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Motion by Council Member Russo, second by Council Member
Parrott, to place a freeze on all capital expenditures.
AYES: Council Member Brey, McLaughlin, Parrott, Russo and
Mayor Leja.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Discussion followed concerning setting a date for another
budget meeting.
Mayor Leja called a special meeting for budget review to be
held on Friday, December 27, 1991, 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 11:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
LA. l --
Page 16
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
DECEMBER 9, 1991
The Beaumont City Council met in a regular meeting on Monday,
December 9, 1991, at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, with
Mayor Leja presiding.
On roll call the following Council Members were present: Brey,
McLaughlin, Parrott, Russo and Mayor Leja.
The invocation was given by Council Member Russo, who then led the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
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 HEARING - (Continued from November 25, 1991)
4. APPEAL OF TWO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REQUIRED BY THE CITY
ENGINEER FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 24933, AS APPROVED BY THE
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION ON 9/17/91. APPELLANT: Omega
Homes /Thomas Shelton. LOCATION: Southeast Corner of Beaumont
Avenue and Cougar Way. (89- TM -8 /R).
The Assistant City Manager, Lee Ann Overstreet, called attention
to a memorandum given to the Council at the beginning of the
meeting, containing a recommendation from the City's special
counsel for water matters, as well as making known the fact the
City Engineer, Jim Dotson, is present to answer questions.
Recommendation from staff is to uphold the Planning Commission
conditions of approval of September 17, 1991.
The City Engineer, Jim Dotson, stated he would stand by the
recommendation that the Council adopt the conditions of approval
as written.
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:04 p.m.
Mr. Keith Dagostino, civil engineer with L. A. Wainscott &
Associates, representing the applicant: The two conditions, I
believe Council got a copy of the letter request that we had, I
would like to direct the drainage condition first, which was
condition 4.02. Our objection to that condition is that we feel
it potentially burdens this project with the cost of a storm drain
improvement that does not benefit the subdivision. An improvement
that would only benefit other areas.
The need for a storm drain in Cedar View Drive, if necessary, will
only be created by the diversion of drainage upstream, or the re-
routing of drainage upstream. And this re- routing would only
benefit other areas. Therefore, we feel it is unjust to ask that
we be responsible for any cost associated with such a storm drain.
We are asking that the condition be deleted, or that wording be
added to the condition that states that Omega Homes will not be
required to fund any of the cost for a storm drain, if indeed it
Page 1
Beaumont City Council
December 9, 1991
is necessary in Cedar View Drive.
I would like to point out that this project is already conditioned
for approximately - well, for some significant drainage
improvements associated with Marshall Creek - concrete lining of
the channel - and also conditioned to build the Cougar Way
crossing. So, these improvements, you know, are likely to range
in the neighborhood of $300,000, so we are already being
conditioned to make significant drainage improvements. And,
again, the requirement for a drain in Cedar View Drive would seem
to be the responsibility of someone else.
Regarding the water condition 3.03, as stated in the letter, Omega
Homes is somewhat uncomfortable. We are concerned this City may
not be in a position to serve water in a timely manner for the
subdivision, and we would like to ask that wording be added to the
condition that gives us the opportunity to negotiate with any
water purveyor that can serve us water at the time.
So, that kind of concludes what we have proposed. I would like to
answer any questions that you might have. I would happy to.
Mayor Leja: All right. What we will do is continue with the
public hearing, and then if any Council Members have any questions
when we begin to discuss it, then we will call on you at that
time.
Mr. Dagostino: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Leja: Is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor of the
project.
Tom Shelton, Omega Homes: I would only expand one point regarding
what has been addressed already. I had indicated previously, I
wish Mr. Bounds were here. I indicated previously, at the end of
a year, if there were no water available, no potable water, then I
be released to find what other sources - which is probably the
only other act in town. But I think to wait a year, and still not
have water, is a little unfair. Or, if during the period of a
year, it became apparent that you were going to be unable to get
any water, that I be released to get another source. It doesn't
seem to be - to me, it seems to be an unfair request to see that
condition modified to express that. That is all I had to add.
Thank you.
Mayor Leja: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in favor of
the project tonight. Anyone else wishing to speak in favor. Is
there anyone wishing to speak in opposition. If not, at this time
we will close the public hearing.
The public hearing was closed at 7:10 P.M.
Council Member Russo asked for information concerning the
hydrology report, which was Condition No. 4.01 of the conditions
of approval, with Mr. Dagostino indicating that report had not yet
been completed, although they had taken a good look at the
drainage onto Cedar View Drive.
Council Member Russo then asked how they could make a
determination on the responsibility for the water drainage without
having a report on where the water is coming from.
Mr. Dagostino stated they have taken a close look at where the
area is draining now, and how it may be re- routed or routed in the
future, and it appears clear to them that the Beaumont High
School area and other areas to the east do not drain toward the
tract now, although the City may desire that they be routed toward
the tract, and, if so, they understand that. They are just asking
that they not be responsible for a storm drain that becomes
necessary to protect other areas, or to benefit others.
Page 2
Beaumont City Council
December 9, 1991
The City Engineer, Jim Dotson, said he would need special
permission from the Council to address this issue as they should
be aware that at one time Mr. Dagostino worked for him, and his
firm has performed certain work for L. A. Wainscott & Company,
receiving payment for these services. The government code
specifies that if someone takes money from one client within
twelve months exceeding $200.00, then he has a conflict of
interest. He went on to state he did not think he had a conflict
in this particular matter, however, he did have to make them aware
of this situation and ask for a decision from them regarding
whether or not they want him to represent the City under the
circumstances.
The City Attorney advised that if Mr. Dotson has received in
excess of $200.00 within the last year there is a potential
conflict of interest, however, the fact that it is revealed would
make it a decision on the Council's part since they have been
paying Mr. Dotson regularly as the City Engineer for an extended
period of time. He stated further that Mr. Dotson has not
represented Mr. Shelton although he has had professional contacts
with the engineering firm, and the Council should make a
determination whether or not there might be a problem. He
personally did not see the kind of conflict that one of the
Council might have in voting on a project where they have received
money, and Mr. Dotson is here in a technical capacity and has
provided what is already here on the project, including the very
conditions that are being appealed.
It was a consensus of the Council to allow Mr. Dotson to continue
with his testimony as representative for the City of Beaumont.
The City Engineer then addressed Mr. Russo's question concerning
how a decision could be made in the absence of a completed
hydrology report, describing the proposed tract (using the map as
a reference), and indicating how the flows will be directed onto
the tract, and the origin of that water. He also explained the
two options available to the City in directing this flow of water,
and the fact a decision was made that the only thing which could
be done was split the flow, taking some through Mr. Shelton's
property, and taking some on to 14th Street. He clarified that
his conditions were not written to say Mr. Shelton would have to
build the storm drain, but with the intention the City would work
with the two developers and split the flow, and he thought the
condition could stand as written.
In answering questions from Mr. Russo, the City Engineer explained
the street would be used as a flood carrier, with a ten inch curb
to contain the flow, just as the north side of 14th Street is
being used now. He wants to cut down the burden on 14th Street,
therefore is going to intercept part of the water and send it
through Mr. Shelton's property. It is a regional problem, and not
one that any one developer can solve, so they are trying to break
the flow down into bite size quantities and take it through. And
the way he and Mr. Dagostino have discussed it, Mr. Shelton's
tract will not be harmed, and no storm drain will be desired, nor
designed nor built.
Mr. Russo asked if he, as the City Engineer, agreed with this
method, with Mr. Dotson stating he prefers it as he likes to keep
as much water on top of the ground as possible.
Council Member Brey referred to Mr. Shelton's request to add
wording to Condition No. 3.03, with Mr. Shelton confirming he has
requested wording to the effect if the City did not have a potable
source of water to the property within a year, that they be
allowed to seek water from whomever can serve them at that time.
Mr. Brey clarified that he is asking to be released from this
condition in January of 1993, with Mr. Shelton responding that is
correct.
Mr. Shelton then asked why the City of Beaumont could not adopt an
acreage assessment fee, which is quite common in Riverside County.
Page 3
L_dumont City Council
December 9, 1991
This would allow the City to have a kitty to draw from for the
construction of a storm drain, major culvert crossings, and other
facilities which might be needed. He indicated he had discussed
this with Mr. Bounds, and he was not in favor of this suggestion
primarily because of certain laws which he felt would prohibit the
City from moving money from one drainage basin to another. Mr.
Shelton said he thought this might be a solution, and the City
should examine the possibility strongly as there are drainage
problems in the City other than 14th Street.
Mr. Russo asked the applicant if the way Mr. Dotson has described
the drainage now is acceptable to them.
Mr. Dagostino said he heard a discussion of how the City would
like to handle the drainage, and they would compliment Mr. Dotson
on his concept, but their only concern is being burdened with
financing that storm drain, when they are already spending
$300,000 on drainage improvements.
Council Member Russo pointed out Mr. Dotson didn't mention a storm
drain underground, but was talking about engineering the street to
carry the water.
Mr. Dagostino said they are not opposed to that type of design
within the tract, however, the written record says a storm drain
will be, if necessary, constructed, and it is silent on who would
be responsible, but appears to infer the developer is responsible.
They are asking the written record be modified to reflect what
they are all striving for.
Mr. Dotson presented an amended condition for consideration by the
Council, as follows:
Amended Condition No. 4.02:
It is anticipated even without benefit of the review
of the aforementioned hydrology report that flows
within Cedar View Drive will exceed depths equal to
curb height, therefore, and if such excessive flows
will occur, special street cross sections shall be
designed to accommodate such flows.
The City Attorney asked for clarification there would be no
provision for the possible need of a storm drain, even at someone
else's expense, with the City Engineer indicating that was
correct. The Attorney wanted it emphasized that it is an
engineering fact a storm drain will not be needed, because if it
is not, it would be preferable to indicate that the storm drain
may at some time be necessary, and though this developer may not
be obligated to pay for it, he would be obligated to be involved
in that process in terms of developing the project. The City
Engineer stated he did not think it needed to be mentioned,
because if it occurs it will involve a lot more people than just
this developer, and it may not occur until after he has already
built out, sold out and gotten out of town.
Council Member Parrott said since it appeared the developer would
be receiving water from other areas, he agrees with the City
Engineer that special street cross sections will be provided. He
felt this was the most sensible and most reasonable way to go. It
has been done in other parts of the City and he sees no reason why
it shouldn't be done here.
Since there were no other questions or comments concerning the
issue of drainage, discussion was directed to Condition No. 3.03,
pertaining to the question of who would provide water to the
project, with Mayor Leja asking Mr. Dotson for comments.
Mr. Dotson asked if the special request regarding September 30,
1992 had been resolved, with Mayor Leja indicating the date was
Page 4
Beaumont City Council
December 9, 1991
January of 1993, however, nothing has been amended at this time to
reflect that date.
Council Member McLaughlin expressed an opinion that since Mr.
Shelton has requested a date of 1993, and the City has been
involved in the formation of a water company for some months, it
should be extended at least until June of 1993, because, with the
economy as it is, things will probably slow down and the City will
need a little more room within which to work, and it doesn't
appear that would create a hardship for the applicant. He
continued that he was sure Mr. Shelton knew he could come back to
the Council and talk to them, but he did feel the City needs a
little more lead time than just one year.
Council Member Brey stated he was comfortable with the one year,
however, Mr. McLaughlin indicated the applicant could come back to
the Council at any time, and it could be changed at that time.
Council Member Parrott agreed with Mr. McLaughlin, feeling it
could be extended to June of 1993 as he felt it would be a little
more comfortable for the City, and it could be possible the City
would have it ready by that time. He went on to say that, if not,
he thought it should be a condition that he should be able to get
water from whomever he wants to who can furnish him water at that
time, as this is very restrictive for the applicant.
After receiving an opinion from the City Attorney and the City
Engineer concerning the legalities of the applicant returning to
the Council for a modification of this condition at a later date,
Mayor Leja stated that she would be in favor of the applicant
coming back to modify staff's condition, and the Council's
decision tonight, at a later date, and at this time would be in
favor of supporting staff's recommendation regarding the water
department issue, and adopting amended Condition No. 4.02.
a. Consideration of Granting or Denying Appeal.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Brey, to adopt 3.03 as set forth in the Conditions of Approval;
amending 4.02 as stated by the City Engineer, and, based on those
amendments, there be a finding as set forth by the City's Water
Attorney; and further, a finding that the law permits the
developer to return to modify the conditions of 3.03, or any other
condition, within a year, and based upon that amendment and those
findings, the appeal be denied.
AYES: Council Member Brey, McLaughlin, Parrott, Russo and
Mayor Leja.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Let the record show the amendment to Condition 4.02, as submitted
by the City Engineer, is shown on Page 4 of the minutes of this
meeting.
Let the record further show, the finding of the City Council
relative to Condition No. 3.03 is as follows:
Condition No. 3.03:
The City Council finds that the City has formed a water
Department, that the City is empowered to serve water to
the inhabitants of the City of Beaumont, that as the sole
operator of a publicly owned treatment works, the City
can more efficiently manage the reuse of wastewater in a
water - conscious region, thereby reducing the use of
potable water for non - potable purposes and, thereby,
conserving water more effectively. There is no immediate
water shortage, and plans are underway for the City and
others to meet the long -term needs of the City in a
timely manner. The City has designed, (and is about to
finance and construct) a treatment plant which meets even
Page 5
Beaumont City Council
December 9, 1991
the most recent Regional Water Quality Control Board
requirements for treating wastewater, issued only weeks
ago. In addition, because the City has the full range
of regulatory powers given a municipality, it can take
steps to more effectively manage and conserve water than
can single - purpose entities.
For these reasons, and the fact that the City is well
under way in the engineering, planning and environmental
processes it is required to undertake for infrastructure,
the City Council hereby upholds the Planning Commission's
decision of September 17, 1991, and rejects Mr. Shelton's
request.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 24933 (89-TM-B/R) AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION 91 -ND -8. Applicant: Thomas Shelton. Location:
Southeast Corner of Beaumont Avenue and Cougar Way. The
proposed division of 35 +/- acres into 69 single family lots
and two non- residential lots.
A staff report was received from the Community Development
Director, a copy of which is a matter of record in the Clerk's
file, with a recommendation from the Planning Commission for
approval subject to the Conditions of Approval.
The public hearing was opened at 7:50 P.M.
There was no one requesting to speak to this issue.
The public hearing was closed at 7:51 P.M.
a. Consideration of Adoption of Negative Declaration 91 -ND -8,
based on the findings.
There were no questions or comments from the Council.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Parrott, to adopt Negative Declaration 91 -ND -8, based on the
findings.
AYES: Council Member Brey, McLaughlin, Parrott, Russo and
Mayor Leja.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
b. Consideration of Approval of Tentative Tract Map 24933
Subject to Conditions of Approval as submitted or modified,
based on outcome of appeal.
There were no questions or comments from the Council.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Parrott, to approve Tentative Tract Map 24933, subject to
conditions of approval as modified.
AYES: Council Member Brey,
Mayor Leja.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
END PUBLIC HEARINGS.
McLaughlin, Parrott, Russo and
5. Request from WDS Development for Permission to Install Septic
Tanks on an Interim Basis Prior to Availability of Capacity in
the Regular Waste Water System. (Tract 23161 -1).
A report was received from the Assistant City Manager, a copy of
which is a matter of record in the Clerk's file, after which she
Page 6
Beaumont City Council
December 9, 1991
distributed copies of a proposed Suspension of Improvements
Agreement.
The City Engineer described the proposed project, and indicated
that Mr. Simonian, of WDS, was present to make his request of
the Council since he is unable to obtain sewer permits. He did
advise the Council that the proposed agreement given to them is
very premature, and cannot be completed until after this hearing.
It is basically to give the Council an idea of the type of
agreement which would be needed.
Mr. Wayne Simonian, 5206 Benito Street, Montclair, addressed the
Council, giving them background information concerning his
project, and informing them of a meeting with the City Manager
when the question of sewer connection availability came up. In
this meeting the City Manager told him he could not obtain sewer
permits until the building permits were issued. This meant all
processing of the plans, etc. had to be completed, which took
approximately 8 -10 months for the first 100 lots (during which
time there were several meetings with the City Manager, who
indicated they could probably have 100 permits).
At the time they were ready to pull the 100 permits, they were
informed they could only have 75 permits due to the fact someone
had come in a week prior pulling quite a few permits.
Since they had already obtained their loan, and were ready to
build, it was too late to turn back, so they commenced building
with the 75 permits. They are now asking for either 25 sewer
permits, or permission to utilize interim septic tanks, in order
to complete the first phase of this project.
Mayor Leja asked the City Engineer if there were 25 sewer permits
available, with Mr. Dotson responding that he does not have that
information as the City Manager is the only person who knows
exactly how many permits remain.
Mayor Leja called a recess at 8:02 p.m., to allow the Assistant
City Manager to call the City Manager regarding the question of
sewer permit availability, reconvening at 8:15 p.m.
The Assistant City Manager reported that the City Manager advised
the reason that 100 permits were not given to WDS originally is
that it was over a year before they came back for the permits,
and in the meantime other developers had pulled permits. In
addition, he advised that the City is holding back about 35
permits for commercial and industrial, and for single lots. If
25 permits were to be given to WDS at this time, he questioned
if any commercial or industrial would be able to come into the
City before the wastewater treatment plant is built, but this
would be a policy decision of the Council.
Discussion followed concerning the requirements of commercial and
industrial properties, with the City Engineer illustrating the
differences which could be encountered between one commercial
and /or industrial use from another, using recent
commercial /industrial development as examples.
The City Attorney
many build -out pe
Koules indicating
approximately one
one he is aware
caretaker house.
on the books.
asked if information was known concerning how
.rmits were issued this last year, with Steve
he didn't have the exact figures but estimates
or two a month. So far as commercial, the only
of is the Aware Mini - storage, which has a
Other than that he doesn't have anything else
Mayor Leja returned the discussion to the topic of the
installation of septic tanks, with Mr. Simonian indicating they
had tests taken for percolation, with good results, and although
the cost is $5,000 per house they propose to absorb that cost and
Page 7
Beaumont City Council
December 9, 1991
not increase the price of the homes due to the recession, in
order to get the remaining 25 houses built out. In addition,
they propose to allow $700.00 to the home buyer when the escrow
closes to cover the cost of connection and filling the septic
tanks when the sewage treatment plant is completed. Although
they have four houses remaining to be sold, they are the smaller
floor plan, and they have a waiting list of fifteen people for
the larger floor plan at this time, thus the reason for wanting
to go ahead with the additional 25 houses.
Mr. Simonian then referred to a $3,800 fee charged by the City,
indicating they would have to pass at least $2,500 of this on to
the home buyer, and questioned where this $3,800 fee came from as
in all the meetings he has attended it has never been mentioned,
and there currently is not a City fee for $3,800. If the price
of the homes has to be increased, they will be more difficult to
sell. He then responded to a question from Council Member
Parrott stating the reason for this is that the higher the price
of the home, the more difficult it is for the buyers to qualify
for a loan.
The Assistant City Manager explained that the $3,800 fee is the
fee proposed by the consultant working on the wastewater
treatment plant, who recommended that the fee should be collected
immediately.
Council Member McLaughlin said although Mr. Simonian's request
was to install septic tanks, he is now hearing that he wants to
obtain sewer permits, asking Mr. Simonian exactly what it was
that he wanted.
Mr. Simonian answered that the request brought to the Council was
for septic tanks, but he had decided to find out if there were
sewer permits currently available, since no one seemed to know if
there were any sewer permits available at this time, as that
would be preferable to septic tanks.
Council Member Russo said it might be in the applicant's best
interest, and the City would also be better off, if nothing was
done this evening until they are able to get the information
concerning sewer hook -ups. He went on that he would certainly
prefer to have the homes hooked up directly to the sewer rather
than to septic tanks.
Council Member Brey stated he agreed with Mr. Russo in holding
off until more information is available regarding sewer
connections and fees, as he could not see the logic of holding 30
some odd hook -ups for somebody else when this gentleman was here
first.
Council Member Parrot also agreed that it should be held until
the Council finds out how many sewer connections are available.
Council Member McLaughlin said when the City has a very limited
amount of sewer hook -ups, and you are trying to build a City,
needing commercial and industry, if you don't try to pro -rate
those hook -ups and get the best use out of them for the City,
then they would not be doing as good a job as they should be
doing. As a result it does not bother him to hold 25 or 30 and
pro -rate them, so that possibly something can be brought in to
the City which will benefit everyone, and he felt this was also
the obligation of the Council in addition to just building homes.
Mayor Leja stated she had no qualms in continuing this to another
meeting as it is a major decision to give up 25 of their
remaining hook -ups if there are only 35 available.
The City Attorney recommended the issue of sewer permits be
agendized, in addition to the request for septic tanks, when this
is brought back to the Council, with the applicant making a
second request for the sewer permits.
Page 8
M
Beaumont City Council
December 9, 1991
Motion by Council Member Russo, second by Council Member Brey, to
continue this agenda item to the next regular meeting.
AYES: Council Member Brey, McLaughlin, Parrott, Russo and
Mayor Leja.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Consider Approval of Fiscal Year 1990 -91 Audit As Prepared by
Conrad and Associates.
Mr. Mike Harrison, partner with Conrad & Associates, 1100 Main
Street, Irvine, the independent auditing firm for the City of
Beaumont: Mr. Harrison's presentation will be typed verbatim.
There are two documents that you have received here this evening,
and let me see if I can - I am going to kind of work with them
simultaneous because they kind of dovetail together.
You have a comprehensive annual financial report of the City, and
let me explain - I will kind of hit some highlights, and then I
will give you an opportunity to ask questions.
On the comprehensive annual financial report, our auditor's
opinion for the City of Beaumont for the fiscal year ended June
30, 1991 is on page one. Our opinion on the financial
information for the City of Beaumont is qualified only for one
reason, and that is as you will see down in the third paragraph,
that the accompanying financial statements of the City omit
general fixed assets of the City, and property and equipment, and
the sewer enterprise fund that was acquired before July 1, 1982,
which, in our opinion, should be included in the financial
statements. And I don't want to overplay this matter. It is
something that we have to put in the opinion. There hasn't been
a complete appraisal done and that is one of the findings that we
have carried over from year to year. And I will come back to
that later, but it is just an exception that we have to take in
our auditor's report because not all of the property and
equipment information is totally complete.
Okay, so that is so far as the auditor's report, why don't you go
over to page six, I believe it is, in this report. On page six,
which is exhibit CC, I would like to kind of call your attention
to the general fund of the City. And, unfortunately, I don't
have a lot of good news to bring to you tonight. The general
fund of the City, you will see that the total revenues for the
year were $3,557,758. The revenues were budgeted at $4,074,640.
There was a shortfall in revenues versus budget of nearly
$517,000 during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1991.
The actual general fund expenditures were $4,817,197. They were
budgeted at $4,899,000. You did not overspend in accordance with
your budget, but if you look and see that your budget for fiscal
1991, you were budgeting a deficit budget. If you go over to
that far left hand column, you were projecting revenues of
$4,074,000, you were projecting expenditures of almost
$4,900,000. You were looking to dip into fund balance to the
tune of $825,000 when you put your budget together last year.
Basically, if you look down in that second column the excess -
or excuse me - the deficiency of revenues was $902,000 for the
year. You ended up the year with only $78,000 worth of general
fund balance, which is an extremely dangerously low figure. I
think what I will do at this particular point is go over - if
you will go over to the other report that I have right here, if
you go over to page four of this report. Page four of your
single audit report - this is one of - there are five comments in
here - five findings that I would like to highlight. Four are
behind this auditor's opinion, and then there is one compliance
finding further back in the report, which I will highlight.
Page 9
Beaumont City Council
December 9, 1991
In this first comment though, I have indicated here that during
the year ended June 30, 1991, general fund expenditures exceeded
general fund revenues and transfers in from other funds by
$902,444. Revenues of the general fund were approximately
$300,000 lower than levels in the previous fiscal year, and
approximately $517,000 below budgeted levels. You saw that
figure that you saw over there of $516,882, that is the $517,000
that I am referring to.
While the City was within budgeted expenditures for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 1991, the general fund budgeted for in excess
of expenditures over revenues of $825,193. If you go back over
to page six that I was just pointing out there, you will see
where these numbers are coming from.
At June 30, 1991, fund balance in the general fund was only
$789794. If you go back over to the first page that I just
showed you there, you will see the $78,794.
At the current level of general fund expenditures, fund balance
was depleted early in fiscal 91 -92. And general fund
expenditures may be currently being financed through inter -
fund borrowing, which will require repayment of those funds. So
I am saying, at the tune of $902,000 loss for last year, if you
want to call it that, your expenditures exceed your general fund
revenues by about $75,000 a month. And, we are already five
months into the new fiscal year of 91 -92, and if you multiply
that by about seventy -five grand a month, you are getting up
there, and that $78,000 has been far depleted already. So you
are several hundred thousand dollars in an accumulated deficit in
the general fund, as far as going into this fiscal year.
My recommendation - we recommend that the City Manager, with
assistance from City Council, enact a plan for reduction of
general fund expenditures by approximately 15% below the level of
the 1991 spending. Cutbacks in spending should affect all
departments in order to bring up future liquidity problems at the
City of Beaumont.
Additionally, the 1991 -92 budget, once adopted, as revised,
should be closely monitored to control actual expenditures. Each
one of these comments I did solicit a response to from both
Ronney and the City Manager. The response that we received back
to incorporate into this report here, because this report -
single audit report - has to be filed with the County of
Riverside. Because of the federal funding that the City of
Beaumont receives. And management's response regarding
collective action of these reportable conditions is required to
be included in the report. The response, as you may have seen it
here - the City Manager, with assistance from the City Council,
will enact a plan to reduce general fund expenditures below the
1991 -92 spending levels. City Council will adopt a 1991 -92
budget in the coming weeks.
When we were out here doing the annual audit, the budget was not
complete. I don't know what stage you are at right now, but
basically we were asking those questions to determine had you
adopted a budget for 91 -92. So, this is - I will stop right here
because I figure that this comment is probably going to be the
one that you have got the most questions about.
Mayor Leja: We will begin with Council Member Parrott. Do you
have any questions at this time.
Council Member Parrott: How do you suggest that we go about
cutting. Cutting our - go department by department.
Mr. Harrison: I don't think you ought to be discriminatory. I
think you are going to have to go across the board in every
department in the City. And you are going to have to find a way
to cut spending. Because, more than likely, you are not going to
Page 10
Beaumont City Council
December 9, 1991
- I am not expecting that we are really going to see the -
probably for another nine months, at least, is what the
economists are somewhat predicting as far as a turnaround, and
what is going on in the economy. And so, probably, until the
third or fourth quarter of 1992. So you are already into the 92-
93 f iscal year are you going to see maybe some of your revenues
maybe start to come back. Development fees, sales tax revenue,
other losses in permits and fees and so forth. Obviously, if you
can find other methodology to enhance revenues, that is okay
too. But, obviously, you know that it is difficult to go back to
the citizens of the City of Beaumont - to put special taxes on
them in a recessionary period of time. Special police taxes,
fire taxes, and so on.
And, so I am saying, you are going to have to bite the bullet,
and you have got to cut.
Mayor Leja: Mr. McLaughlin, do you have any questions at this
time.
Council Member McLaughlin: No, I really don't.
Mayor Leja: Council Member Russo.
Council Member Russo: Yeah. Unfortunately, it is no surprise to
me. I've - a few months ago I tried to explain this to people
and they wouldn't believe me. But we finally have the true
figures out in the open.
I do have a couple of questions. With fund transfers. On page
six we list a $356,995 that were transfers in. I determined that
those were transfers from some of the special tax funds. Is that
correct.
Mr. Harrison: That is correct.
Council Member Russo: Now those are the funds that you are
referring to - that while they were borrowed to balance the
budget, if it were, those funds need to be paid back. Is that
correct.
Mr. Harrison: No, what I am saying here is some of the
expenditures, for example, in streets expenditures, are captured
in the general fund, and then some restricted funds are
transferred in to cover part of the cost of street expenditures,
because you receive gas tax monies. Okay. And this gets even a
little more complicated, and I was talking to Ronney Wong before
the meeting tonight - for example - under Prop 111, there is an
additional gas tax allocation that the City receives called
Section 2105. And the State gas tax auditors were just in here
to do an audit of the three years. And I see it is on the agenda
for tonight. And that base level of expenditures - they go back
to the previous three years to take a look at what effort that
the General Fund has been kicking in to pave the streets here in
the City of Beaumont. And so they have come up with an average
of $128,000. And so that average - if you don't spend $128,000
of general fund money, then you lose the other $42,000 that they
are going to kick in over in your road tax fund.
Okay, so it gets a little complicated. You can't just go and say
okay, we are going to cut all street expenditures in the general
fund, because if you don't maintain that level of effort of the
$128,000, then you are going to lose funds in other places.
Council Member Russo: So, what you are really saying is, when
you go to balance a city budget, you can't necessarily look at
revenues coming in, and immediately maintain operations at this
present level without taking into consideration some of the
specialty things that we need to do with general fund monies.
Page 11
Beaumont City Council
December 9, 1991
Mr. Harrison: Correct.
Council Member Russo: So while we might say on one hand, we can
collect $4,000,000 in general fund monies, we should not believe
that we can automatically go out and spend that $4,000,000 on
operating, general operating expenses, office supplies,
equipment, salaries, and so forth. Because, some of those
monies, particularly in street maintenance, need to be retained
so that they are used specifically for that. In order to
guarantee that we have some future income to maintain streets.
Mr. Harrison: Right. There is a maintenance of effort, to
answer that question. There is a maintenance of effort that the
general fund must maintain so that the restricted funds that you
get for these articles, like 2106, 2107, 2107.5 monies - for them
to be used, and actually for you to get this additional amount of
money under Section 2105, then you do have to have the general
fund pay for part of the street expenditures, okay. So you can't
just say, okay, under street expenditures that the general fund
is incurring, that we are going to cut everything in street
expenditures, because you can't do that. That is what I am
saying, you can't - you know, you can't just say, well we are not
going to cut police and we are not going to cut fire, you know,
we will just all take it out of the streets. I think you are
going to have to go to every department in the City, and take a
hard, hard look at what has got to be done.
Council Member Russo: Right. A couple of more questions. When
we talk about reserve revenues in the City. I took your report,
and on Page 39 and 40, I went back for the ten years, now, I am
at a little bit of a loss because I don't know what happened
preceding 1981 -82. But if I just look at the years there where
revenues exceeded expenditures, and just in trying to figure this
out, we had a few healthy years where it seemed like revenues
exceeded expenditures, and, then, in 1980 - it would seem 86 -87,
is that correct - 86 -87 ended up with a $31,000 loss, and then it
just gets progressively worse, until 89 -90, where it was only 43,
but 90 -91 was the $1,259,000 - it was the big hit. Now that -
you know, that $1,259,439 - over a million dollars worth of
difference between revenues and expenditures, were some how made
up through this $920,500, where did that money come from.
Mr. Harrison: Okay, when you started off at the beginning of the
year, you go back to page six again - the numbers is in more than
one spot - but if you go back to page six again, and you look at
fund balances at the beginning of the year in the general fund,
actual, $981,238. When you started the beginning of the fiscal
year, on July 1, 1990, you had $981,000 worth of equity in your
general fund.
Council Member Russo: Total.
Mr. Harrison: Total. And
it a loss, okay? So you -
in the general fund, that
virtually depleted them by
you have depleted it now,
fiscal year in the same
hundred thousand dollar def
you incurred a $902,000, we will call
virtually, the reserves that you had
you started off with on July 1, you
the loss that you had in 90 -91. And
because you are five months into the
economy, and so you have a several
'icit right now.
Council Member Russo: On our way to a million.
Mr. Harrison: On your way back up to another million dollars
that you really don't have. And that you are going to - you are
going to end up borrowing from restricted funds, from sewer
funds, from, you know, and then you are going to end up with
nothing but problems. You are going to have liquidity problems,
and so forth.
Mayor Leja: Any other comments or questions from Council
Members. Please continue.
Page 12
Beaumont City Council
December 9, 1991
Mr. Harrison: Okay. Okay, I will continue with the single audit
report. The next comment, on page five of this report, there was
a comment on the need for improved internal controls over
investments, and I don't want to overplay this comment. There
were a couple of items we felt needed to be done having to do
with the Treasurer's Report. One of them was - we recommended
that additions and deletions to the City's investment portfolio
be reviewed and verified with supporting documentation by a
person independent of the person who prepares the investment
report. So we are just saying that, really, everything that is
done is really done by Ronney, and the City Treasurer, or any
other person, is really not involved in the process.
And then there was one additional statement that needed to be put
on there, just indicating that there is sufficient liquidity to
pay the bills in the next thirty days. That should go on the
Treasurer's Report that is done every month. Again, I don't want
to overplay these comments. They are not as significant as the
last comment I just made. But they are brought up as
recommendations for improvement. Any comments on that particular
Mayor Leja: Any comments. Okay, go on.
Mr. Harrison: Comment number three, the need for individuals
handling cash to be bonded. We recommended that the individuals
handling cash, and that would include the gals that work in
finance and so forth, that there be a fidelity blanket bond that
be written.
Mayor Leja: They are not.
Mr. Harrison: They weren't during this fiscal year audit when we
looked at it.
Mayor Leja: Is anyone bonded.
Mr. 'Tong: Today, no.
Mayor Leja: In this City.
Mr. Wong: No.
Mayor Leja: Okay. Continue.
Mr. Harrison: And the response that I got was that all City
employees handling cash will be bonded to eliminate the potential
liability to the City in the case of cash misappropriation. Most
cities have like a $50,000 fidelity blanket bond coverage that
they would just take out from their insurance carrier. That was
not in force during the fiscal year audit that we did this year.
Okay.
Council Member Russo: Has this recommendation ever been made
before.
Mr. Harrison: I would have to go back on previous management
letters and comments. It may have been something that . . .
Council Member Russo: The auditors just overlooked.
Mayor Leja: Or was assumed.
Mr. Harrison: It could have been . . .
Mr. Wong: At one time, let me say, four years ago, we had a
bond. At that time the company decided to no longer to carry the
City - (Mr. Wong is not speaking into a microphone and as a
result the balance of his comments are not intelligible on the
tape). The concluding statement was that the City had been
unable to find anyone else to bond the City.
Page 13
Beaumont City Council
December 9, 1991
Mayor Leja: Is it common practice to have in City staff someone
that is bonded.
Mr. Harrison: Yes, it is. Just to have a fidelity blanket
honesty type bond.
Mayor Leja: How many are usually, in a City of this size, of
City staff.
Mr. Harrison: Well, you would want to bond Ronney. You would
want to bond the City Treasurer. And probably anybody - the two
gals that are working in finance that are handling cash. I am
trying to remember, do both of them handle cash.
Mr. Wong: Yes.
Mr. Harrison: Okay, so four people basically. Okay, then the
last comment on the reportable conditions, on the need for
detailed general fixed asset records. This comment, basically,
has been in our report virtually every year. Because until you
get an appraisal of the fixed assets, and until we can remove
that qualification that I spoke of in the auditor's report,
basically, you as the City Council need to weigh the cost benefit
relationship. I am not saying that this is an A -1 priority to
get this removed. You may look at it and say, okay, how much
does it cost to get the appraisal done, and in the economic
situation that you are in, you may not want to spend those
dollars right now until things get better. Okay.
Those four comments -- there is also one additional compliance
comment back on page twelve. If you go back in the same report,
in the single audit report, and this was discussed with City
staff. There is a comment in here on the need for compliance
with the drug free workplace act. This is a condition of
receiving federal community development block grant funds here at
the City. And it came up as a compliance deficiency during our
audit of the community development block grant program. So this
particular comment, and we have had some extensive discussions
with staff, and they indicated they will comply with the
requirements, and are taking remedies to do so right now. So I
don't see that as being an overwhelming type of thing either. It
is just something that needs to be policed up and taken care of.
Okay.
Those are the five comments that are in this report. Basically,
I am not going to go through each of the auditor's reports in
this report. They are very technical. They have to be worded
just appropriately for the people that are reviewing them. There
are certain reports on compliance. Certain auditor's reports on
internal control. And there is a schedule of federal financial
assistance on page two of this report that identifies the program
here that you receive from the County, the catalog of federal
domestic assistance number that lets them know that we know what
compliance to test, and all that type of thing. But, basically,
that is the content of what is in this single audit report.
We have given instructions to Ronney on where to mail the
reports. You know, as far as mailing them to the Bureau of
Census, and to the County of Riverside, and so on, okay. And
this is a matter of public record after it has been accepted by
City Council, and so forth. Okay.
And, as far as the comprehensive annual financial report, there
is nothing specifically that I need to talk to you about, other
than what I have already brought up about the general fund
problem. You know, basically, you have just got some hard
decisions. You may want to set up a budget sub - committee of the
Council to work with staff. To go through - and I personally
don't see how you are going to do it without cutting some
positions. But I can't tell you where - you know - basically -
you have just got a big deficit in the general fund, and you have
no more money to pay for one. So. . .
Page 14
Beaumont City Council
December 9, 1991
That, basically, is the comments that I needed to bring to you,
and -- I will say that this is not unique at the City of
Beaumont. Our accounting firm audits nineteen other cities. We
have got a lot of small and medium sized cities that are really -
have been really, really troubled by the economy. Nobody seems
to be unscathed except those that have got some healthy general
fund reserves. And you don't.
Council Member Russo: One more question, and maybe you don't
know anything about this, but a month or two ago, there was a
report that carne from some company in Texas that hailed the
praises of the City of Beaumont in the way it used its funds.
Did you read that or know anything about that.
Mr. Harrison: No, I know nothing about that.
Council Member Russo: That seems to be inconsistent with what we
are hearing tonight in terms of the way we used our funds last
year, and I just - I'm just wondering now if there was any
credibility at all in that report, and obviously there wasn't.
Ronney Wong: I don't know the source of the report, number one.
Number two, is it can be, working in accounting and much like
Mike can attest to, numbers can be changed around, percentages
can be moved around, to show any picture you wish. And I must
say here, these are facts. I don't know where that report came
from.
Mr. Harrison: You know in looking at - just one final comment -
in looking at what happened in 90 -91, I think you have kind of
keyed on it, and that was that your expenditures, while they were
$80,000 under budget, they were $920,000 higher than the previous
year. There were staff positions that were added. There were
increased expenditures, and it was absolutely the wrong year to
do it in hindsight, okay. I mean, hindsight is always 20 -20.
But, I mean, you know, the revenues fell way off, and the
expenditures went way up.
Mayor Leja: Thank you. Thank you very much. One of the things
I would like to see added to our next agenda would be the
formation of a budget review, or a budget committee.
Council Member Russo: Is there any problem with us doing that
this evening.
Mayor Leja: Mr. Ryskamp, does that need to be added, or can we
do it by . . .
City Attorney: Is this just a Council committee..
Mayor Leja: Yes.
City Attorney: I don't think there is any problem with that.
Appointing a Council committee is part of the approval of the
audit.
Mayor Leja: We can do it tonight then.
Council Member Russo: Madame Mayor, I would like to volunteer to
be on that committee.
Mayor Leja: We have one volunteer. I would like to have one
other council member to work with our financial director. Any
other volunteers that would like to serve on that committee. I
will.
Mr. Harrison: There was one thing that I might just say is one
item of business that still isn't taken care of that really needs
to be brought back to the Council, and that is the appropriation
limit. The appropriations limit has been done from the City
Manager's office, and there was an appropriations limit that was
Page 15
Beaumont City Council
December 9, 1991
put together for the 90 -91 fiscal year. However, the League of
California Cities came out with some materials in March of 1991
that required the audit firm to give an agreed upon procedures
level that we kind of check the mathematical figures of the Gann
Limit, and that Gann Limit here at the City of Beaumont for 90-
91 has not been revised yet. And also the 91 -92 limit has not
been brought - I mean, the 90 -91 needs to be revised. And I
spoke with Mr. Bounds and to Ronney, and it has always been done
out of the City Manager's office. I don't see a reason why
Ronney couldn't jump in and help out - put together the figures
so that we can kind of get our final matter of business done on
that. Okay.
Mayor Leja: Would it be your recommendation that Mr. Wong serve
on the committee with us, or the City Manager, or both - what
about the City Treasurer.
Mr. Harrison: I think that is really up to the City Council. I
think that there may be - if you need numbers pushed around and
gotten back to you, obviously Ronney is going to be the one that
is going to need to massage those numbers for you, and say, how
much have we got now. So, from that standpoint I think you need
to have him - from that standpoint. And, obviously, you need the
City Manager to - he has obviously gotten insight into where he
thinks things can be cut.
Mayor Leja: Okay. Thank you. Any other comments at this time.
We have Council Member Russo, Council Member Leja volunteering.
If any of you would prefer, I would be glad to. . .
City Attorney: I presume you are going to have a motion on these
matters.
Mayor Leja: Yes, yes. We will.
City Attorney: And incorporate that as part of your motion.
Mayor Leja: Were you wanting to say something else. Okay.
Would you like for us to - shall we include that as a separate
motion, or a motion along with the item.
City Attorney: Either way.
Mayor Leja: I would like to hear it as one motion.
Motion by Council Member Brey, second by Council Member Parrott,
to approve the Fiscal Year 1990 -91 Audit as prepared by Conrad
and Associates, and to establish a budget committee consisting of
Council Member Russo and Council Member Leja.
AYES: Council Member Brey, McLaughlin, Parrott, Russo and
Mayor Leja.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
7. Consideration of Membership in the Western Riverside County
Association of Governments. (Continued from November 25, 1991).
There being no objections, this agenda item was continued until
the first meeting after the budget has been completed.
8. Consideration of Request from Four Corners Pipe Line Company for
Right of Entry Agreement for City -Owned Land.
A staff report was received from the Assistant City Manager, a
copy of which is a matter of record in the Clerk's file, with a
recommendation for approval of the entry agreement without
deleting item number three.
Council Member Russo asked how long this entry agreement was
going to go on, for one year, or what.
Page 16
eaumont City Council
December 9, 1991
Mr. Tom Binckes, Four Corners Pipe Line Company, responded to Mr.
Russo Is question stating that the agreement would last from one
to three years, as the exact length of time needed to monitor the
oil spill in the creek cannot be determined at this time. He
advised further the monitoring would take place quarterly,
observing how vegetation, water and the stream bed are recovering
from the spill.
There were no other comments or questions from the Council.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Parrott, to approve the Entry Agreement with Four Corners Pipe
Line Company, and authorize the Mayor to execute the document.
AYES: Council Member Brey, McLaughlin, Parrott, Russo and
Mayor Leja.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
9. Consideration of Request from Four Corners Pipe Line Company to
Lease City -Owned Land.
The Assistant City Manager presented the staff report, a copy of
which is a matter of record in the Clerk's file, with the
recommended acreage of ten acres and cost of $19,800 for one
year, should the Council grant the request.
Motion was made by Council Member McLaughlin to lease an area up
to ten acres total for one year, at a cost of $19,800, to be paid
in advance.
Mr. Mark Lowe, of Four Corners Pipe Line Company, provided
information indicating there is approximately 30,000 tons of
contaminated soil on the property at this time, which appears to
be non - hazardous although it does contain elevated concentrations
of hydro- carbons. He said they are working with the State Water
Quality Control Board, Riverside County Health Department, the
Department of Fish and Game and the City of Beaumont, to mitigate
the soil pile. They have received bids for soil mitigation on-
site, off -site, land disposal, and they are requesting tonight to
lease some of the land, which may or may not be used, depending
on the option they select for soil mitigation.
Council Member Russo brought up the question of how much of this
soil had been blown away by the recent winds, with Mr. Lowe
advising they had the piles covered as well as having hydroseeded
it, and felt the wind erosion was minimal.
Council Member Russo then asked what the air borne contaminant
is, with Mr. Lowe replying there would be dust with petroleum
hydro- carbons on them. He went on to advise they have addressed
the concerns of Riverside County Health, and they seem to be
satisfied with the actions they have taken regarding wind erosion
at this time.
Council Member Russo wanted to know what they would do with the
soil piles if they were not able to keep it on the property, with
Mr. Lowe stating they are looking at several options, which
includes removing the soil from the site, and the soil will
definitely be removed eventually.
Mr. Russo pointed out that if the lease is granted, they could
feasibly leave it on the site for the term of the lease. Mr.
Lowe responded that during that year they would be using one of
the options to reduce hydro- carbon concentration by either
on -site mediation, recycling the soil into an asphalt, fixing the
soil to prevent leaching of the hydro- carbons from the soil then
using it as a road base aggregate, plus simply picking it up and
moving it to a landfill.
Page 17
Beaumont City Council
December 9, 1991
Mr. Lowe continued that, depending on the options, the time
frames for the different mitigation options vary from one month
to more than 12 months, and they would like to have the option of
an additional 12 months.
Council Member Russo was of the opinion this was a "sweet deal"
for Four Corners for $19,800 a year for the City to have their
spoiled soil, and he did not like the fact of contaminants
blowing all over the place.
Council Member McLaughlin felt it was a good deal for the City.
There were no other comments or questions from the Council.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Brey, to lease an area up to ten acres total for one year, at a
cost of $19,800, to be paid in advance.
AYES: Council Member Brey, McLaughlin and Parrott.
NOES: Council Member Russo and Mayor Leja.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
10. Report Regarding Establishment of Task Force Relative to School
Mitigation Fees.
A report was received from the Assistant City Manager concerning
the first meeting held by the School Mitigation Fee Task Force on
November 8, with information that the second meeting will be held
on December 11.
No action by the Council was required.
11. Consider a Joint Powers Agreement with City of Banning Regarding
Maintenance of Highland Springs Avenue.
The Assistant City Manager presented the staff report, a copy of
which is a matter of record in the Clerk's file, with a
recommendation for approval of the joint powers agreement.
Council Member Russo said he thought this agreement is great as
it has been a long time in coming, and the striping is needed,
as well as the City of Beaumont working together with their
neighboring City, however, he is concerned that, with the present
budget, they should have a better idea what maximum amount the
City's share will be.
The Assistant City Manager indicated she could get that
information and bring it back to the Council.
There being no objections, this agenda item was continued to the
next regular meeting pending receipt of the additional
information.
12. Authorize Renewal of Liability Claims Administration Contract
with Carl Warren & Co.
The staff report was received from the Assistant City Manager, a
copy of which is a matter of record in the Clerk's file, with a
recommendation for renewal of the Liability Claims Administration
Contract with Carl Warren & Co.
Council Member Russo clarified that the only change was in the
field service charge from $38.00 to $40.00 per hour, with the
Assistant City Manager confirming that is correct.
There were no other comments or questions from the Council.
Motion by Council Member Parrott, second by Council Member
McLaughlin, to authorize the renewal of Liability Claims
Administration Contract with Carl Warren & Co., and authorize the
Mayor to execute the letter agreement.
Page 18
AYES: Council Member
Mayor Leja.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Beaumont City Council
December 9, 1991
Brey, McLaughlin, Parrott, Russo and
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 separately.
14.
a. Approval of Warrants as Audited per Warrant List of
December 9, 1991, in the amount of $216,022.47; Payroll of
November 21, 1991, in the amount of $67,500.07, and Special
Payroll of December 6, 1991, in the amount of $21,349.04.
b. Authorization to Post Notice Requesting Applications to Fill
Four Positions on the Senior Citizen Advisory Committee,
which terms will expire January 31, 1994.
c. Receive and Accept Letter of Resignation from George R.
Ryskamp as City Attorney, Effective February 29, 1992.
d. Receive and Accept the Section 2105 Average Annual Base Year
Report from Grey Davis, State Controller.
Motion by Council Member Parrott, second by Council Member Brey,
to adopt the consent calendar as presented.
AYES: Council Member Brey, McLaughlin, Parrott, Russo and
Mayor Leja.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Consider Setting Date for Special Council Meeting for the Purpose
of Budget Review and Consideration of Any Regular Agenda Items
Which May Be Pending.
The Assistant City Manager submitted a report concerning the most
recent management meeting during which the department heads were
requested to re- submit their budget requests with any further
cuts they might be able to suggest, and a new budget packet will
be compiled by the Finance Director for submittal to the Council,
including the new format recommended by Council Member Russo,
with this budget packet to be delivered to the Council at the
latest on December 12 for a special budget meeting on December
16.
There was discussion concerning agenda items to be placed on the
agenda for the 16th, with Mayor Leja stating it would be for
budget related items only. The Assistant City Manager called
attention to the possibility of the regular meeting of December
23 being canceled, in which case they might want to make the 16th
a regular meeting, with Mayor Leja stating she was not ready to
cancel any meetings. The Assistant City Manager clarified that
the Council's intention was to make the meeting of December 16 a
special meeting, with the regular meeting to be held on December
23 as scheduled, and the items to come back to the next regular
meeting coming back to the Council on December 23. The Mayor
agreed this was correct.
Council Member Russo said he felt those items scheduled to come
back to the next regular meeting should be scheduled for the
first meeting in January, which would be January 13, with the
City Attorney adding they could schedule their next regular
meeting for January 13, using any meetings held for the remainder
of December as budget meetings.
Page 19
Beaumont City Council
December 9, 1991
Council Member Russo clarified that if the Council determines
there will be a special meeting on December 16, with the next
regular Council meeting being set for January 13, 1992, and then
on the 16th if they decide to have another special meeting in
December for budget, there would be no problem, with the City
Attorney confirming this is correct, with proper notice time.
There was additional discussion concerning exactly what was to be
included on the agenda for December 16, with Mayor Leja
indicating the meeting would be for the purpose of a budget
review and the formation of a search committee for city attorney.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Brey, to set the date of December 16, 1991, at 7:00 P.M., for a
special council meeting for the purpose of budget review and the
formation of a Search Committee for City Attorney.
AYES: Council Member Brey, McLaughlin, Parrott, Russo and
Mayor Leja.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Date Set for Next Regular Council Meeting, Monday, January 13,
1992, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers.
There being no further business to come before the Council, the
meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
R ctfully submitted,
D uty City Clerk
Page 20
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
SPECIAL BUDGET MEETING
DECEMBER 2, 1991
The Beaumont City Council met in a Special Meeting on Monday,
December 2, 1991, at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, with
Mayor Leja presiding.
On roll call the following Council Members were present: Brey,
McLaughlin, Parrott, Russo and Mayor Leja.
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. Review of Proposed 1991 -92 Budget.
After receiving a brief report from the City Manager
enumerating the reports which have been given to the Council,
the Mayor indicated she thought they should begin the
discussion by establishing the revenues, so they can see how
much they actually have to spend. From that point,
expenditures could be looked at, which would include an
analysis of staff, services that are provided, etc.,
proceeding into other areas such as looking for short term -
long term of planning to increase revenues, as she sees the
budget process not just as a balance sheet, but as a
strategic plan to secure financial stability for the City for
years to come.
Council Member Russo indicated he was more prepared to
discuss revenues at this time, rather than discuss actual
budget, with Council Members Brey, McLaughlin and Parrott
agreeing this was acceptable to them. Mr. Russo continued
that he would request a different format for the budget
itself, which would contain more trend information as to the
spending by department, by line item.
Ronney Wong, Director of Administrative Services, presented a
lengthy explanation concerning the revenue projections,
account by account, suggesting changes in a number of those
projections, with an adjusted projected Total General Fund
Revenue of $4,121,774.
In addition to Mr. Wong's presentation, the City Manager also
submitted information regarding how they arrived at certain
of these projections, with questions from members of the City
Council being answered by both Mr. Wong and Mr. Bounds.
At the conclusion of this phase of the presentation, and
before continuing the discussion, Mr. Wong suggested the
Council look at the revenue dollars they are looking at to
match their expenditures. He then referred them to the last
page of the budget document, where he calculated an estimated
total source of funds of $4,023,593 to work with within the
General Fund.
Referring them back to Page 1, he indicated the General Fund
expenditures, as presented at this time, is $4,314,300,
representing a $290,707 deficit at this time.
The meeting was recessed at 9:02 p.m., reconvening at 9:15
p.m.
Page I
Beaumont City Council
December 2, 1991
Mayor Leja asked for comments from the Council concerning
their conclusions or suggestions from that which has been
presented to them at this point.
Council Member McLaughlin felt the revenues should be
increased rather than falling short.
Council Member Russo wanted to know if Mr. Bounds and Mr.
Wong felt these figures were pessimistic, realistic or just
where they were.
Mr. Wong replied that what he is hearing is the current
economic trend will not deviate up or down to any magnitude
for another year and a half. He went on to say that the
revenues which have been presented are, in his opinion,
realistic, as they are not way over what was received in the
prior fiscal year, and if there is assurance of the building
activities taking place which have been brought out, the
revenues are reasonable at this point.
Council Member Russo pointed out that going up or down a
percentage point is $80,000, and it is not difficult to be
off a couple of percentage points, but if everyone feels
these figures are realistic then that number should be kept
intact, and worked with.
The City Manager stated he thought what they basically have
is a situation where, if neither of the two house
construction units go, they will have to cut back more. If
that is to be cut back now, then that is what they should do
now. In responding to a question from Mayor Leja, he
suggested the Council should have additional reviews at least
every three months.
Mr. Russo asked how certain the two housing developments
were, with the City Manager responding that WDS is very firm,
with Aware being probable, however, he did point out there
could always be a problem with loans for one reason or
another, but at this time both have indicated they are
definitely going to build their projects. He concluded that
it appears to him WDS will probably pour foundations in
January.
Mayor Leja asked if the Council felt the $4,023,593 is a
realistic figure with which to work, with Council Member
McLaughlin stating he thought it is as close as they can get,
and, as with any budget, you do the best you can. They don't
have a crystal ball, but he felt it is a reasonable estimate
the City will either reach or surpass this year.
Mayor Leja then asked if they felt this figure should be
locked in, with the City Manager indicating he thought there
were a couple of figures that needed to be checked for them,
and staff would be in a better position to give them that
figure at the next meeting.
Mayor Leja called attention to the fact that at this time
they are looking at an estimate of cutting, roughly,
$290,000, and they really need more information regarding
expenditures. It was her suggestion that they go back to
department heads and show them what we have to cut, and
request they go back to their budgets and see what they can
come up with insofar as cuts are concerned.
The City Manager said he knows definitely there is not
$290,000 that can be cut, and then responded to a question
from Council Member Russo, as well as Council Member Parrott,
regarding what options were available, stated they would have
to take salaries or look at whether or not they want to try
to fund the $100,000 all in one year. He then brought up the
fact they have a fund known as the Basic Services Facilities
Page 2
3.
4.
Beaumont City Council
December 2, 1991
Fee (BSFF) which the Municipal Code states is a tax for the
usual and customary expenses of the City. He continued that
he had been under the impression this fund was for capital
improvements only, but in reviewing all the various funds in
conjunction with this budget, he found the ordinance does not
say it is for priority projects to build buildings, it
specifically stated it is for the usual and customary
expenses of the City. At this time they have budgeted
$35,000 from that fund to paint the Civic Center Building,
which would leave a remainder in that fund of $443,332. If
the houses are built, there will be more money added to that
fund.
Mayor Leja said she is not sure she would like to use these
funds, with the City Manager responding he is not suggesting
they use the entire fund, he is just suggesting that if the
Council is looking for a way to finance during these troubled
times of this recession, it is something they can look at as
a potential because it is his personal feeling to try to come
up with $290,000 there has to be either layoffs, some cuts in
pay, or some required leave time taken without pay.
Mayor Leja then stated that at their next meeting they would
need to discuss expenditures, and the information given to
them should also include information regarding past trends
for both revenue and expenditures.
Council Member Russo advised that he had given Mr. Wong a
sketch of a format that he would suggest be used showing a
budget with actual and variance for the last two fiscal
years prior to this one, and then, additionally, showing the
year -to -date expenditures against the present or suggested
budget, and then a forecast column which they could take
and add in the numbers, so they could see projected out f or
the year based on the revenues that they went through this
evening.
He went on to say that he recognizes it is going to be
difficult to cut that much money out of the budget, but he
would suggest that before it comes to the Council, staff
should go back through it again as department heads and see
what they can come up with. If they can come up with
absolutely nothing, then it will be a Council decision to
either look deeper into the proposed cuts, if there are any,
or the use of funds that might be available. He saw it as
two things, the information needed to establish some trends
in spending that he personally would like to see, and
additionally to know whether or not they can use those funds.
He concluded that, with this information, together with the
budget package, perhaps they can give further direction, or
approve the additional funds needed to balance the budget.
A possible date for the next budget review was discussed,
with the determination the next regular meeting will be on
December 9, and at that time they would consider setting a
date for a special budget meeting on December 16.
Recess to Closed Session Pursuant to Government Code Section
54957.6 to Meet with its Designated Representative Regarding
Labor Relations Matters.
The City Manager stated he did not feel the Council was ready
to give him any direction at this time, so far as
negotiations is concerned, so there would be no need for a
closed session. This item was placed on the agenda just in
case they might be ready and needed it.
Action on Budget Related Items.
There was no action taken on any budget related item.
Page 3
Beaumont City Council
December 2, 1991
There being no further business to come before the Council,
the meeting was adjourned at 9:39 p.m.
Res p ctfully submitted,
K
City Clerk
Page 4
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
NOVEMBER 25, 1991
The Beaumont City Council met in a regular meeting on Monday,
November 25, 1991, at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, with
Mayor Connors presiding.
On roll call the following Council Members were present: Leja,
McLaughlin, MacNeilage, Parrott and Mayor Connors.
The invocation was given by Council Member McLaughlin, who then led
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
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. RESOLUTION NO. 1991 -46 - Reciting the Fact of the General
Municipal Election Held in Said City on November 5, 1991,
Declaring the Results Thereof and Such Other Matters as are
Provided by Law.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
MacNeilage, to adopt Resolution No. 1991 -46.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Prior to leaving their seats, both Council Member MacNeilage and
Mayor Connors read prepared statements relative to their terms
in office.
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 Matthew Brey and
Matthew Russo, after which the new Council Members were seated.
5. Reorganization of Council:
a. Nominations for Mayor.
The City Clerk opened nominations for Mayor.
Council Member Leja was nominated to serve as Mayor by Council
Member McLaughlin.
There being no further nominations, the nominations were closed.
On motion by Council Member McLaughlin to declare Jan Leja
elected Mayor by affirmation, with no opposition, Council Member
Leja was declared Mayor.
b. Nominations for Mayor Pro Tem.
Mayor Leja opened nominations for Mayor Pro Tem.
Page 1
Beaumont City Council
November 25, 1991
Council Member Parrott was nominated to serve as Mayor Pro Tem by
Council Member Brey.
There being no further nominations, the nominations were closed.
On motion by Council Member McLaughlin to declare Frank Parrott
elected Mayor Pro Tem by affirmation, with no opposition, Council
Member Parrott was declared Mayor Pro Tem.
6. ORAL COMMUNICATION:
There was no one requesting to speak during oral communication.
PUBLIC HEARING - 7:00 P.M. - Continued from October 28, 1991.
7. APPEAL OF TWO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REQUIRED BY THE CITY
ENGINEER FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 249339 AS APPROVED BY THE
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION ON 9/17/91. APPELLANT: Omega
Homes /Thomas Shelton. LOCATION: Southeast Corner of Beaumont
Avenue and Cougar Way. (89- TM -8 /R).
Stephen Koules, Director of Community Development, presented
background information on this project, including a
recommendation for approval by the Planning Commission. He
continued with a brief description of the appeal which has been
filed, and a recommendation that the City Engineer's conditions
be supported.
The City Manager provided additional information relative to his
meetings with Mr. Shelton, and their discussions concerning the
delivery of water to the project.
The public hearing was opened at 7:26 P.M.
Mr. Gary MacNeilage, 1747 Vasili Lane: Madam Mayor, members of
the Council, I would like to say welcome to the new Council
Members, and congratulations. Under the recommended conditions
of approval, 1.07, it is speaking of the Cougar Way - construct
six foot wide curb adjacent to sidewalk along curb westerly of
Trinette Drive. I guess my question would be, is there going to
be a sidewalk on Cougar Way where this is referring to. Or is
this, I think I am looking at this particular area wrong. I am
not sure I understand that.
Stephen Koules: Trinette Drive is here, and as I understand it
the curb is to be placed along here.
Mr. MacNeilage: Okay. Under 1.22, Susan Street, it says
construct six foot wide curb adjacent sidewalk on westerly side
of street only. This is also the same with Heidi Circle, has no
sidewalks, and I believe there is another area somewhere on this
parcel that doesn't have sidewalks on one side of the streets, or
at all on one of the streets. When I was on the Council earlier,
I recognized this, and it had been canceled many times over, but
with all of the concerns in the City with the public, I think
that sidewalks in these areas should be a requirement on both
sides of the street.
City Manager: In answer to one comment that Mr. MacNeilage made,
the - I think you spoke, did you not Gary, of 1.01 on Cougar Way,
or were you speaking on into the project.
Mr. MacNeilage: Bob I think I was mixing that up. I think I was
thinking that curb should have been along Cougar Way there, and
that isn't part of the development yet, so.
City Manager: But, it is called for in this on 1.02, which is
the listing of Cougar Way, all the one point o's - construct 8"
by 24" curb and gutter at 32 foot southerly of the centerline
with a western terminus of 120 feet. That would be going across
the ditch I believe. So that will be the start of .
Page 2
°Paumont City Council
November 25, 1991
Mr. MacNeilage: Okay, that just says curb and gutter.
City Manager: Oh, I'm sorry, you asked for sidewalks. I'm
sorry. There is sidewalk on Cougar on the north side.
Mr. MacNeilage: That is all I have. Thank you.
There being no other requests to speak regarding this agenda
item, the public hearing was closed at 7:31 p.m.
Council Member Russo asked for clarification of the boundaries of
the project, since he was not provided a copy of the map due to
the unavailability of additional maps.
At this point, Mr. Tom Shelton requested to speak, explaining he
thought the meeting did not begin until 7:30, as a result he had
just arrived. He then asked if the Council would consider
reopening the public hearing to give him the opportunity to
testify regarding his appeal.
There being no objections from the Council, the public hearing
was re- opened at 7:33 p.m.
Mr. Tom Shelton, 11622 Seacrest Drive, Garden Grove, California:
The property location, as the Planning Director has pointed out,
is the southeast corner of Cougar Way and Beaumont Avenue. The
portion under development is only the portion lying southeasterly
of Marshall Creek. It is more or less bisected by Marshall
Creek.
We purchased this, I think, in 1978. In other words, have owned
it for about thirteen years. When the prior sewer district was
formed to provide service to properties up to Brookside, we
participated, and allowed the sewer to be run, actually, right
through the middle of the property. When the WDS tract came in,
I think, it was on a first revision, to the east of us, we were
contacted, since we had the tentative, more or less, in the mill,
we were contacted about making a street connection on the
southerly boundary here. I mean, extending east into WDS.
Frankly, we thought it was a great idea. You can look at that
property and you need circulation. You need circulation for
police patrol, for fire protection, and just the general use of
the people who are going to live there.
We were subsequently asked, during the processing of that WDS
tract, whether we would be willing to accept a diversion of water
- stormwater I am talking about - down this street. We asked, of
course, how much, and we were told it would probably be about 20
cubic feet per second, which represented the property - a portion
of the WDS site lying west of Palm. We checked and found our
streets could handle this additional 20 cubic feet per second
with no difficulty.
Our tentative map was eventually accepted for processing by the
City and on September 17 it was conditionally approved. There
are two conditions, engineering conditions, that were placed on
it that were rather onerous to us. One is objectionable in that
that runoff entering the tract would now be 145 cubic feet per
second, in other words seven times as much. And this is due to
the diversion, anticipated diversion of the entire high school
site, plus all the WDS development lying north of the Edison
easement, which would be more or less parallel the projection of
our southerly boundary.
It would require, we estimate, a 30 inch storm drain at a cost of
some $70,000. Now we have an obligation to accept all the water
that is historically drained on to the property, and convey it to
a safe point of disposal. The downstream owner has no
responsibility to accept diverted water. Now that is what would
take place here - to ask us to accept the diversion of the water,
and, in addition, pay some $70,000 to convey it to a safe point
Page 3
Beaumont City Council
November 25, 1991
of disposal, I think, is a little unfair, to say the least.
We request that this condition be eliminated or drastically
revised.
The most difficult condition, which I object to, is the statement
that we must buy our water from the City water department. I am
sure all of you know the condition of the City water department
at the moment. We were advised that it would possibly take a
year in processing to get the plans approved for some reason.
That is our plans for development. And I thought, well, if the
City can get us water within a year, we would have no objection
to waiting that long. But Mr. Bounds has sent me this EIR, which
I appreciate, and in that it states the schedule anticipated for
construction, and water would only be available, as I gather, on
the completion of the reservoir. Now that date, in accordance
to the EIR, would be anywhere from May of 1993 to October of
1993.
With all due respect, this system of financing, development and
construction of the system is a ponderous thing, with just the
proceedings, and many opportunities to stub your toe. For this
reason I respectfully request that I not be required to obey this
condition, and I be relieved from that, and to be able to get
water from the only other act in town. Thank you very much. If
there is anything I can add, any questions, I would be glad to
attempt to do so.
Council Member Parrott: You agree that you are going to take
care of the water that is on your property.
Mr. Shelton: Absolutely.
Council Member Parrott: Okay.
Mr. Shelton: We aren't creating a problem for ourselves. The
amount of water that we generate all flows on to us normally,
historically, we will be glad to have - no problem. But to add
145 cubic feet per second to a street that will handle only about
75 is, you know, an unreasonable condition really.
Thank you for hearing me. I am sorry to be late.
Mayor Leja: Is there anyone else who would like to speak at this
time. Anyone in opposition of Item No. 7. Anyone else who
wishes to speak.
There being no further requests to speak, the public hearing was
re- closed at 7:38 p.m.
Council Member Russo asked what the basis is for determining the
amount of water, as in Mr. Shelton's original letter he made
reference to 200 cubic feet, and now is saying 145 cubic feet,
wanting to know if that has been verified.
Mr. Koules stated that he did not know other than the fact it was
set forth in the City Engineer's conditions of approval, that if
it is not resolved in this way the drainage is going to flow and
flood 14th Street through Palm Avenue. He did point out he is
not an engineer, and the City Engineer would be better qualified
to defend these conditions, however, that has been very clearly
indicated to him by the City Engineer.
Mr. Russo then asked if that meant 14th Street would be worse
than it is now, as it doesn't take much to flood it now, with the
City Manager advising it is going to take a 30 inch pipe to take
it down this way, and when it goes through the WDS project, you
are going to have the same 30 inch pipe that is going to have to
be put in those streets.
Council Member Russo wanted to know about the developer's
responsibility to handle diverted water, asking if that should be
part of the developer's responsibility.
Page 4
RE
Beaumont City Council
November 25, 1991
Mr. Bounds replied he thought it has to be discussed as an
engineering item, and called attention to a letter he received in
today's mail from Mr. Shelton's engineering firm, asking the City
to answer some questions for them, and that these questions be
answered prior to January 1, so that they can start their
mapping. He continued that if the mapping is not going to start
before the first of January, all of the answers could be obtained
regarding this water problem, and not hold them up as far as
doing any work. It is a large amount of water and should be
looked at closely.
Mr. Russo said he was just questioning because Mr. Shelton brings
up a good point - should he be responsible to handle diverted
water that has always been running down that street because he is
building a project there.
The City Manager said he didn't know the answer either, and one
of the questions that it raises is the fact that since we are
coming up with this large cubic feet per second, there is
obviously something going on, and it is not just the fact that
some houses were built by WDS.
He recommended the Council would be better served to have the
City Engineer here for the purpose of answering these types of
questions, and he was not available to be at the meeting tonight.
It was a consensus of the Council to continue consideration of
this agenda item to the regular City Council meeting of December
9, 1991 or January 13, 1991, the date to be determined by the
availability of the City Engineer.
Request from Mr. James Hayes, Beaumont Yamaha - Kawasaki, for
Waiver of Requirement to Remove Roof -Top Sign.
A staff report was presented by the City Manager, a copy of which
is a matter of record in the Clerk's file.
Mr. James Hayes addressed the Council, giving written copies of
his statement justifying his request to each Council Member. A
copy of Mr. Hayes statement is a matter of record in the Clerk's
file. In addition to his statement, Mr. Hayes presented pictures
of the sign in question to the City Council.
Mr. Gary MacNeilage, 1747 Vasili Lane, addressed the Council in
opposition to granting Mr. Hayes' request, stating that Mr. Hayes
has received a number of other waivers from the City, and he felt
the Council should consider these other waivers before granting
another one.
Ms. Ann Connors, 813 Elm Avenue, addressed the Council in
opposition to granting Mr. Hayes' request, presenting pictures
she had taken of a portion of Mr. Hayes' property on which a
previous waiver had been granted, pointing out that the pictures
show how he had violated the conditions of the waiver. She also
pointed out that when Mr. Russo was on the Council previously, he
wanted to do something about the signs in Beaumont, which did not
get finished before he left the Council, and she was hoping that
he feels the same way now.
Ms. Connors reminded the Council that at the time Mrs. Reeley's
sign was discussed, the Council determined that illegal signs
would be taken care of by attrition, and the time to do that is
now.
Mr. Hayes requested to speak again, stating that he didn't think
Beaumont Yamaha - Kawasaki had caused anyone to run away from this
town, as he thought he kept a pretty good face on the property.
So far as the agreement to put up a fence and hide the items
stored there, he also thought they had done a good job of doing
that. He went on to say he has built the property up, not
letting it go down as so many other properties have, and so far
Page 5
Beaumont City Council
November 25, 1991
as the other permits, they shouldn't have any bearing on this
request. The permit that he has requested at this time is the
only thing the Council should be considering, not anything from
the past. If he is wrong, he is wrong, but at this time he is
requesting that a sign be allowed to be painted like the signs
which he has on I -10 and 60 both, which he thinks are beautiful
signs.
He continued that the trailer for sale was his personal trailer,
and he knows many citizens place items in their front yards for
sale. He then looked at the pictures which had been submitted by
Mrs. Connors, and pointed out he could go by everyone's houses
and take pictures. He felt he had done everything the Council
had asked of him, and has done nothing wrong.
Council Member Russo said he could certainly understand Mr.
Hayes' position, as he has been dealing with signage in the
businesses he is involved with, and pointed out Beaumont is not
the only City that is trying to clean up signs. He has had to
spend a lot of money and go through a lot of heartache, however,
once the cities have conforming signs the cities, as a whole,
look better. He emphasized that he did understand how Mr. Hayes,
and other business people, feel when there is a sign that might
be otherwise available to use, but he feels the ordinances of the
City should be supported, and unfortunately the only opportunity
the City has to do that is when the usage changes. This is a
change of use, and it is clearly stated in the Ordinance that is
the time when the City should make appropriate changes.
He concluded that he is extremely sympathetic, as he understands
how Mr. Hayes feels, but in the long run he will probably be able
to design a better sign for his building that will be conforming,
and will do a better job.
Council Member Brey stated he didn't see how the restaurant and
bar could be stopped from opening up because of the sign issue,
as the sign is not even on that part of the building. If Mr.
Hayes were to repaint the sign, the City could tell him to take
it down at that time, but with the restaurant and bar being in a
separate section of the building he could not see how the City
could tell him to take the sign down since it is on the
motorcycle part of the building.
The City Manager addressed Mr. Brey's comment in that staff had
previously been told to try to clean up the City when there was a
change in business, ownership, etc., when non- conforming or
illegal uses can be corrected, or code compliance required, and
that is the purpose of this.
Council Member Parrott said they should not go against the City's
ordinances which were done for the purpose of cleaning up the
town.
Council Member McLaughlin felt the same way, stating the reason
the City has ordinances is to try to improve the City, as things
were done many years ago in a haphazard manner, whether they were
good signs or bad signs. He emphasized the City does have an
ordinance, and the Council should uphold it, and in past
discussions have determined this would be done through attrition,
in order that the City would someday have uniform signs
throughout the City.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Russo, to require Mr. Hayes to comply with the sign ordinance and
remove the sign from the roof -top.
AYES: Council Member Brey, McLaughlin, Parrott, Russo and
Mayor Leja.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Page 6
Beaumont City Council
November 25, 1991
9. RESOLUTION NO. 1991 -48 - Pursuant to Chapter 10.04 of the
Municipal Code of Beaumont, Prescribing an Intersection Stop
Sign on Pennsylvania Avenue at 12th Street, to Expedite Traffic
Flow and Traffic Safety.
10.
The City Manager presented his staff report, a copy of which is a
matter of record in the Clerk's file. Basically, he referred to
a petition filed by residents in the area, and the fact that a
traffic study had been conducted by the Police Department, whose
recommendation was for a stop sign at 12th Street and
Pennsylvania rather than 13th and Pennsylvania, thereby placing a
stop sign at two block intervals. He continued that he had
contacted Mr. McDowell, who turned the petition in, and he agreed
with this recommendation.
Council Member Russo asked if there was not going to be a stop
sign for eastbound traffic on 12th Street, with the City Manager
advising a stop sign already exists on 12th Street, and this will
create a three -way stop.
There were no other comments or questions from the Council.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Parrott, to adopt Resolution No. 1991 -48.
AYES: Council Member Brey, McLaughlin, Parrott, Russo and
Mayor Leja.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
a. Request to Declare 1977 Chevrolet Van and 1983 Ford Van
Surplus due to High Mileage and Age.
b. Consider a Request from First Assembly of God Church,
Yucaipa, to Purchase the 1977 Chevrolet Van for $1.00.
The staff report was submitted by the City Manager, with a
recommendation for the vans to be declared surplus, and
presenting the request from the First Assembly of God Church.
He did point out that the Riverside County Transportation
Commission will have to approve a request such as this, and the
question will be presented to their Board on December 11. If the
Council is willing to sell the van, an action could be taken
tonight pending the action taken by RCTC.
Council Member Russo indicated he would prefer to wait before
taking action on this item because so far as any City assets are
concerned he would like to hold any disposition on these until
the budget has been reviewed.
Both Council Member McLaughlin and Council Member Brey indicated
that suggestion was acceptable to them, with Council Member
Parrott saying these should be auctioned along with any other
surplus vehicles.
Mr. Bounds advised that other surplus equipment was being
prepared for auction at this time, however, these two vans are
different in that any monies received would have to be placed in
the Dial -A -Ride fund, and since the Riverside County
Transportation Commission is in partnership with the City in the
Dial -A -Ride, they have to agree regarding any disposition of
these vans.
Motion by Council Member Parrott, second by Council Member Brey,
to declare the 1977 Chevrolet Van and the 1983 Ford Van surplus
due to their high mileage.
Mr. Russo again emphasized that he would prefer no action be
taken on this item until after the budget has been reviewed, and
also a review of any other equipment which might be available.
Page 7
Beaumont City Council
November 25, 1991
Council Member Brey withdrew his second of the previous motion,
with Council Member Parrott agreeing to withdraw his motion.
NOTION WITHDRAWN
This agenda item will be brought back to the Council at a later
date.
11. Request from Riverside County Health Department for Affirmation
of Designation of the Local Solid Waste Management Enforcement
Agency (LEA) for the County of Riverside.
The City Manager presented the request from the Riverside County
Health Department, giving background information concerning the
Council's previous adoption of a resolution and the need for the
affirmation of that past action at this time.
There were no comments or questions from the Council.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Parrott, to authorize a letter to the Riverside County Health
Department affirming Resolution No. 1989 -59.
AYES: Council Member Brey, McLaughlin, Parrott, Russo and
Mayor Leja.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
12. Consideration of Approving Contract with Superior Signal Service
Corp. for Maintenance of Traffic Signals, and Authorization for
Mayor to Execute Same.
A report was received from the City Manager concerning this
request, with a recommendation for award of the contract to
Superior Signal Service Corporation.
Council Member Russo again stated he preferred to take no action
until the budget has been reviewed.
There being no objections from the Council, this agenda item was
continued until the second meeting in December.
13. Consideration of Membership in the Western Riverside County of
Governments.
The City Manager submitted his report, a copy of which is a
matter of record in the Clerk's file.
The meeting was recessed at 8:25 p.m. to allow the Council time
to review the information submitted to them tonight concerning
the Western Riverside County of Governments, reconvening at 8:35
p.m.
Mr. A. J. Wilson, Executive Director of the Western Riverside
County Association of Governments, addressed the Council, giving
background information concerning this association, and answering
questions from the Council.
Council Members Parrott and McLaughlin both expressed they were
in favor of joining this organization.
Council Member Russo said he agrees with the concept, and feels
the City should pursue the possibility of entering into the
organization, however, at this time he is not prepared to make a
decision feeling they should wait until the budget has been
reviewed.
Council Member Brey said he has talked with other cities who are
members, and agrees there is more power in numbers, and would
definitely be in favor of joining.
Page 8
Beaumont City Council
November 25, 1991
Mayor Leja added that she is certainly in favor of participating
in this organization, however, giving the situation of the budget
they would need to locate the funds to participate, and she would
like to reconsider this at a meeting in December.
There being no opposition, this agenda item was continued to the
first meeting in December, which would be December 9.
14. Report on Highland Springs Avenue Striping.
The report on the Highland Springs Avenue striping was presented
by the City Manager, a copy of which is a matter of record in the
Clerk's file. This matter will be returned to the City Council
as an agenda item for action on a joint powers agreement with the
City of Banning at the regular meeting of December 9.
15. Report on City Audit Being Prepared by Conrad and Associates.
The City Manager reported that the audit had been received this
afternoon, and it has been distributed to Council this evening,
and asking if the Council would like to have Mr. Mike Harrison,
of Conrad and Associates, present at the next regular meeting on
December 9, to answer any questions they may have, with approval
of the audit being included as an action item on December 9.
All Council Members being in agreement, this will be placed on
the agenda for December 9.
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 separately.
a. Approval of Minutes of Special Council Meeting of October
281 1991 and Regular Council Meeting of October 28, 1991.
b. Acceptance of Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting
of October 8, 1991.
C. Approval of Warrants as Audited per Warrant List of November
25, 1991, in the amount of $248,480.52; and Payrolls of
October 24, 1991 and November 7, 1991, in the amounts of
$68,545.89 and $67,576.41 respectively, and Special Payroll
of November 15, 1991, in the amount of $1,582.73.
d. RESOLUTION NO. 1991 -47 - Authorizing Execution of Agreement
for Suspension of Improvements for Administrative Plot Plan
91- APP -26 and Ordering Recordation Thereof with the County
Recorder. (Marcus).
e. Report of Planning Commission Action at Regular Meeting of
November 19, 1991.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Parrott to adopt the Consent Calendar as presented.
AYES: Council Member McLaughlin, Parrott, Russo and
Mayor Leja.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: Council Member Brey.
ABSENT: None.
17. Set Date for Special Budget Meeting.
Motion by Council Member Russo, second by Council Member Brey, to
set the date of Monday, December 2, 1991, at 7:00 p.m., for a
Special Meeting of the City Council to review the budget.
AYES: Council Member Brey, McLaughlin, Parrott, Russo and
Mayor Leja.
Page 9
Beaumont City Council
November 25, 1991
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
18. Recess to Closed Session:
a. 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 Water
District vs City of Beaumont, et al., Case No. 211456,
Riverside Superior Court.
b. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 to Consider Public
Employee Personnel Matters.
The meeting was recessed to Closed Session at 9:01 p.m.,
reconvening to regular session at 12:03 p.m.
Let the record show Council Member Brey left the closed session
at 11:10 p.m., and did not return to the meeting.
Let the record show direction was given to the water attorney
regarding water litigation, and no action was taken in closed
session.
Date Set for Next Regular Council Meeting, Monday, December 9, 1991,
at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers.
There being no further business to come before the Council, the
meeting was adjourned at 12:04 p.m.
R :ectfully submitted,
4? ity Clerk/
Page 10
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
OCTOBER 28, 1991
The Beaumont City Council met in a regular meeting on Monday,
October 28, 1991, at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, with
Mayor Connors presiding.
On roll call the following Council Members were present: Leja,
McLaughlin, MacNeilage, Parrott and Mayor Connors.
The invocation was given by Council Member Leja, who then led the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
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.
Council Member Leja requested that Item No. 11 be removed from
the agenda as she and Mr. McLaughlin have decided it would be
better to discuss the resource committees after the new Council
Members have been seated
The City Manager advised that the applicant, Omega Homes, has
requested the continuation of Item No. 5 to the last meeting in
November.
Council Member Leja announced that a progress report on the
General Plan which she had requested be placed on the agenda
was left off the agenda by mistake, and she has discussed this
with the City Manager as to the mistake that was made in leaving
it off.
3. ORAL COMMUNICATION:
There was no one requesting to speak during oral communication.
PUBLIC HEARINGS — 7:00 P.M.
4. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25272 (90— TM -1), MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION 91 —MND -1 AND MITIGATION MONITORING /REPORTING PROGRAM
91— MMP -4. Applicant: Charles Ware. Location: North side of
Cougar Way, approx. 2,000 ft. east of its intersection with
Beaumont Avenue. The proposed division of 37.65 acres into 159
single family lots.
The City Attorney advised that Council Member Leja owns adjacent
property to this project and should not participate in the
discussion or action on this item.
Council Member Leja was excused, leaving the meeting at 7:12
p.m.
A staff report was received from Stephen Koules, Director of
Community Development, with a recommendation from the Planning
Commission for approval.
The public hearing was opened at 7:17 P.M.
Mr. John Hart, attorney with the law firm of Reid & Hellyer,
representing the applicant: This matter has been before you
several times, and rather than repeat and perhaps bore you with
Page 1
Beaumont City Council
^ctober 28, 1991
additional details, I think if you have any particular questions
related to the development or the proposal, Mr. Ware or myself
will be glad to address them. We would endorse, of course, the
findings and recommendations of the staff report, and ask that
this matter be approved.
Mr. Richard Reeley submitted a request to speak in opposition
concerning this public hearing matter, however, declined to speak
when called upon.
Mr. Owen J. Cothron submitted a request to speak as a neutral
party concerning this public hearing matter, however, declined to
speak when called upon.
There were no other requests to speak to this issue, and no
questions, comments or discussion from the City Council.
The public hearing was closed at 7:19 P.M.
a. Consideration of Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration
91- MND -1.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
MacNeilage, to adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration 91- MND -1,
based on the findings.
AYES: Council Member MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott and
Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Leja.
b. Consideration of Approval of Tentative Tract Map 25272.
Motion by Council Member MacNeilage, second by Council Member
Parrott, to approve Tentative Tract Map 25272, subject to the
Conditions of Approval as submitted.
AYES: Council Member MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott and
Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Leja.
C. Consideration of Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring /Reporting
Program 91 -MMP -4 for Tentative Tract Map 25272.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
MacNeilage, to adopt Mitigation Monitoring /Reporting Program 91-
MMP-4 for Tentative Tract Map 25272.
AYES: Council Member MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott and
Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Leja.
Let the record show Council Member Leja resumed her seat at 7:20
p.m. and participated in the balance of the meeting.
5. APPEAL OF TWO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REQUIRED BY THE CITY
ENGINEER FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 249339 AS APPROVED BY THE
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION ON 9/17/91. APPELLANT: Omega
Homes /Thomas Shelton. LOCATION: Southeast Corner of Beaumont
Avenue and Cougar Way. (89- TM -8 /R).
This agenda item was continued to the last meeting of November at
the request of the applicant, as noted under Adjustments to
Agenda.
Page 2
r aumont City Council
u -tober 28, 1991
6. NEGATIVE DECLARATION 91- ND -10. Applicant: San Gorgonio
Catholic Church. Location: 1234 Palm Avenue. Project
Description: Construction of a 480 sq.ft. narthex in front of
the existing church complex, with a front yard setback variance
from 25 ft to 10 ft and provision for 24 parking spaces. (91-
PUP-2, 91 -V -1).
Stephen Koules, Director of Community Development, presented
the staff report with a recommendation from the Planning
Commission for approval.
The public hearing was opened at 7:25 P.M.
Mr. Ray Strebe,
applicant, spoke
architect and I
project, and the
requirements for
like to ask for a
666 West Wilson, Banning, representing the
in favor of the project: I am the project
have been working with the church on the
City, and we feel we have worked out all the
the parking and everything. So we would
pproval.
There were no other requests to speak to this public hearing
issue.
The public hearing was closed at 7:26 P.M.
There were no questions or comments from the City Council.
a. Consideration of Adoption of Negative Declaration 91- ND -10,
Based on the Findings.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Parrott, to adopt Negative Declaration 91- ND -10, based on
the findings.
AYES: Council Member Leja,
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
END PUBLIC HEARINGS.
MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
7. Presentation by Riverside County Waste Management on Waste
Management Issues of Regional Significance, To Include Discussion
of These Issues Following the Presentation.
A presentation was given by Mr. Robert Nelson, Director of
Riverside County Waste Management, addressing waste
management issues of regional significance to meet the
AB939 goals, and including one concept being proposed by the
County. This proposal was for a regional waste management
system, and was described in a video presentation. At the
conclusion of his presentation, Mr. Nelson asked for
questions from the Council.
Council Member McLaughlin asked if the concept includes the
independent contractors as well as cities, since many of the
cities contract this service.
Mr. Nelson stated virtually all cities have contracts with
private haulers, and this concept would honor all of those
contracts, but would ask that in renegotiating the contracts,
the contracts would indicate that the waste flow would go to
the system facilities.
Council Member MacNeilage wanted to know whether or not the
concept not only govern over the industry's recycling plan,
but would they also put limitations on their pricing.
Mr. Nelson replied that the concept is one in which the
vendors who are building the material recovery facilities
would indeed be by competitive bid.
Page 3
LIM
aumont City Council
.,:tober 28, 1991
Mr. MacNeilage then wanted to know if the MRFs would be built in
each of the regions proportionally to the population, with Mr.
Nelson responding that would roughly be the case, as generally
waste comes in rough proportions to population.
Replying to another question from Council Member MacNeilage, Mr.
Nelson said everyone can expect the rates to be higher, as the
cost to do what has to be done to meet the State law is going to
increase the costs.
Council Member Parrott asked if the trash haulers have equipment
now to separate all the wastes.
Mr. Nelson said the state -of- the -art equipment is available right
now to achieve the 50% required.
Council Member MacNeilage returned to the question of rates,
stating there would be some areas which would have much larger
quantities of garbage than other smaller areas, and asked if
there would be some method whereby places that have a lot of
garbage would pay a larger fee than those that have very little,
or would that be up to the hauler.
Mr. Nelson said the concept the County is suggesting, which will
ultimately be the decision of the various cities and the county
on reaching a common way to handle this problem, is that there be
a uniform way so that the smaller cities, who if they tried to do
this on their own would have unit prices very, very high, could
be involved with a facility that is processing a lot more waste
than what the city would produce. As you get into the higher
volumes, the unit rates go down, and that is what smaller cities
should want to be a part of - a system that can achieve the
lowest possible unit rates.
He continued that the processing
$60.00 a ton, depending on the
smaller city can be in a group
several fairly large MRFs, and
lower cost curve, that would be
of Beaumont as a smaller city.
costs could range from $20.00 to
size of the facility, and if a
.hat, on the average, is building
therefore getting involved in a
the ideal solution for the City
The question of percentage of waste which is recyclable was
raised by Council Member MacNeilage, with Mr. Nelson advising the
percentage is very low except for concrete and asphalt, which is
the biggest tonnage of waste being recycled.
Mr. Nelson suggested the Council might consider referring this
issue to a committee to work with County staff, and as the County
receives a proposal for a waste flow agreement which would fit
the concept which has been discussed, they could then work with
that committee so that at some point in the future they could
come back to the Council and discuss it again.
Council Member Leja commented it would be better to wait until
after the election to form a committee to work with the County,
with it being brought up at an appropriate Council meeting.
Report Concerning Removal of Graffiti in the City.
a. Receive First Report from Assistant City Manager.
The first report regarding graffiti removal procedures in other
cities was presented by the Assistant City Manager, a copy of
which is a matter of record in the Clerk's file. Along with this
report were suggested options for Council consideration which
included designating a Graffiti Removal Representative;
purchasing removal equipment and using City personnel; or renting
the equipment. These options are also a matter of record in the
Clerk's file.
Page 4
R- aumont City Council
tober 28, 1991
Council Member MacNeilage commended Mrs. Overstreet on her very
thorough report, however, called attention to the fact that in
his discussion with Mr. Murrill, it was discussed that in
addition to the City providing fuel, sand and paint, they would
also furnish water, and he thought this should be brought to the
attention of the Council as well, as water is probably one of
the main items which would stop him from volunteering his time.
He went on to say he was in favor of option number one, and
really likes the way that Redlands runs their graffiti program.
Council Member Parrott also commended Mrs. Overstreet on her
report, and felt it was interesting to see what other cities are
doing.
Mayor Connors recognized the request to speak from Mrs. R. R.
Hoff.
Mrs. R. R. Hoff, 798 Michigan, addressed the Council, reading a
prepared statement, as follows:
We are here to protest the would be gangs taking over our
neighborhood, devaluing our property and invading our privacy.
The gangs which have invaded our City this summer, are from the
City of Los Angeles and the County of Orange County, and they are
ruthless. They have arrived with but one intention. Staking out
their territory in a specific neighborhood. Graffiti is their
code. Innocent property owners are the victims. Intimidation
and frightening individuals is the name of their game. They
strike in the early morning hours, leaving their ugly words and
signs behind. However, the reality of our life are mere words
to you. You have to experience it to know what I am speaking of.
We are angry because these ruthless gangs strike at will. Though
we clean the graffiti off our walls, whether house, business or
apartment complex, they return time after time, and the expense
is unbelievable. This causes a feeling of anger, frustration and
outrage, because this problem has been neglected in trying to
arrive at a solution. We believe that you have ignored our
situation.
Knowing that I wrote the letter to the editor, three individuals
were at my door pounding on it at 1:30 Saturday night.
Harassment is their mode of operandi. We understand that Mr.
Szoyka, of graffiti abatement, who works in Banning removing
graffiti, is practically out of a job because Banning is cleaned
up. He uses a sandblaster. The cost $10,000. Perhaps you would
consider this. We hope that you will address this issue with
expediency, and we thank you.
Mayor Connors asked Mrs. Hoff if she had reported the early
morning incidents and the harassment to the police, with Mrs.
Hoff indicating she did not as she just felt it would accelerate
the problem.
Mayor Connors then advised Mrs. Hoff that the situation had not
been totally ignored by the City, as a program had been started
by an Eagle Scout, and was supposedly to have been continued by
the Chamber of Commerce, however, it fell apart at that point,
although she did agree the City should have picked up on it at
that time.
Mrs. Hoff stated she did appreciate what the City is doing now,
and what Mrs. Overstreet has done, and feels words are turning
into action, and she feels the City will really get to the bottom
of it now.
Council Member MacNeilage asked if there was a specific time of
the day or night when this occurred, with Mrs. Hoff stating they
come at all hours - you never know when they are coming.
David Hoff, 798 Michigan, requested to speak, stating that these
Page 5
�saumont City Council
October 28, 1991
people will strike anytime in the evening - and it usually is in
the evening, and it is not just confined to their apartment
complex. They have hit two houses in back of them, and one
police officer told them they had hit a residence on Orange
Avenue.
Discussion followed concerning the graffiti problem in several
areas of the City, including public sidewalks and streets, with
Mr. Roger Berg adding to the discussion by relating incidents
which have occurred at his father's rental property.
b. Consideration of Direction Concerning Graffiti Removal
Program.
Council Member Leja asked the Assistant City Manager if, in
talking to the cities, since there are quite a few options being
offered, and it has been stated earlier that it is a prelude to
gang violence, has it been the same in the other cities, with the
Assistant City Manager responding that was the case, and that is
why the other cities recommend the best thing to do is get rid of
it as soon as possible. Ms. Overstreet went on to say the
biggest job would be the initial clean -up, getting the inventory
of everything in the City and going through and cleaning it up,
and then it will be a maintenance issue, especially in the places
where it keeps coming back.
Council Member Leja felt it might be in the City's best interest
to rent the equipment and train a volunteer group, as well as
staff members, to remove the graffiti as soon as possible. She
then asked Mr. MacNeilage if he had any ideas on how he wanted to
pursue a graffiti abatement committee.
Council Member MacNeilage said the problem he could see with
Council Member Leja's suggestion was when you have volunteers
operating equipment, there would have to be a City employee
supervising.
The City Manager commented that in using hydroblasters you can
really damage something, since it is high pressure water. He
felt it should be in the hands of someone who has been trained to
use it. Obtaining waivers from property owners can also be a
problem when they live elsewhere, so the program has to be
designed where people in the City can believe in it, and believe
that when we come out, there will not be damage. In the wrong
hands a hydroblaster can really cause damage.
Council Member MacNeilage suggested a few of the volunteers could
be trained on the equipment, with the City bonding them to
operate the equipment.
Council Member McLaughlin said the insurance company would get
involved there, and that could be a problem.
Council Member MacNeilage stated that using City employees would
incur a large amount of cost for the City, so if the City could
get around that it would probably be the best thing to do.
The City Manager pointed out one of the things they have to look
at as they look at the other programs, is whether the City is
going to pay all the costs, or whether those property owners who
do not clean their property up is going to pay the cost. That
would make a great deal of difference. If it is on City property
the City has to clean it, so that is the City's cost already.
The big decision is whether or not the City can afford to clean
everyone's property.
Council Member Leja asked if there has been a regular record kept
of areas that are not public property which are consistently hit,
with the City Manager indicating that Mr. Aguirre could probably
give the Council a good feedback, however, he does not have that
Page 6
...; aumont City Council
October 28, 1991
information in his hand at this time.
Council Member Leja said it appeared if those areas could be
identified, and if there is a problem with the property owner
living in another state, the City could talk with them about this
happening to their property on a regular basis, and have them
sign some type of an agreement with the City to allow the City to
go on the property to clean it up, so the property owner doesn't
have to be tracked down every time it happens.
Council Member McLaughlin pointed out the City could put liens on
the property, just like a weed abatement, if there is a problem
with the property owner, with the City Manager mentioning there
has to be proper notice before they could be charged. Mr.
McLaughlin went on to say no one likes graffiti, and, as Mrs.
Hoff stated, although she wants the City to arrest these people,
never once has she either caught one or called the police so they
could be there. The police have got to catch the people in the
act - it can't be done by hearsay. He continued that it doesn't
seem fair, nor is it fair to the City, because who pays the
City's bills - the taxpayers, and do the taxpayers want to be
assessed a certain amount to accomplish this, or should the
property owner be subject to paying for removal of this graffiti
which they have no control over. It is a real problem, and he
didn't know the answer, but perhaps considering this a nuisance
will give the City enough strength, and make the public aware,
and perhaps they will be more observant - and by establishing a
hot line the City might be able to get more enforcement involved.
Council Member Leja stated that considering all the legalities,
the City does need a program combining a lot of this - bringing
in volunteers from the community - what the City can do - what
all the different departments can do - to participate. She
wasn't sure if Council Member MacNeilage's idea was to have this
whole program brought about by the abatement committee or by what
other means.
Council Member MacNeilage said he just wanted to see them get the
ball rolling, but one thought that he had was if the City could
get started on a volunteer program and then use either
redevelopment funds or CDBG funds for the purchase of a machine,
asking if these funds could be used.
The City Manager pointed out there are no redevelopment funds,
and this has not been included in this year's CDBG program.
Also, insofar as CDBG funds, they will note that one City did use
CDBG funds, however, they were required to stop using these funds
in certain areas of the City. He then suggested one of the
fastest ways to get started is to get rented equipment.
Council Member Parrott said when the City gets the neighborhood
watch program going, it will do a lot to identify the people who
are doing the graffiti, and that would be a good start.
Mayor Connors commented she felt Mrs. Hoff's main point was that
if the City could get it cleaned up immediately, and kept up with
it, it would solve the graffiti problem that way, and they would
stop putting the graffiti up, which seems to be the experience in
a lot of communities.
Council Member Leja asked for clarification of her understanding
there are certain materials that hydroblasting could not be used
on, which was indicated by the City Manager to be the case. She
went on to say there were areas where volunteers could be used to
take care of the problem where hydroblasting could not be used.
The City Manager agreed, stating that as the Assistant City
Manager's report points out, painting is very definitely one of
the better methods for graffiti removal.
Mayor Connors asked if, as it was being painted over, could they
Page 7
,,- aumont City Council
October 28, 1991
not use a graffiti resistant coating which would eventually mean
removal in a more cost effective manner.
The City Manager said he did not have the information yet on the
graffiti resistant coating, although he did know it is more
expensive, but he understands that once you get to a point, no
more removal is necessary, however he doesn't have all the
information yet, so does not know for certain this is the case.
Mayor Connors indicated she received this information at the
League conference, and understood that each time you painted it
out eventually the whole thing would be painted out, and instead
of painting the whole wall, you would paint only that part, and
eventually the whole wall is covered.
The City Manager commented it is his personal feeling the City
needs to look at those kinds of costs, and very quickly make the
determination if that is or is not the best way to go, because
the City would be helping the property owners, even if you are
charging them, to be able to eradicate it.
Council Member Leja once again returned to the topic of the
formation of a graffiti abatement committee, and have them come
up with a multi - pronged solution, or at least attempt to solve
the problem, and then bring it back to the Council with a report,
and then start the action.
Mr. Bounds said staff could work with that committee to help
prepare an ordinance to be brought to the Council at the same
time.
Council Member Leja reiterated that was what she meant by a
multi - pronged solution, as it would not be just one attack, but
several attacks.
The City Manager agreed this would give the Council the
opportunity to make a selection, even to the point of presenting
five different ordinances for the Council to choose from.
Mayor Connors stated she agreed with all of this entirely, as she
sees graffiti and gangs as having a direct bearing on the war on
drugs.
Council Member Leja asked how many members Mr. MacNeilage was
contemplating being included on this graffiti abatement
committee, with Mr. MacNeilage saying he would guess three to
five, including staff.
Council Member Leja then asked if it would be appropriate if each
Council Member called the City Manager by Friday with a name for
appointment to this committee.
The City Manager said it was not a committee that had to be named
tonight, but if the Council would give them the names of someone,
he will be assigning the Assistant City Manager to it, she could
then get with them and say, okay you have agreed - they could
come up with a time to meet, and start meeting, and then by the
time they come back to the next Council meeting, they would have
something on the table which could be offered. So, if they want
to do it this week, they should call him, then the Assistant City
Manager could contact them and get started right now. The more
quickly the names are received, the more quickly they can get
started.
Council Member Leja stated this means each of them would appoint
someone, or people who are interested could contact the Council
at home, with each Council Member contacting the City Manager by
Friday at 5:00 p.m. with an appointment. She also wanted to see
Mr. MacNeilage sit on this committee for the remainder of his
term if he is agreeable with that.
Page 8
9.
aumont City Council
uctober 28, 1991
Council Member MacNeilage said he was agreeable, and would even
like to carry it on after his term is up.
Mayor Connors asked for clarification that the number of three to
five, including staff, means actually five of the general public
plus staff, with the Council agreeing this is correct.
C. Request from Council Member MacNeilage for Discussion of
Formation of Graffiti Abatement Committee.
Discussion of the Graffiti Abatement Committee was included in
the discussion of Item 8.b.
It was determined no action was necessary on this agenda item, as
long as the Council agreed they were asking staff and those who
are appointed to the committee to work together and come up with
something, with a report back to the Council.
The meeting was recessed at 8:35 p.m., to allow the Council time
to review lengthy information submitted to them as they arrived
for the meeting tonight, relative to the school mitigation fees,
prior to proceeding to the school mitigation fee issue which is
the next agenda item.
The meeting was reconvened at 8:53 p.m.
Proposal from Beaumont Unified School District Relative to School
Mitigation Fees.
The City Manager presented his report, a copy of which is a
matter of record in the Clerk's file. This report basically
presented a list of items submitted by the School District for a
proposed Memorandum of Understanding with the School District
relative to school mitigation fees.
Mr. Bounds added to his written report the fact this MOU would be
designed so no developments could slide through without paying a
school mitigation fee. Another item being provided for is if a
project is to be restricted to 55 years and older, there would be
a different type of agreement - or adjustments would be made.
Also, a fee for commercial and industrial would be based on
square footage, and, finally, the fees could be established so
that each year - triggered by cost indexing programs - the fee
could be increased on July 1 of each year without further Council
action.
Mr. John Wood, Superintendent of Beaumont Unified School
District, informed the Council of the School District's efforts
to address their student growth with existing facilities, and
presented justification for the School District's proposal
presented to the Council tonight.
Additionally, he pointed out the State school building program is
non - existent at this time, as it has no funding in it. They are
hopeful if further bond issues are passed in the future, at least
one of three applications they have submitted to the State will
be funded.
In conclusion, he offered to answer any questions the Council may
have, and indicated he would be glad to work with the City
further, whether it be in study sessions with interested
landowners or City staff, however, they have been working on this
proposal for two years and would like to move ahead on this.
Mayor Connors stated she did not know how the City could arrive
at a fee without first conferring with the other cities and the
county, in order to have a fee that would be the same.
Several questions were asked and comments made by members of the
Council.
Page 9
Beaumont City Council
,tober 28, 1991
Mr. Tom Van Voorst, of the Building Industry Association, Mr.
Richard Watson, of Mission Viejo Company, Mr. Kirk Evans, of KSE
Development, and Mr. Arthur McCall, of Aradi, Inc., all spoke to
the Council basically in opposition to these proposed mitigation
fees, with all agreeing that a task force should be formed
where the builders could sit down as a group with school
officials and other governmental officials to arrive at some sort
of understanding on the fee which is realistic, and would be
financially feasible for the builders.
The City Council again asked numerous questions, as well as
making comments concerning their position relative to this issue.
As a result of this discussion, it was a consensus of the
Council to recommend that the School District work with the
Building Industry Association to establish a task force, with the
other cities being invited to participate in this task force,
and requesting a report be brought back to the City Council by
the first meeting in December regarding what has happened, in
order to keep it moving. In this respect, a request was made
that Mr. Wood inform the City regarding what occurs at the
School District Board meeting on October 29, and the status of
the Council's recommendation.
10. RESOLUTION NO. 1991 -44 - Calling for the Restoration of Adequate
Funding in Fiscal Year 1991 -92 and Thereafter for the State
Department of Alcohol Beverage Control and Urging the Governor
and the State Legislature to Approve Funding for the ABC in Order
to Continue ABC Enforcement at Least at Present Levels.
Mayor Connors stated she received the enclosed letter from the
City of E1 Monte making the City aware of the State's proposal to
reduce funding for the Alcohol Beverage Control Board (ABC), and
she requested this be placed on the agenda because the ABC is
related to the drug war, and she felt funding for the ABC is very
important.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member
MacNeilage, to adopt Resolution No. 1991 -44.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
11. Second Report from Resource Committee.
This agenda item was removed from the agenda under adjustments to
agenda.
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 separately.
a. Approval of Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of September
23, 1991.
b. Acceptance of Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting
of September 17, 1991.
C. Approval of Warrants as Audited per Warrant List of
October 28, 1991, in the amount of $509,168.32; and Payrolls
of September 26, 1991 and October 10, 1991, in the amounts of
$69,562.58 and $68,961.64 respectively, and Special Payroll
of October 9, 1991, in the amount of $1,259.96.
Page 10
Reaumont City Council
tober 28, 1991
d. RESOLUTION NO. 1991 -45 - Requesting the Local Agency
Formation Commission to Take Proceedings for the Annexation
of Uninhabited Territory Pursuant to the Local Government
Reorganization Act of 1985. (Annexation 89- ANX -3 -47 -
Kirkwood Ranch /KSE.
e. Report of Planning Commission Action at Special Meeting of
October 8, 1991.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Leja, to adopt the Consent Calendar as presented.
AYES: Council Member Leja,
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
Prior to proceeding to Item No. 13, Council Member MacNeilage and
Council Member Leja requested that discussion of the General Plan
be placed on the agenda for the next Council meeting.
13. Consideration of Cancellation or Rescheduling of Regular Council
Meeting of November 11, 1991 Due To City Holiday.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Mayor Connors for
purposes of discussion, to cancel the regular meeting of November
11, 1991, due to the City holiday.
Prior to the vote on this motion, Council Member MacNeilage
recommended the meeting be rescheduled to Tuesday, November 12,
due to all of the holidays and the League meeting which have
necessitated canceling previous meetings.
Mayor Connors asked if there was sufficient business to warrant
rescheduling the meeting for November 12 other than the General
Plan discussion, with Council Member Leja adding there always
seems to be sufficient items come up for a meeting from one
meeting to the next and she saw no problem in rescheduling to the
12th.
The question of the certification of the election was brought up
by the City Attorney, with the City Manager indicating the
Registrar of Voters' office has advised we could expect to
receive the certification between November 15 and November 19,
which then brought forward the question of whether the Council
wished to hold another meeting with the Council that is presently
seated, or wait until the new Council Members were sworn in.
It was mentioned that in all possibility the new Council Members
would be sworn in at the next regular meeting of November 25,
with Council Member Leja again stating she saw no reason why the
Council couldn't meet again on the 12th.
Discussion of the pros and cons of canceling or rescheduling the
next meeting continued, with Mayor Connors, Council Member
McLaughlin and Council Member Parrott stating they didn't have a
problem canceling the meeting of November 11.
The vote was then taken on the motion as stated:
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
MOTION CARRIED TO CANCEL THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 11, 1991.
Page 11
R- aumont City Council
.tober 28, 1991
Date Set for Next Regular Council Meeting, Monday , November 11,
1991, at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers.
There being no further business to come before the Council, the
meeting was adjourned at 10:21 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
City Clerk
Page 12
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
SPECIAL MEETING OF
OCTOBER 28, 1991
The Beaumont City Council met in a Special Meeting at 5:07 P.M.,
on Monday, October 28, 1991, in the City Council Chambers, with
Mayor Connors presiding.
On roll call the following Council Members were present: Leja,
MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott and Mayor 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. Discussion of Fiscal Year 1990 -91 Budget and Preliminary
1991 -92 Budget.
Mayor Connors called on the City Manager to open this
discussion, with the City Manager indicating that Mr. Wong,
Director of Administrative Services, would give a briefing on
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1991.
Mr. Wong presented his briefing as follows:
Mayor and Council Members, what you have in front of you,
that I have just passed out, is a analysis of what has
transpired in the 90 -91 fiscal year. Our audited balance by
our independent auditors, Conrad and Associates, established
a fund balance at July 1, 1991 of $837,551. The total
revenues that the City collected in the 90 -91 fiscal year was
$3,680,662. Attached to that you have a report of detailed
revenues. If you flip to Page 2, the very last line will
have that total. So that is where that number - that total
is coming from.
Now we are, this analysis that we are speaking of right now,
is just exclusively of the General Fund alone. It does not
have anything to do with our gas tax money, our wastewater
treatment plant or Dial -A -ride - anything. Just the General
Fund. Okay.
Continuing, our total expenditures for the 90 -91 fiscal year,
likewise, if you look on Page 17 of your expenditure
handout, which is the second stapled group, on Page 17 you
see a total expenditure and encumbrances of $4,693,587 -
hundred dollars. That amount, less the encumbrances, which
are the purchase orders that we have incurred, but not yet
paid, is $74,591. Now those dollars have to be deducted.
Those dollars have not left the City. Those are bills that
we haven't even received. Services have not been received
either.
So that leaves a net expenditures of $4,618,996. Leaving the
fund balance, unaudited, at June 30 of 1991, of $100,783
dollars short.
Again, the total on Page 17 is the actual expenditures in
addition to all the purchase orders that have been
encumbered. The purchase order dollar amount of the $74,000
are dollars that have not left the City. Services have not
been received. Therefore, we need to deduct that amount.
That costs, for the most part, will be incurred in the next
fiscal year.
Page 1
oaaumont City Council
Special Meeting
October 28, 1991
Any other questions pertaining to that? Okay, continuing,
the City Manager has put together a recommended budget. If
you refer to that booklet, the first page I have just given a
recap again. If we start out with a $100,000 shortage, the
projected estimated revenues for general fund only is
$4,124,336, less the total appropriations, $4,325,659. That
leaves an estimated fund balance at June of 30, 1992, of
$302,106 short.
Now, one final note, on that same page, should Measure J pass
during the November 5 election, the utility user tax that the
City is currently receiving the remainder of the fiscal year
for 91 -92 would be approximately $228,000.
Council Member Leja questioned if that was included in the
revenue figures, with Mr. Wong replying that the $228,000 was
not part of that total estimated revenue number.
Council Member MacNeilage asked if the expenditures for
fiscal year ending 1991, of $74,591, would be carried over
to the 91 -92 budget, and if so was that included in the
appropriations, with Mr. Wong replying yes to both questions.
Council Member Leja wanted to know how they arrived at the
estimated revenues for the coming fiscal year.
Mr. Wong pointed out that on Page 2 of the booklet, which
shows the total of $4,124,000, has the actual detailed
estimates.
Mayor Connors questioned whether the revenues brought in this
past year match the anticipated revenues which were
projected, with Mr. Wong again referring to the booklet
revenue pages, using as an example the first entry for
unsecured property tax which indicates in the first column
an amount of $551,000 projected as revenue, and in the
fourth column an amount of $528,391, which was the actual
amount received, resulting in $22,608.59 less than the
projected revenue.
The City Manager called attention to Page 2, Account 9901, a
transfer of $200,000, explaining this was a transfer of money
out of the general fund to be set aside and be called, but
not lost from the general fund, a loss payment fund, which
fund stays intact. By subtracting that amount from the
revenue, means that it shows the revenue actually received
being $393,977 short, but it was not really $300,000 plus
short, but actually was $193,000. Thus, it appears it is a
negative number, and is subtracted from the actual cash taken
in. He then reiterated that the $200,000 is in the fund, and
will stay in the fund, but the insurance company asked the
City to set aside what is called a loss payment account.
Mr. MacNeilage referred to Account 7010, the year to date
revenue is $528,000, so the City underestimated $22,000
there, and he sees in the current projected budget an
estimate of $575,000, and wanted to know why such a high
number was projected in light of last year's shortfall.
The City Manager answered that the amount of money is $47,000
more than was taken in this year, not what was anticipated -
actual take -in, and advising that the County indicates the
City's taxes have increased by 12 + %, and rather than take
12°0' , he used 8.9 %, giving a 3.1 loss factor of people not
paying their taxes. He reemphasized the figure was based on
actual take -in and not what was anticipated.
Council Member MacNeilage then asked on Account 7045,
Page 2
beaumont City Council
Special Meeting
October 28, 1991
Supplemental Property Tax, why the City would expect that
to remain the same, with the -City Manager responding that is
basically an estimate as there is not a good control on that
figure, therefore, they watch what has happened in previous
years. He went on that since the City had received $4,800
more than was estimated last year, that could be estimated as
higher, but he felt the City should stay in the mode of
trying to be as conservative as possible, since the County
does not provide an actual increase percentage figure to use
on this particular item.
Mayor Connors questioned the Utility Tax being shown as only
$50,000, with the City Manager replying that is because all
that has been received after July 1, 1991 has been placed in
a trust fund, as directed by the Council, until after the
election, and the $50,000 is what was already on the bills
prior to July 1. The Mayor then asked if that was part of
the total figure they had just been given, with the City
Manager responding that figure is not included as it cannot
be touched until after the election, but the estimate is that
$228,000 will be received in the remainder of the year after
taking into consideration the $50,000.
Council Member MacNeilage pointed out the difference in the
building permits is quite a bit, and asked if the City
expected to have that much difference in the building
permits.
The City Manager indicated the City has already received
$10,000 plus from a mini - warehouse on 6th Street, and two
churches with approximately $4,000, and there are fifty homes
available with prepaid sewer permits, which would give the
City $58,000, and the miscellaneous permits will be much
higher than that (roofings, renovations, etc).
Council Member Leja said it appeared that since the country
is still in a recession the City should be a little bit more
conservative about the general fund revenue projections, and
base the budget on a more conservative estimate more closely
related to what the ending revenue balance was this past
year, and then have a budget review if the economy appears to
be turning around, and asked if that would be possible, as
the economy didn't show any indication of turning around very
soon. The City Manager indicated this would be possible.
Council Member McLaughlin asked for clarification that the
sales and use tax is the sales tax, etc., which the City
Manager confirmed is the l% the City receives when anything
is purchased in the City that has sales tax on it, pointing
out there was the loss of K -Mart for about eight months, but
we now have Builder's Emporium. What he did was take last
year's actual receipts and based that on an increase of
$80,000, with most of that being Builder's Emporium's
estimate. Mr. McLaughlin then asked when Yates left, with
the City Manager indicating that was two years ago, however,
that was not a sales tax item. Mr. McLaughlin agreed but
pointed out there was a loss on the utility tax when they
left, with the City Manager agreeing that was a major loss of
$36,000 from electrical alone two years ago.
Responding to a question from Mayor Connors, the City Manager
advised the Yates utility tax was not included in the
projections for 90 -91.
Council Member MacNeilage asked for confirmation that a
newspaper account of $800,000 in investments being cashed in
was correct. The City Manager explained that the City does
not keep a large amount of money in its checking account, but
rather estimates the amount needed to pay bills, and the rest
Page 3
Beaumont City Council
Special Meeting
October 28, 1991
of the money is placed in Certificates of Deposit, which
mature at certain times, the Local Agency Investment Fund,
which is the State pool and draws higher interest due to
being invested with the State and other agencies,
and the Denman Company also places City money in various
investments. To pay bills, if the bills are larger than the
income, it is necessary to cash them in. For instance, this
is the lean time of the year until the property tax comes in
December, with 50% or more of that coming in a lump sum, and
the remainder coming in May, so some of the larger funds
don't come in during the first quarter of the fiscal year.
Mr. Bounds continued that he didn't know how many Mr. Wong
has cashed in, but the City will always be cashing or moving
money as often as money is received, or as the City needs the
money to pay larger bills, or whatever the case might be.
Council Member MacNeilage then wanted to know if the City had
other nest eggs to fall back on, with Mr. Wong responding the
City only has the three vehicles that he uses, which are all
totally safe with no chance of losing any dollars. He then
cited certain "horror stories" of other cities such as San
Jose, Montebello, etc., that invested in junk bonds and other
vehicles that yield very high, but the risk is higher than
the yield. The Certificates of Deposit are in institutions
in amounts of $99,000 so even when interest is accrued it
falls below the FDIC $100,000 insurance coverage, and are
safe at all times. The broker who is used by the City
monitors the institutions these CDs are placed with and no
CDs are placed in any institution that is about to fold, and
the broker guarantees this for the City. Denman and Company
invests strictly in U. S. Treasuries, which is one of the
safest vehicles available. The Local Agency Investment Fund
is the State pool which has previously been described, and is
monitored by the State and the yield, generally, is higher
than what the market rate would bear.
He went on to say that so far as cashing in any CDs, one of
the challenges of his job is to try to guess in the strategic
planning here, if the City, as an example, had $100,000
sitting in the bank, and it is not being used, it would be
foolish just to have it sit there. So it is invested in a
CD, or moved into the Local Agency, or given to Denman, one
of those three spots, for two months, three months, six
months, a year, some length of time, with a maturity date
picked in which the City may need the money for covering
either payroll or major expenditures. He strategically plans
these out so they are not all due at the same time, and the
length is varied, so at any given time, any given month, when
a maturity comes, he looks at the current status - does the
City need those dollars or not - if the City needs them, they
are taken back, or "cash them in" if they want to use that
term. If it is not needed that given week or two weeks, or
until the next maturity date, they are reinvested. This,
basically, is the process that is followed. It is not easy,
and the game he is playing is that the Local Agency Fund rate
competes very highly with the CD market, so whichever area
has the higher rate is where most of the money goes. That is
the strategic area that he plays with. For example, if the
rates right now - if they have looked at the reports which
have been given to them - the CD rates that we have on the
books today are in the 8% range, and he does not believe
anyone could find an 8/10 interest rate for a CD today. But
these were done a year ago when the rate was at 80.
Council Member MacNeilage asked if $800,000 was invested a
year ago, with Mr. Wong replying that a year ago he would
estimate the City had close to $5,000,000 invested in the
three different vehicles. In January of 1991 a few were
cashed in, and in June of 91, there is $3,400,000 invested.
Page 4
aumont City Council
Special Meeting
October 28, 1991
Mr. Wong then continued that as property tax comes in and a
big sales tax check comes in, and the City does not need it,
these will be reinvested. The dollar amount of investments
will fluctuate month to month.
Mrs. Leja asked if, in Mr. Wong's past experience, have our
investments declined at that rate from $5,000,000 to
$3,400,000, with Mr. Wong responding that it had not,
primarily for two reasons. One, the interest rate is not as
competitive, and the expenditures for 90 -91 far exceeded the
revenues, so there were many which were not rolled over.
The City Manager asked wasn't the $1.6 million used to
purchase the sewer property part of that $5,000,000, with Mr.
Wong stating that possibly was true, whenever that was done.
A large expenditure like that would reduce the total
investments.
Mrs. Leja wanted to know if the $1.6 million for the
wastewater treatment plant was for the location and was this
included in the City's general fund, with the City Manager
confirming that was the purchase of the land itself, and that
was not part of the general fund, in fact the Council
authorized the borrowing of excess money in the sewer
connection fee fund to buy the land, because it appeared by
information received from the appraiser the land was going to
go up, and when the bonds are sold, the developers,
landowners, etc., who are putting their property up as
collateral, and will be paying for those bonds, will pay that
fund back with interest. The City will not pay for that
land, or lose the $1.6 million. That will be paid back
through the bond program.
Council Member Leja said that was assuming the City can go to
bond, with the City Manager stating the property could be
sold if necessary, and answering another question from Mrs.
Leja regarding the current appraised value of the property,
said the property has not been reappraised, but at that time
it was approximately $1.8 million, so it was recommended a
cash offer of $1.6 million be made, and the owners accepted
it. There has been land around it sold for development,
which was not the case at the time it was purchased, and that
will increase the value.
Council Member Leja asked whether or not the restricted funds
are included in the reports received tonight, with
information being given they were not included due to
insufficient time to produce those reports, and answering a
specific question from Mrs. Leja it was indicated that as of
September, 1991, there was $1,707,000 in the sewer connection
fee fund.
Discussion was directed to the preliminary draft budget, with
questions being asked by the Council concerning specific
items contained within that draft.
One of the topics discussed concerned the fees paid to
consultants for the wastewater treatment plant and
the water department with the City Manager advising the funds
for payment of the consultants are being borrowed from the
sewer connection fee, and will be paid back as well, as he
had previously informed the Council when the water litigation
started. He went on to remind the Council that the
developers provided $1.6 million to design the sewer
treatment plant, but it did not include water litigation and
the water department. The developers understand what is
taking place, and they understand they have to pay that. It
will all be a part of the bond program, and qualified for
that bond program. The bonds will pay back all City money
used, plus all interest, based on Mr. Wong's computations.
Page 5
aumont City Council
Special Meeting
October 28, 1991
Council Member Leja said she had understood the "Sewer Club"
had provided all the financing, with the City Manager
replying they provided $1.6 million which paid for sewer
treatment plant design, bond counsel, finance, up to, but not
including, water. There was discussion of a printout showing
all payments to consultants and all monies received, which
will be provided to the Council at the earliest possible
date by the Finance Department.
A recess was called at 5:45 p.m., to allow the Council time
to review the documents provided to them, reconvening at 5:55
p.m.
Mr. Matt Russo, 700 Birchwood Drive, Beaumont, addressed the
Council, requesting that he and all other candidates be
provided with copies of all information given to the
Council tonight. He then presented a statement concerning
his allegations of City financial woes, as follows:
With reference to my allegations of City financial woes, I am
alarmed at the response given by members of the City Council
quoted in the Press Enterprise on Saturday, October 26, 1991.
The response that they were not aware that fiscal year 90 -91
ended in a deficit makes one wonder if the Council Members
are truly aware of the trust placed in them to guard the use
of public funds. I can understand how new Council Members
could have failed in knowing questions to ask. It is easy to
place blind trust in City administration, when all seems well
on the surface. However, it is extremely difficult for me to
believe that a full term Council Member and Mayor of the City
would not have knowledge of City financial position, and the
use of reserve funds. To claim ignorance, lack of experience
or total trust in City administration is too easy. You
cannot be excused that easily.
(At this point in Mr. Russo's statem(
requested a ruling from the City Attorney
Russo was addressing the budget, which
agendized. The City Attorney indicated
related to the budget, however, he would
should he appear not to be addressing
continued his statement.)
ant, Mayor Connors
whether or not Mr.
is the only item
it appeared to be
speak to Mr. Russo
the budget as he
Mr. Russo's statement continues as follows:
When you were elected you should have made every effort to
educate yourselves on the basics of City administration and
basic accounting practices. Some of you have half of your
elected terms left. I would suggest you utilize the training
you have just received at the League of California Cities
conference, if you attended any, or call and ask for
information which will help you educate yourselves. The
people of this City expect that of you, and you should do it.
It was comforting to know that at least one Council Member
has been concerned about City finances, and has been
instrumental in calling this meeting. I want, however, to
remind you that my concerns go beyond just a report on fiscal
year 90 -91. It is extremely important that the citizens of
Beaumont have a clear picture of the City's financial
position by October 30th. We are already into the second
quarter of the fiscal year, and I would suspect that we
continue to run in deficit each month. My call for
independent auditing should be considered seriously. In
addition, an accounting of all reserve accounts for the past
year, and the activity of each account, is vitally important.
Additionally, I want to see the year -end line -item financial
report by department, and the year -to -date expendituveo by
department in like fashion. Please do not try to tell me it
Page 6
eaumont City Council
Special Meeting
October 28, 1991
is impossible, because I know it isn't. I believe everyone
needs to know where we stand right now before the election on
November the 5th. Now that is - I would like that this
Council will now use extreme caution and wisdom in reviewing
their lack of legislative leadership, as well as the mistakes
of City administration. You are as much to blame as anyone
for this situation, if not more, if you haven't made City
employees responsible to you. City employees work for you,
not you for them. I would suggest that you weigh the present
situation carefully before hasty decisions are made. At this
point I would suggest the involvement of the Department
Heads, they obviously know the City's business better than
you. They should work together to bring a recommended plan
of action to put things back on track, and you, of course,
will be faced with a final decision, but before this can
happen, you will have to know where you are. Once again, I
expect to see the line -item comparative report published by
the 30th. That will be the needed tool to move forward. If
you are truly interested in requesting or representing the
citizens of Beaumont fairly, and with integrity, you will
respond to this request.
One more comment I would like to make. Is the issue here
really tonight, is this. But if you look at the fiscal year
90 -91 in and of itself, without additional revenues being
used, this City is close to one million dollars in deficit.
That is the basis of this meeting tonight, ladies and
gentlemen, and I hope that you would really answer to that
issue. Don't look at how much funds you took from 90 that
was left over in the budget that you used for 90 -91. Don't
look at what you borrowed to make 90 -91 balance. The issue
is you are a million dollars short. Thank you.
Mayor Connors responded to Mr. Russo's statement, stating: I
think that we covered that previously, and apparently we
weren't listening closely enough. I do feel that we should
have been told sooner that there was a deficit by the City
Manager. That is his mistake. He should not have done that.
He should have told us. And because I would not like to see
that reoccur, I do want to propose that we receive automatic
notice when reserve funds are used, and that is what they
were there for, or when the budget begins to show a deficit,
and that we ask for quarterly reports on what the budget is,
which would have given us a report at the end of June as
well.
The feeling that is being brought forth here is that the
deficit was caused by the staff, and the deficit was not
caused by the staff. The deficit was caused by the recession
and other factors. And, as we have been discussing, and as
we have been illustrating for you. The mistake that was made
was in not keeping us better apprised of the deficit, not in
causing the deficit, and the deficit, if you have been paying
closer attention, is not one million dollars.
The City Manager asked permission to make a statement, as
follows: Apparently some have not looked at last year's
budget. Last year's budget, the 90 -91 budget, was adopted
requiring the use of reserve funds in the amount of $339,836.
That was the adopted plan of action for last year. So when
you take the cover sheet that Mr. Wong has provided for you.
That $837,551. The budget shows that $339,836 of that was to
be used to balance the budget. That is a part of the budget
document, was approved and so forth.
Also, I remind you again. The $200,000 has not been spent.
It is merely in -a fund. It is still general fund money. It
is not lost. It can be used. It can be used tomorrow if you
decide to use it tomorrow. That brings us closer. That is
$539,000.
Page 7
Beaumont City Council
ecial Meeting
October 28, 1991
One of the things that some of us have possibly forgotten.
We had a war here last year. We had police on the street
like we have never had police on the street before. Probably
in the history of this City. We couldn't put those police on
the street without paying them. And we - I carne to the
Council and I said, it appears that we are going to run from
$50 to $60,000 over in overtime alone. And the Council was
made aware of that at the time. That is another - and it
wound up $61,000 more than was originally budgeted.
There are other things that we could pick at that are a part
of these figures that are here tonight.
I accept the fact that I did not discuss closely enough with
you the deficit that we were in. That is my fault, I accept
the responsibility for it. I can't turn the clock back now,
I wish that I could.
The budget, as we mentioned a moment ago, and as Mr. Russo
mentioned, can be gotten to you quickly to get a plan of
attack going very quickly. We can drop everything else we
are doing and we can get it out, and we will do that. I
believe that is what you want done, and that is what we will
do.
Mayor Connors stated that although the City Manager failed to
tell the Council about the deficit in a timely manner, it was
not a surprise to her that there was a deficit when she did
find out about it, because she realized that these things had
occurred during the year, and that we had had a bad year, and
all the cities have had a bad year, and she thought the City
had done exceedingly well in comparison with some of the
other cities. Some of them have done some major things to
themselves and practically gone bankrupt.
Mrs. Leja interrupted Mayor Connors, asking to add something,
as follows:
True, we were all aware that we were in a recession, that we
were in a war and the passage of 2557. But those indicators
right there should have brought about a budget review at a
much earlier date before the ending of the fiscal year, and
that could have possibly have prevented us in resulting in
this particular financial situation. It is something that
cannot be fixed, and that we cannot recover from. I am sure
that we can. However, saying that staff did not cause it,
that is true, but the point is those things were there. They
were obvious, and we did see what was happening in the other
cities, and it was a lack of our judgment, and of the
appropriate staff, for us not to pursue this at a much
earlier date.
Mayor Connors pointed out she felt the date was highly
relevant here.
Council Member Leja commented that the Council did not mean
to be here finger pointing, but they know what the problem
is now, so it is time to solve the problem, and she thinks
the revenue that is projected for the 91 -92 year are too
optimistic at this point. She suggested some cuts be made to
equal out what the real numbers could possibly be. She
agreed with Mayor Connors in requesting a budget review,
thinking it was very appropriate, as she had previously
suggested to the City Manager that the Council should have
quarterly budget reviews, as well as notification of any
reserve funds or CDs having to be liquidated. Also, in
looking at the City code, she found there are no restrictions
regarding how long the City can function without a budget,
and she thinks there should be appropriate proposals made in
that area so there is a more strict guideline to go by in the
Page 8
Beaumont City Council
ecial Meeting
October 28, 1991
future in adopting a budget at a reasonable time period.
She continued that she would like to have Mr. Wong more
involved in the budget hearings, and in briefing the Council
in how to put the numbers together. She felt a workshop
would be appropriate, with Council Member MacNeilage saying
that was very well said.
Mayor Connors requested clarification from Mrs. Leja
regarding how involved she wanted Mr. Wong to be, with Mrs.
Leja stating she wanted him to be allowed to do his job.
Mayor Connors commented he had not been restricted from doing
his job, and called attention to the many errors made by Mr.
Wong in last year's budget.
Mr. Wong requested to make a statement, as follows: We did,
or I did, last fiscal year, make five different revisions on
the budget in a matter of days. Now,a few errors in there I
will admit, but to try to produce a document of that volume,
that quick, with limited staff, is not an easy chore.
Mayor Connors then asked what the Council wished to
accomplish in the time they have left for this meeting, with
Council Member Leja stating she thinks the most important
thing they have done is start the process in finding out
where they are and where they need to go, and she thought it
would be appropriate for the City Attorney to work with the
Finance Director and the City Manager in coming up with
restrictions for the City code and a time, another date, for
the next hearing regarding the budget.
Mayor Connors asked if she wanted changes made in the budget
where the estimated revenues are based upon something, just a
certain percentage of everything or what.
Council Member Leja said just like last year's revenues were
based upon something, they have to look at the real numbers,
and she thought the real numbers are what the City ended the
fiscal year with this year, and those are the real numbers
and the City should start from that point. If it turns out
that the City starts to see the light, and have a little bit
better lookout in the economy and building permits and sales
tax, then the Council can certainly come in at the quarterly
point and make any necessary revisions.
Mayor Connors again asked for clarification that Mrs. Leja
wanted him to use last year's figures as to what actually
came in as the projections for the year ahead, with Council
Member Leja indicating that was correct, as she thought that
was a good starting point.
Council Member Parrott stated he thought a quarterly report
is what the Council needed because the economy is moving so
rapidly and there are so many fiscal problems, and he thought
they needed a quarterly report instead of just a yearly
report, then the Council could be in touch with the
situation.
Mr. Wong asked to defend his department and himself in that
each month - and he reemphasized - each month, each Council
Member receives a report - revenue and expenditures.
Mayor Connors added the report was for the entire year up
until the date of the report.
Mr. Wong continued that each month's activities, as well as a
year -to -date number, is included in this report.
Mayor Connors asked if the Council could have a less complex
report, more black and white and easier to read, so they know
Page 9
Beaum- -t City Council
Speci _ Meeting
October 28, 1991
exactly what is in the general fund, what the deficit might
be, and so forth.
Council Member McLaughlin said, normally, what you set up a
budget for is to give you a guideline regarding where you
can go, and, to him - you never know what is going to take
place - what will happen - whether the economy is going to
rise or it is going to fall - and no matter what figure,
whether last year's figures are used, those could vary
probably as much as what has been estimated in the projected
budget presented to them tonight. It is strictly a
guideline, and they don't have to meet those figures. Just
because the figure that is estimated - and he is sure that
anyone who has ever made up a budget, whether it is a big
budget or a little budget - you have a hard time figuring
out the unknowns - what if you get sick, what if you do this
or that - and that budget is thrown out of kilter, and you
have to adjust to it. And he thinks that is all the Council
is asking is whether these figures are going to be correct,
as they aren't set in stone. They are something which gives
the City a guide as to where they are, and if the revenue is
not corning in then you have to do some changing, but if you
have something happen that causes you to do a lot of - have
extra police, or something like this on line where you have
to pay a lot of overtime - you cannot anticipate that and
put it in the budget.
He continued that all of the Council did vote that $50,000,
because it was needed at that time, but how would they have
known that when the budget was made up - they couldn't have
known that. When they were in San Francisco, they were
having a demonstration here and one there. He wondered what
the City of San Francisco is doing with their police budget,
it has gone completely out of line. He felt the Council was
trying to balance a budget, and he would have to say he
thinks they have done a good job, the City has a good staff,
and he thinks the City of Beaumont is very fortunate in the
fact they have as good a staff as they have. They have done
an excellent job.
He could remember a little over five years ago when this
City was the laughing stock of Riverside County for
bickering and fighting, etc. And this has not been the case
in the last five years. This Council, whether they have
done everything right or not - and he didn't believe anyone
in the room had done everything right - have done a pretty
good job, and kept an even keel_. Certainly, it isn't going
perfect, but you are not going to get five people on the
Council, or anywhere, who are going to do a perfect job, and
instead of picking it apart, try to help the Council. Don't
come in and give them a bad time - you should have known
this - you should have known that - he doesn't like it, and
thinks it is wrong, and is certainly not the right attitude
to get something accomplished in a good manner. Cooperation
with one another, exchanging ideas, etc., is the key to
getting something done. But just corning in and pointing
fingers - and he heard they were not to be pointing fingers
at anyone - but he heard someone point a finger at somebody
here this evening - but to some people that isn't pointing
the finger. Everyone sees differently, and he felt like
this meeting this evening has accomplished quite a lot, and
if they keep this up, it will just be beating the horse to
death. Things will get out of hand and out of control, and
you accomplish nothing. He felt they had accomplished
something tonight, with the request for quarterly reports,
etc. He thinks they should go with that, and that is a plus
for this evening. But if they keep up the negative
attitude, they will lose it.
Council Member MacNeilage stated he thought the City Council
needs to approve a fund appropriation level. Something for
Page 10
RQaumont City Council
acial Meeting
October 28, 1991
a guideline at this time, as without this they don't really
know where they are operating. Also, he asked the City
Attorney if he was able to find anything from his telephone
conversation with him today, regarding the resolution.
The City Attorney reported he had not found anything in
State law that requires a resolution. He also contacted the
auditors, and spoke with Judy Chu, who is the staff person
who conducted the City's audit, and she was not aware of the
issues, and did not want him to keep asking her questions.
It was very clear in the conversation she just didn't know
the answer about any kind of deadlines or requirements.
He went on to say that in his review of State law and his
telephone calls to the League of California Cities,
indicated there are no deadlines - in fact, State law does
not even require the adoption of a budget. It specifically
provides in the sections in the Government Code which deal
with the budget, for an alternative procedure in terms of
the payment of warrants, in terms of filing reports with the
County auditor - an alternative to adopting a budget. A
budget is not required by State law.
Insofar as verifying that the City of Banning was or had
adopted a resolution, he was unable to reach the City
Attorney for Banning.
Mayor Connors asked for clarification of what it is the City
of Banning was doing.
The City Attorney explained he was informed the City of
Banning was adopting a resolution, or at least they did last
year, whenever they did not adopt their budget by some
deadline. The only deadline that he could find was in
53901, which is not a deadline, except that it says a budget
has to be submitted within sixty days of the beginning of
the fiscal year, or certain reports, to the County.
Clarifying again for Mayor Connors, the City Attorney
explained the resolution would extend the deadline, or
indicates that there won't be a budget passed within a
deadline, and there is no deadline that he is aware of.
He pointed out he did not contact the City of Riverside,
since they are a charter city and are governed by their own
charter, and not by the general law of the State of
California. He had asked Mr. Bounds if he would contact the
City Manager of Banning, and he would ask the City Manager
to advise what the result of his telephone call was. But to
sum up his report, everything he looked at today indicates
there is no deadline - there is nothing in the City's
municipal code and nothing in State law which requires any
kind of a deadline. There is nothing requiring the City to
do, and no penalties involved with not having, a budget,
since you don't legally have to have one, although he is not
suggesting the City should not have one.
The City Manager advised he had spoken with Mr. Schweitzer
after receiving the call from the City Attorney, and Mr.
Schweitzer indicated the attorney was with him, and he would
get with him right away regarding our question. The
indication was that if there was anything legal - a legal
requirement, they would leave a message with my office, and
no message was received, which would indicate nothing was
found.
Council Member Leja asked what the restriction was for
filing with the County, with the City Attorney responding
that Section 53901 indicates that a budget, if a budget
exists, is to be filed within sixty days of the beginning of
Page 11
aumont City Council
..recial Meeting
October 28, 1991
the fiscal year with the County Auditor. And that is only
if there is a budget. That is its only purpose, and if
there is not a budget, then you would file a report of
estimated revenues and appropriations.
Mr. Wong confirmed that is the only requirement if you do
not have a budget, and answering a question from Mrs. Leja
as to whether or not we have done that, indicated the only
intent of filing the report is if you intend not to adopt a
budget. You have to do one or the other, but there is no
time frame and no guidelines.
The City Attorney added there is no penalty involved as it
is an informational thing so that it is available to people
in the County at County headquarters.
Council Member MacNeilage pointed out it appeared to say the
budget had to be filed within sixty days from the beginning
of the fiscal year. The City Attorney said that is not what
it says, and proceeded to read the section referred to:
"Section 53901 - Within sixty days after the beginning of
the fiscal year every local agency, including every special
purpose, assessing and taxing district within the County,
shall file with the County Auditor of the County in which it
conducts its principal operations, a copy of its annual
budget. The County Auditor shall hold on file the annual
budget of such special purpose, assessing or taxing district
or local agency for public inspection at all reasonable
hours. If a local agency or special purpose, assessing or
taxing district does not have a formal budget, it shall file
a listing of its anticipated revenues together with its
expenditures and expenses for the fiscal year in progress.
The County Auditor shall hold on file such statement for
public inspection at all reasonable hours."
He then reemphasized there are no penalties, no deadlines,
and is very different than the County deadlines. The County
Government Code spells out the specific deadlines for the
County and dates of the year when they have to complete
their budget, and that is because their budget is tied in
with the general taxing authority that they have, which the
City does not have. And that is the primary reason for it
because it ties in with turning around and doing the
assessments and issuing the taxes. This is since
Proposition 13 as it used to be the other way around - they
used to figure out the budget and then assess the taxes in
order to pay for the budget.
He called attention to the fact there are only three
references to the budget in the Government Code, and those
have to do with the power to audit warrants and checks and
the responsibility of the City Council to do so, and talks
about what the budget has to have, but again states if the
legislative body adopts an annual budget the budget document
shall include certain things. There is definitely no
deadline.
Council Member MacNeilage said his only comment is that the
only thing the City is working off of right now is off of
the warrants, and he thought it would be helpful to look
into the possibility of a workshop for the Council,to get
involved in the budget process a little closer.
The City Attorney pointed out that is why the Council is
given a line item warrant list each time they meet, which
lists every specific check issued and what is about to be
paid, with the exception of payroll.
The Council then discussed when a workshop should be
Page 12
aumont City Council
Special Meeting
October 28, 1991
scheduled, as had previously been suggested. During the
discussion it was determined two of the Council Members
would not be available to participate in a workshop prior to
the election, as a result a majority of the Council agreed
the workshop will be scheduled when all Council Members will
be able to attend, with two Council Members opposing.
There was further discussion concerning whether or not the
workshop will be noticed as a study session or a special
meeting, with the City Attorney advising it should be
noticed as a special meeting, with the exact agenda of items
to be discussed or presented included.
There being no further business, and with the time
approaching for the regular meeting of the Council to begin,
the meeting was adjourned at 6:42 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
4ze
City Clerk
Page 13
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
SEPTEMBER 23, 1991
The Beaumont City Council met in a regular meeting on Monday,
September 23, 1991, at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, with
Mayor Connors presiding.
On roll call the following Council Members were present: Leja,
McLaughlin, MacNeilage, Parrott and Mayor Connors.
The invocation was given by Mayor Connors, who then led the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
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. Request from Mr. Millage to Discuss Sidewalk Conditions in the
City.
It was determined that Mr. Millage was not present, with the City
Manager advising that Mr. Millage had been given the date in
writing so that he would have it at home. Mayor Connors stated
the Council has discussed the sidewalk conditions, so if Mr.
Millage should come back to the City Manager, he should make a
new request to be heard, and the Council will consider his
request at that time.
5. Request from Mr. Ed Bingham, Beaumont Garden Center, to Lease
City Property.
The City Manager presented his report, a copy of which is a
matter of record in the Clerk's file. His recommendation was to
grant Mr. Bingham's request on a year to year basis, at $10.00
per acre, with the main reason being Mr. Bingham's use will cause
the property to be kept clean of weeds and debris, which is a
difficult task for the City.
Council Member MacNeilage asked if Mr. Bingham was planning to
plant the trees and shrubs in the ground or in containers, with
Mr. Bingham indicating everything would be in containers above
the ground.
Mayor Connors said Mr. MacNeilage was questioning the same issue
she was, in that growing trees in the ground for one year didn't
seem to go together. She then asked for clarification regarding
the City preparing plans for use of the property, which
apparently would not be in the near future, with the City Manager
confirming the City is not preparing plans for use of the
property at the present time. He advised further it is not a
part of the sewer plant property, however, it will possibly be
included in some of the later phases.
There were no other questions or comments from the Council.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member Parrott,
to authorize staff to prepare lease documents for the property
for one year at $10.00 per acre.
Page 1
Beaumont City Council
September 23, 1991
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
6. Request from Mrs. R. R. Hoff for Discussion Concerning Removal of
Graffiti in the City.
The City Manager reported he had expected Mrs. Hoff to be present
tonight, as he had spoken with her by telephone and that was his
understanding at that time. He went on to point out that in her
letter to the Council she indicated that the purchase of a
sandblaster as they have in Banning would eliminate the ugliness
swiftly. He checked with the City Manager in Banning and it was
indicated they are not using a sandblaster, and this information
was relayed to Mrs. Hoff. The City has tried sandblasting in the
past and found that it was not an especially good way to deal
with graffiti. The City-of Banning is using high pressure water,
which the City of Beaumont has also tried, and this method leaves
some coloring, etc.
He again talked with Mr. Schweitzer this morning, and he
indicated that most graffiti removal is being done by painting
out, as most all cities are doing, including Beaumont.
He continued that his feeling is, in talking with her, (and he
had hoped Mrs. Hoff would be here to speak), that she is asking
the City to take care of all removal of graffiti, including
private property, as that was what she felt the City of Banning
is doing. What the City of Banning actually does is give a seven
day notice to remove graffiti from private property, and if it is
not done, the City moves in and removes it, and puts it on the
tax roll. Mrs. Hoff manages an apartment complex in the City,
and indicated it was expensive to remove graffiti, etc., which of
course is common knowledge.
The City takes care of graffiti on public property, but have not
gone to the seven day notice procedure so far, as property owners
have been very cooperative in assisting in the removal of
graffiti.
He went on to emphasize the situation is not going to stop, in
fact is getting worse as time goes on. One of the suggestions he
would like to mention, which is something he and Council Member
MacNeilage have discussed, was the possibility of offering a
reward for prosecution of people involved in graffiti. That
might be an incentive to bring people forward to say they are
aware of who is doing part of it, and making a conviction easier.
At the present time, the City is notified after the graffiti is
in place, and not while it is being put up. On the few calls
that are received at night, when a police car starts moving down
the street, if you are putting graffiti on, you stop, so the
police are unable to get close to someone while they are in the
act of putting it on.
He and the Chief of Police have discussed this problem at length
and are at a loss how best to solve the problem. It is being
done at strange hours, a lot of it early in the morning.
Although some of it is very artistic, taking some time to do,
they have been unable to catch anyone in the act.
He and the police department are willing to do anything the
Council would like to suggest, however, he does not see how the
City's staff can assume responsibility for the removal of all
graffiti in the City on all properties, private and public. If
this were required, that is all certain members of the staff
would ever do. One of the biggest problems are the underpasses
under I -10, necessitating the removal from one whole wall at a
time.
Page 2
Beaumont City Council
September 23, 1991
In one instance, a gentleman on Jon Gilbert asked the City to
provide the paint to him and he would keep the graffiti painted
out on the fence that runs along Cougar Way. This has worked
very well, with the gentleman removing the graffiti very quickly,
and the City keeping him supplied with the paint.
Council Member MacNeilage asked if we knew the amount of reward
offered by the City of Banning, and whether they had ever paid
one, with the City Manager indicating he did not know the
amount, but did not think they had paid one.
Mr. MacNeilage then stated he thought the City should establish
some type of graffiti removal program, and wondered if it could
be done under the nuisance abatement ordinance already in
existence. He did feel other cities should be contacted to see
what type of programs they have.
The City Manager advised the City would need to establish
something which moves faster than the normal nuisance abatement.
Mr. MacNeilage also mentioned he thought volunteers would be very
helpful, and he, for one, would volunteer his time, perhaps one
Saturday a month.
Council Member Leja asked if the City had ever looked at the
organization known as "We Tip" as there is a graffiti program
included in that, and she thought Banning was part of that. She
emphasized she did not know if it actually works, or how costly
it is, but she did know they are available to come in and give
presentations on what works and what doesn't, and what their
program involves.
Another suggestion from Council Member Leja, realizing the City
cannot have police officers out there for everything that goes
on, would be getting the neighborhood watch program started.
She did point out she and her neighbors put up motion sensor
lights at their back fence, and have not had many problems with
graffiti since those were installed.
Council Member Parrott wanted to know if the police have the
ability to read the messages left by the graffiti, with the City
Manager stating they could read some of them, however, not all of
them are gang related.
Council Member Parrott then stated he thought the City should
contact We Tip.
Council Member McLaughlin agreed it is a problem, with there
apparently not being a good solution to it other than the
possibility of it being controlled.
He then related a personal experience with graffiti on a
neighbor's property, and he assisted her by painting it out,
after he had the police take a look at it. Although the officer
recognized the names included in the graffiti, there is nothing
the police can do unless they are caught in the act. He pointed
out that even with the neighborhood watch program, when someone
might call, unless the police can get there before the culprits
leave, there is nothing that can be done.
From the graffiti he has seen, you will see NSB and SSB, which
mean north side Beaumont and south side Beaumont, which means
there are two different gangs who are doing this, but, again,
even though the police know most of these people, unless they are
caught in the act there is not much they can do, especially in
light of the existing laws.
It is his understanding that one of the best solutions is to
paint them out as quickly as possible thus nullifying the purpose
of the message.
Page 3
Beaumont City Council
September 23, 1991
He also suggested there might be some means of controlling it
through the businesses who sell the spray paint.
Discussion then centered around the fact it is illegal to sell
spray paint to minors, and there is a proposed law to ban spray
paints due to the fluorocarbons, however, it was pointed out that
has been proposed for at least five years and has still not taken
place. Mayor Connors also mentioned it is illegal to sell
alcohol to minors, but they still get hold of it.
Mr. Matt Russo, 700 Birchwood Drive, Beaumont, addressed the
Council, stating that his operation is located in the City of
Colton, and that City has a very aggressive graffiti abatement
program.
At one time his business was hit at least twice a month, or more,
in their particular location. Colton now has a graffiti hotline,
and if you call that hotline, the City funds the project, coming
out and removing it within twenty -four hours. As a result, the
whole graffiti problem in Colton has diminished, because part of
the problem with graffiti is when one group makes their signs,
the other one has to come and go over it, and the real key is to
quickly remove it from wherever it is at.
He did say he did not know what it was costing the City of
Colton, but they might want to check with Colton because it seems
to work, and they are doing an excellent job. He pointed out
that in his particular case, his business wanted to help fund the
removal, so he provided the paint, but the City provided the
labor and equipment. And he did not know what they were using,
but they do it very quickly.
Mayor Connors stated that in everything she has read it is
emphasized that speed is the most important part of the removal,
and painting it out the most efficient way of doing it usually.
She also said the texture of the wall made a difference, but that
would be in the same category as the sidewalks, changing all of
the walls might be a problem.
Mayor Connors went on to point out that We Tip might have a very
high fee, although she didn't know what the dues are, but it
could be checked out, as well as whether or not their program
works.
We Tip was discussed in general, including the fact it was
thought their program included some type of reward.
Council Member Leja called attention to the fact that removal of
graffiti was one of the topics of discussion scheduled at the
League of California Cities conference, and someone should attend
that discussion, with Mayor Connors bringing up that at one time
the Chamber of Commerce was going to keep a graffiti program
going, and they might also be interested in joining with the City
in pursuing a program.
Direction was given to staff to check with other cities regarding
their programs, and in particular the City of Colton, to find out
more about their hotline, its cost and how effective it is, with
the first report to be returned to the Council at the next
Council meeting.
7. RESOLUTION NO. 1991 -42 - Declaring "Red Ribbon Week" October 21-
October 25, 1991, in the City of Beaumont.
Mayor Connors opened discussion on this resolution by questioning
the dates shown, as National Red Ribbon Week is October 19
through the 27th. The deputy city clerk advised the dates shown
in the resolution were the dates provided by the school district.
Mrs. Connors advised that when she talked with John Wood he also
gave her a shorter time, and she had informed him at that time
the dates were wrong, but apparently they were not changed,
however, she felt the dates on the City's resolution should be
Page 4
E:n
9M
Beaumont City Council
September 23, 1991
changed to match the dates established for National Red Ribbon
Week.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member
MacNeilage, to adopt Resolution No. 1991 -42, declaring Red Ribbon
Week October 19 through October 27, 1991, in the City of
Beaumont.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Request from Beaumont Unified School District for Monetary
Contribution for Red Ribbon Week Activities.
The City Manager presented his report, a copy of which is a
matter of record in the Clerk's file. Included in that report
was a request for consideration of the purchase of additional
ribbons for City employees and their families, as well as an
additional supply for anyone who might come to the City
requesting a ribbon.
Mayor Connors said from past experience she felt the City would
need approximately 1,000 additional ribbons, and she had
confirmed with Custom Trophy that the price of 120 per ribbon
would still apply to the City as well as the school district.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
MacNeilage, to approve the contribution of $235.00 to the
Beaumont Unified School District for red ribbons, and further
authorize the purchase of 1,000 red ribbons for the City's use,
totaling $355.00 for the red ribbon campaign.
AYES: Council Member Leja,
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
Consideration of the Need for a Minimum Lot Width Requirement of
45 feet for Cul De Sac and "Knuckle" Residential Lots.
Stephen Koules, Director
report, a copy of which
file, and adding additio
for a minimum lot width
clarify the situation
residential lots.
of Community Development, presented his
is a matter of record in the Clerk's
nal details further explaining the need
requirement, by utilizing a diagram to
involving cul de sacs and knuckle
Council Member Parrott asked if consideration had been given to
giving sufficient room for Dial -A -Ride buses to negotiate these
cul de sacs, with Mr. Koules replying he believed that was the
case, because when the cul de sac is designed they should take
into account the circulation.
The City Manager advised that the bulb of a cul de sac is
designed for a truck to turn around in, but it does not deal with
the front property line of lots.
Council Member McLaughlin said he had no questions, but felt
staff was working on it, and they should continue to do so and
bring something back to the Council after they have obtained
information from the other sources.
Council Member MacNeilage asked for clarification that the 45
foot which has been recommended is the property line, with Mr.
Koules confirming it is the property line, not the curb line,
which is being proposed.
Page 5
Beaumont City Council
September 23, 1991
The City Manager added that at 35 feet, with a 16 foot drive, and
with many of them a little bit more on their side of the driveway
to the front yard, you would be dealing with 19 feet or less if
you use 35, whereas 45 feet would give you 29 feet.
Council Member MacNeilage said in the subdivision where he lives
there is not enough room for cars, and he didn't feel 45 feet was
wide enough.
Mayor Connors stated she didn't see why the City couldn't require
a 50 foot width, even though the City's minimum square footage is
6,000 sq.ft. at the moment, and she didn't think that would be a
major hardship for the builder.
Council Member MacNeilage commented that when you are discussing
pie shaped lots, they are usually well oversized lots, so if the
radius on the circle is made larger, you are not taking away a
whole lot from the lots, you are still going to have oversized
lots, so 50 or 60 feet wouldn't make any difference.
Mayor Connors responded that she was not thinking of the size of
the lot changes, but rather of the design of the street, and how
the street will look, and that wider lots are more attractive
than narrower lots at the front.
Council Member McLaughlin asked if the bulb were opened up, what
are they going to do with the street that is leading into it,
will that have to be widened also, with a jog into the bulb, or
would it be designed so that it comes in a nice, uniform manner.
Mr. Koules replied that he thought the bulb could be opened up,
but he thought you would get the same size bulb, just larger
lots, and a developer will say if you have too wide a frontage,
of necessity it would create a lot larger than they may want to
create in a subdivision. In other words, if they have wide lots,
they will, of necessity, open up the bulb.
The City Manager said there is a standard for a cul de sac
street, and that is not going to change. What will happen is the
possibility of losing a lot according to the way it is designed,
and that is where engineers come in to determine how do they get
the most lots on their property, and one method is to stay away
from cul de sacs.
Council Member MacNeilage asked if that is a zoning design or a
guideline, with the City Manager stating that is a subdivision
guideline. You cannot change the width or radius of the bulb at
all.
Council Member Leja pointed out this is usually decided in the
specific plan process, so it could still be changed in a specific
plan if the City allowed them to do so, asking why the City could
not go higher than 50 feet.
Mr. Koules suggested that 50 feet would provide one full parking
space in front of each property running parallel to the property
line, with Council Member Leja asking why not 55 feet. Mr.
Koules responded that he thought 50 feet might be practical in
designing a lot.
Mr. Bounds said, speaking as a cul de sac property owner, you
cannot put a car in front of his house, and when he realized that
was going to happen he widened his driveway. If there is a party
at his house, they have to stack the cars in the driveway,
because he cannot put them on the street. He would love to have
a place for one car on his street in front of his property, and
felt that 55 feet would be ideal - again speaking as a cul de sac
property owner.
Council Member Leja pointed out that cul de sacs are saleable, as
many people ask for a cul de sac lot, and she didn't want to see
the City discourage cul de sacs.
Page 6
oeaumont City Council
September 23, 1991
The City Manager called attention to the fact the buyer still
pays f or the cul de sac lot, and they are usually at a premium
because of the large backyard, so the property owner deserves to
have one parking space in front of their house.
Council Member Leja agreed, as when she and her husband were
looking at lots they looked for the biggest lot, and she would
prefer to be able to park a car in front of her house, because
the driveways and the two car garages are only big enough for one
car.
The City Attorney brought up the fact, that if they took the
diagram given to them, using 55 foot, it would eliminate one lot,
with Council Member MacNeilage saying if you extended the
perimeters of the circle in the cul de sac, you would come up
with your 55 foot. The City Attorney asked if that was
permissible, with the City Manager answering that you can't
enlarge the street portion of the cul de sac, but what has been
drawn on Exhibit "A" is what is called the "one sided bulb ", and
that is there is a provision for that, and it is not the same as
a full bulb.
The City Manager went on to say they can select the proper street
and pick up the footage they are looking for. He did point out
the problem with Exhibit "A" is you have a property line on the
north, a creek that runs through the property, and you are trying
to develop too many things at once, and so the whole purpose of
this particular subdivision was - how do I get the maximum number
of lots on it.
He thought there are times when the City needs to look a little
bit more at the social aspect of living in a community, rather
than just can they get one more lot out.
Council
Member Leja
said she did not think 45 feet is
large
enough,
personally,
but she is not certain what the lot
size
would be
if it were
raised to 50 and 55 feet, but 55 feet
would
be her
preference,
unless she can be shown something
else.
The City Manager called attention to Exhibit 112 ", showing two
elbow streets, which is another typical way of dividing land -
and what has been done. If they were to look at Lot 41 and Lot
47, you get very large lots, but they get up into corners where
they are not even usable, so it is all in the way the lots are
cut. They talk about their big corner lots, but don't tell
anyone about not being able to park in them, for instance, you
have a huge backyard which you can't get a vehicle back in to
park, such as a boat or RV, so they try to put all those out in
the street. He then again stated he thought 55 foot was not too
much to ask.
Mayor Connors said she would take it as wide as she could get it,
because it eliminates lots in the process.
Council Member Leja stated when you also have cars parked on the
street, and people are going into a cul de sac to turn, that
would eliminate a lot of the space allowed to turn in - but then
stated this change would not change the size of the cul de sac.
The City Manager clarified that the cul de sac is designed to
have cars against the curb with a turning radius allowing for a
six wheeler truck, fire trucks, etc. What does happen in cul de
sacs, however, is people get mad and park nose in, which creates
a problem.
Mr. Koules added that 50 feet would allow a full car length, and
55 foot would obviously allow more, with the City Manager stating
that if 55 were the lot line, making 45 the curb line, with a
sixteen foot driveway, you would get 29 feet - keeping in mind
there is also a mailbox, a pad mount and a cable box, and a water
meter.
Page 7
Beaumont City Council
September 23, 1991
Mayor Connors asked if the 45 foot that the Planning Commission
is supporting, was that something they had discussed where
they suggested they would want it longer, with Mr. Koules
replying he thought they were looking at 45 as a minimum. He
went on that they were not pleased with the 40 that the
subdivider had submitted, and since there was nothing in the
ordinance, they were cornered into that position, and they
recommended 45 - although in this particular subdivision the
Planning Commission recommended 42 foot, but 45 is what they are
looking at so far as an absolute minimum.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
MacNeilage, to direct staff to prepare an ordinance with a
minimum lot width requirement of 55 feet for cul de sacs and
knuckle residential lots, for Council consideration.
Following the motion, Council Member Leja asked if they actually
needed a vote on this at this time. Discussion followed,
resulting in Council Member McLaughlin withdrawing his motion,
and Council Member MacNeilage withdrawing his second.
MOTION WITHDRAWN.
Staff was directed to prepare an ordinance for consideration with
a minimum lot width requirement of 55 feet for cul de sacs and
knuckle residential lots.
10. First Report from Resource Committee.
Council Member Leja advised that Council Member McLaughlin and
she have not had an opportunity to meet, but they have requested
information from several cities, as well as information from the
League of California Cities, and she has been finding that many
cities have resource committees that are only comprised of staff
assisting citizens, and other cities who also have Council
Members participating. She also noted that something similar to
this would be addressed at the League of California Cities
conference. She then stated what she would like to do, since so
many cities do so many different things with this, is that she
and Mr. McLaughlin would attend those discussions at the League
conference this year, and then submit more than one proposal.
Mayor Connors clarified that she understood other cities had been
contacted, with Council Member Leja confirming this is the case,
adding that if any of the Council Members are familiar with any
cities that have something special that they would like for the
committee to look at, they would be glad to request information
from them as well. She has found that many of the cities are
having to do a lot of research to find out how they came about
with their citizen's advisory boards, as well as their ad hoc
committees and Council participation.
As a result, she is suggesting they should not pick the first
thing that is put in front of them, but to present more than one
proposal to the Council, also giving she and Mr. McLaughlin time
to attend the seminars at the League conference, as well as ask
other cities throughout the State.
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 separately.
a. Approval of Minutes of Special Council Meeting of July 27,
1991 and Regular Council Meeting of August 26, 1991.
b. Acceptance of Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting
of August 20, 1991.
Page 8
Beaumont City Council
September 23, 1991
C. Approval of Warrants as Audited per Warrant List of September
23, 1991, in the amount of $350,563.71; and Payrolls of
August 15, 1991, August 29, 1991 and September 12, 1991, in
the amounts of $73,391.52, $74,840.90 and $70,205.47
respectively, and Special Payrolls of September 13, 1991 and
September 20, 1991, in the amounts of $190.13 and $3,332.67.
d. Consideration of Award of Bid for Roofing Work at Stewart
Park Pavilion and Rest Rooms to Sierra Construction Systems,
in the amount of $7,600.00.
f. Accepting Resignation of Ray Tiber from Senior Citizens
Advisory Committee, and Authorizing Posting of Notice
Requesting Applications to Fill Two Vacancies on the Senior
Citizens Advisory Committee.
g. RESOLUTION NO. 1991 -43 - Approving Final Parcel Map 26229 and
Authorizing Recordation Thereof with Riverside County
Recorder. (Allied Group /Saab - 14th and Beaumont Avenue).
h. Report of Planning Commission Action at Regular Meeting of
September 17, 1991.
Mayor Connors advised a request had been received from Mr. Matt
Russo to remove Item No. 11.e from the consent calendar for
discussion.
She then stated that in the minutes of July 27, 1991, on pages 23
and 25, it refers to the "day" council, and she thinks that
should be "date" council, which stands for drug, alcohol and
tobacco education. The minutes will be corrected as noted.
Motion by Council Member MacNeilage, second by Council Member
McLaughlin, to adopt the consent calendar, with the exception of
Item No. ll.e, and with the corrections to the minutes of July
27, 1991 as noted.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
11. e. Consideration of Award of Bid for Two Test Points and One
Test Well to Howard Pump, Inc., in the amount of $165,666.15.
Mr. Matt Russo, 700 Birchwood Drive, Beaumont, addressed the
Council, stating that he was sure this item has been discussed,
but he has apparently missed it, and needed clarification. He
then asked - in water issues, where there is litigation or
pending litigation, in the event of adjudication, it was his
recollection there is a possibility a water master would be
appointed by the Court, and wanted to know how this would affect
what the City is trying to accomplish in developing its water
department.
The City Manager answered Mr. Russo's
the litigation filed by the Beaumont -1
is on the Beaumont Basin. The test
considered are in the South Beaumont
same basin at all. He continued
adjudication as he did not believe
Water District even has a well in the
question to the effect that
'herry Valley Water District
points and test well being
Basin, and are not in the
there is no question of
the Beaumont - Cherry Valley
South Basin.
Mr. Russo then asked if there were any other companies with wells
in the South Basin, with Mr. Bounds replying there are some
privately owned wells, but no established water companies.
Mr. Russo continued with the question - in the event the Pass
Water Agency were to become embroiled in any of this, would that
cause a situation where they would have jurisdiction over
distribution of water.
Page 9
Beaumont City Council
September 23, 1991
The City Manager answered that at the present time their
jurisdiction is over water to be imported from the State
Water Project, but if at a later time they should become
a water master for the area, they would need to be water master
over South Beaumont basin, as there are several basins in this
particular area. He continued that at this point he has heard
nothing from the Pass Water Agency indicating that is their
desire, but it could be in the future. Also, there could be a
water master brought into the area, but at the present time the
biggest argument is all in Beaumont basin, and no discussion of
anything else. That is one of the reasons the City is looking at
water in another basin rather than Beaumont Basin.
Mr. Russo had no other questions.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
MacNeilage, to award the contract for drilling two test points
and one test well to Howard Pump, Inc., in the amount of
$165,666.15.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
12. Consideration of Cancellation or Rescheduling of Regular Council
Meeting of October 14, 1991 Due To City Council Attendance at
League of California Cities Annual Conference.
Mayor Connors asked if there were matters pending for Council
consideration on this date, with the City Manager indicating
there were none to his knowledge at this time.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Parrott, to cancel the regular Council Meeting of October 14,
1991 due to City Council attendance at the League of California
Cities Annual Conference, with a special meeting to be called if
there is a need.
AYES: Council Member Leja,
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
13. Recess to Closed Session:
MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
a. 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 Water
District vs City of Beaumont, et al., Case No. 211456,
Riverside Superior Court.
b. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957, to Consider Public
Employee Personnel Matters.
The meeting was recessed to closed session at 8:05 P.M.,
reconvening to regular session at 9:53 P.M.
Let the record show direction was given to the attorney, and no
action was taken in closed session.
Date set for next regular Council Meeting, Monday, October 28,
1991, at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers.
There being no further business to come before the Council, the
meeting was adjourned at 9:54 P.M.
Respec fully submitted,
Ci Clerk
Page 10
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
AUGUST 26, 1991
The Beaumont City Council met in a regular meeting on Monday, August
26, 1991, at 7:02 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor
Connors presiding.
On roll call the following Council Members were present: Leja,
McLaughlin, Parrott and Mayor Connors. Let the record show Council
Member MacNeilage was excused.
The invocation was given by City Manager Bounds, who then led the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
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 that Agenda Item No. 4 be withdrawn
from the agenda as it is going back to the Planning Commission
by agreement with the attorney for the applicant.
There were no other adjustments to the agenda.
3. ORAL COMMUNICATION:
There was no one requesting to speak during oral communication.
4. Consideration of Approval, Modification or Rejection of Tentative
Tract Map 25272 (90- TM -1), Mitigated Negative Declaration 91 -MND-
1, and Mitigation Monitoring Program 91- MMP -4. Applicant:
Charles Ware. Location: Northside of Cougar Way, approximately
2,000 feet east of its intersection with Beaumont Avenue. A
proposed subdivision of 37.65 acres into 159 single family lots.
Receive Staff Report.
a. Consideration of Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration
91- MND -1.
b. Consideration of Approval, Modification or Rejection of
Tentative Tract Map 25272 (90- TM -1).
C. Consideration of Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring Program
91- MMP -4.
This item was withdrawn from the agenda under adjustments to
the agenda.
5. Consideration of Applications Received for Appointment to Senior
Citizens Advisory Committee.
The City Manager presented his report, a copy of which is a
matter of record in the Clerk's file. Only four applications
were received for the five vacancies, and it was the City
Manager's recommendation these four be appointed to join the two
existing members, until such time as applications are received
for the fifth vacancy.
He noted for the record that of the four applications received,
none of the applicants have served less than an average of 28
hours per month during the last six months, so these four
applicants have performed a tremendous amount of volunteer work.
Page 1
6.
7.
Beaumont City Council
August 26, 1991
There were no comments or questions from the Council.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Parrott, to appoint Jean Halbeisen for a term expiring January
31, 1992, and Aline Albazan, Nell Welch and Margie Bouvier for
terms expiring January 31, 1993.
AYES: Council Member Leja, McLaughlin, Parrott and Mayor
Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member MacNeilage.
Appointment of Two Representatives to Serve on the San Gorgonio
Pass Water Resources Council.
Mayor Connors opened this agenda item with the statement she
would be willing to serve on all three committees for which the
Council will be considering appointments.
A report was received from the City Manager, a copy of which is a
matter of record in the Clerk's file.
There were no questions or comments from the Council.
Motion by Council
Leja, to appoint
Parrott to serve
Council.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Council
Connors.
None.
None.
Council
Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Mayor Ann Connors and Council Member Frank
on the San Gorgonio Pass Water Resources
Member Leja, McLaughlin, Parrott and Mayor
Member MacNeilage.
Appointment of Two Council Members to Serve on the San Gorgonio
Development Group (SGDG).
Mayor Connors pointed out that in the Council's previous
discussion concerning this group, they talked about asking for
by -laws and a budget, which have not been received, and she
wondered if the Council wanted to wait until they are received,
or if they wished to go ahead with consideration of these
appointments. She continued that the Council did approve of the
concept, but she had the impression that if the Council sends
members to this group, they would be agreeing to the funding, and
asked if this was the feeling of the balance of the Council.
Council Member Leja said it was her understanding that they were
not going to ask for funding until the group itself had raised
their $50,000, and she didn't see where the funding would be
approved by just sending two members there.
Mayor Connors asked for clarification that the issue of funding
would be coming up later, with Council Member Leja responding in
the affirmative. Mayor Connors went on to point out the City has
not started their budget and the Council does not know what is
going to happen in that budget at this point, and committing to
funding for anyone at this time would result in having to come up
with some pretty clever explanations, especially with the Chamber
of Commerce and the Tourism Group.
She continued that she just wanted to bring these issues up to
see what the feeling is, and if that is the feeling, it is fine
with her.
The City Manager brought up that he has been involved with groups
like this in the past, and when he understood there would be no
funding requested of the City, he could see that the
representatives from the City would be ex- officio members. And
Page 2
Beaumont City Council
August 26, 1991
it appears to him that they want the City to be part of the large
members, as large as any of the private membership, and it is a
little strange to ask the City not to have a voting power.
Mayor Connors said, on the other hand, she would suppose the
$12,000 would be a voting power the same way it is with the
Chamber, with the City Manager responding that is not the way it
is indicated - it specifically says ex- officio members.
Mayor Connors pointed out if the funding is taken away, the City
would be casting a powerful vote there, and added that money is
given to the Chamber each year without having a vote, so there
are both ways of looking at it, and that is why she wanted to get
some input as to what everyone thought about it.
Council Member Leja commented that if the group is successful,
the benefits to the City would surpass any objections the Council
might have now regarding attending the meetings.
The City Manager clarified he is not saying not to attend the
meetings, just that he thought it was a little strange they ask
the City to be a party that large, when originally the City was
not to pay any of the funding, but then to come in with a
contribution as large or larger than any other agent - usually
you would have a voting power.
Mayor Connors thought when the funding comes up the City should
be presented with a budget showing what the money is for, the
same as the Chamber does. She did think it would be difficult
not to agree to the funding after they have joined, and not
having any by -laws it is hard to tell how difficult it would be
to withdraw.
Mayor Connors then stated she just wanted to bring these points
up for their consideration, and if this is what the Council has
decided to do they should go ahead.
Council Member McLaughlin said he thought the City should go
ahead and join, however, if the City is going to be ex- officio
members, then they should not be asked to provide some of the
funding.
Council Member Leja called attention to the fact that when the
Valley Group approached the City last year for $5,000.00 to
attract a missile weapons system to be moved to March AFB, the
money was given to them without a voting power or even a lot to
say about how it was pursued or spent. With this mind, she
didn't see how tonight's vote to have a representative to show
the City's support for the concept of this organization as
approving funding.
Mayor Connors indicated the last time it was discussed, they
didn't want Council Members to have a vote, and should be merely
ex- officio members, but at that time the funding wasn't
mentioned.
The City Manager felt there was time to discuss the funding at a
later date, and he didn't think appointing two people to
participate with the group, whether ex- officio or not, ties them
to paying money in any way. He has been involved with this type
of program before, and they were very happy to give the cities
their vote.
Mayor Connors again stated she doubted that too, however, just
wanted to be sure everyone understood that as part of the
discussion, but did not really see any harm in appointing
someone.
Motion by Council Member Parrott, second by Council Member
McLaughlin, to appoint Mayor Ann Connors and Council Member Jan
Leja as the Beaumont Council representatives to the San Gorgonio
Development Group for the 1991 -1992 fiscal year.
Page 3
B.
FA
Beaumont City Council
August 26, 1991
AYES: Council Member Leja, McLaughlin, Parrott and Mayor
Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member MacNeilage.
Appointment of Two Council Members to Serve on an Ad Hoc
Committee with the City of Banning to Select the Species and
Placement of trees for the Highland Springs Avenue Street
Treescape.
The City Manager presented his report, a copy of which is a
matter of record in the Clerk's file, in which he indicated, if
there were no objections from the Council, he was appointing Lee
Ann Overstreet and Stephen Koules as the staff representatives on
this committee.
There were no questions or comments from the Council other than
Council Member McLaughlin and Mayor Connors indicating a
willingness to serve on this committee.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member Parrott,
to appoint Mayor Ann Connors and Council Member Don McLaughlin to
the Ad Hoc Committee with the City of Banning for the Highland
Springs Avenue street treescape.
AYES: Council Member Leja, McLaughlin, Parrott and Mayor
Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member MacNeilage.
Parks /Open Space Area Study for the General Area from 14th Street
to Brookside Avenue, and from Beaumont Avenue to Cherry Avenue.
The City Manager called attention to the set of draft Planning
Commission minutes which have been provided to the Council,
pointing out these are not approved minutes, but were given to
the Council for information regarding Planning Commission
discussion and comments concerning parks and open space at their
last meeting. He specifically called attention to the area when
the two attorneys were discussing this issue, and it was asked
can the City, before the next Planning Commission meeting, draw
the park and open space study into a much narrower discussion so
that the three maps - Aware, Shelton and WDS - could be
considered as they are now drawn, rather than having to go back
to engineering to make room for the parks.
He went on to say this is a discussion item he is giving the
Council to show a request by the three developers who have had
their maps completed for this period of time.
Council Member McLaughlin felt by bringing the parks and open
space study up at this point in time a hardship was created for
the three developers who already have their maps completed. He
stated further he does like the concept of the easements under
the Edison power lines, with their being in the City's trail
program and being accessible, and they are large enough to have a
number of things involved in that area. He wondered about the
mini -parks and who would maintain them - would it be up to the
City or to the homeowners - how would it be done. He did state
the study should have been addressed some time ago - 1989 or
before.
Another problem mentioned by Mr. McLaughlin was the storm ditches
that are an expense to maintain, although the Engineer has done
an excellent job in ensuring they are kept under control, they
are expensive, and usually those expenses are given to the person
who purchases the homes, and if the Council is thinking in terms
of more economical housing, this is not the way to go.
Page 4
Beaumont City Council
August 26, 1991
Council Member Leja said she was curious who the hardship was on,
as she sees the hardship being on the residents who live there
for lack of space for children to play in instead of having to
play in the streets. She went on to say the City has to look
ahead, as Mr. McLaughlin said previously, it should have been
considered in 1988 or 89, however, they now have to look at ten
years from now, five years from now, three years from now, and
the majority of the hardship will fall on the people who reside
there.
She emphasized this particular plan should not be set in stone,
as the only way it will go, as there are times and places to ask
things of developers, and if it were her choice she would look at
developing the Edison area first for park space. She was not
certain what the restrictions are on that property, but hoped a
report will be forthcoming before there is further discussion at
this meeting. She pointed out there are also other possibilities
which can be considered in the mini -park phase, and who says
consultants have to draw the plans for the City. Although there
are all types of laws in the State to mandate certain
requirements, she didn't see that a mini -park should cost three
million dollars, which was a figure given to her by staff, and
which she found scary because you could then not build affordable
housing. She felt there were ways that communities can come
together and provide facilities such as this, and have an
ownership in it where it would be maintained and kept clean. She
thought this is the time for the Council to be creative and not
ignore the needs of the people who are going to be living there.
She then requested information from staff concerning the Edison
property - are there restrictions on the property preventing
certain things to be there - or what is the process to develop
that area.
Mr. Koules stated it was his understanding that the City Engineer
in negotiating with the subdividers in terms of processing maps,
has had past success in acquiring easements, mainly in the case
of the WDS project. He thought this type of practice could very
well continue where the City could get easements in -fee title
from present owners.
He continued that, in terms of restrictions, he thought there
would be limited restrictions for passive use of the park to
get into ball playing and the like. Although there may be some
restrictions, and he is not familiar with the exact restrictions.
On the question of maintaining the property, he felt that would
be established by City policy - will they be made a part of the
City's park system and the City maintain it? That is another
issue.
He did think the easements lend a unique opportunity since they
are there for the City to acquire and utilize if that is the
policy of the City, but there is value to new parks.
In answering Mr. McLaughlin's question, Mr. Koules said he
thought when the City first looked at the individual subdivisions
the City recognized the limitations of size, such as a forty acre
piece instead of a larger specific plan where the City has
acquired parks for the City. There is a drainage channel down
the middle of the property, so staff felt there was some
extraordinary costs to the developer. However, in the June 18
meeting the three subdivisions all came together, so it focused
the need for parks in that general area of Cougar Way and Palm to
the north, as a result he felt there is merit in that side of the
equation as well.
Mr. Koules continued that the one question that is yet to be
answered is how much will it cost, and who will be responsible -
who would pay - and hardships incurred - by which of the
developers. Admittedly, the Aware project is further along in
Page 5
Beaumont City Council
August 26, 1991
processing then the other projects are, so the Council does have
options.
Council Member Parrott suggested the Council study the issue
further and try to acquire a piece of property in one section
instead of going to different developers. He agreed a park is
needed in that area, but the City should look at something that
is not down the road as far as Aware is with their project. He
also agreed the Edison property should be looked at as it has
great merit.
Mayor Connors stated she thought they all agree the City should
have a park in the area. In her opinion there is only one way to
go, so f ar as Aware Development is concerned - as they are too
far down the road, and it would definitely be a hardship on them
which was not placed on the other developers. It would not be
fair to Aware.
She asked if Edison is agreeable with placing parks under power
lines, with the City Manager indicating the main problem would be
you cannot construct a building, and the normal procedure would
be for the City to go to them and make a request. In the past,
playgrounds, ball fields and things of that type have been
allowed, specifically what was referred to by Mr. Koules as
"passive" parks. In this particular situation it could be
playground equipment, green areas, all the normal things you can
do in a park, with the exception of putting in a community center
or something like that.
Mr. Koules advised he has had conversations with Mr. Mike Martin,
the Area Manager for Edison, and he was very encouraging about
parks being allowed on Edison property.
Mr. McLaughlin pointed out you can have trees, but they can only
be a certain height.
Mayor Connors indicated she had seen in the Planning Commission
paperwork that the September meeting is tentative, with Mr.
Koules confirming the motion was made by the Chair that it be a
tentative meeting. The meeting will be advertised, and it is
their intention to hold a meeting on September 17.
Mayor Connors said she felt it should not be tentative if Aware
Development has been moved again - and if it is felt it is unfair
to hold them up -- and then a meeting is canceled - - She
then asked why it was considered tentative.
Mr. Koules advised it was considered tentative because the
Planning Commission didn't know what the disposition of the parks
study by the Council this evening would be, and whether there
would be more time, or shorter time preferably.
Mayor Connors asked if this is the only item that appears to be
scheduled for September 17, with Mr. Koules indicating Aware,
Shelton and WDS, as well as a project for the Catholic Church,
are scheduled for the 17th.
Council Member Leja stated that as important as the issue of
parks is for the quality of life in the community, she thinks it
would be wise if the Council would appoint one or two Council
Members to work with staff, and to work with citizens of the
community in that area, as well as the property owners.
Mayor Connors asked why it would be necessary to appoint Council
Members to work with staff on this, with Council Member Leja
asking did the Council not want input at the beginning.
Mayor Connors pointed out usually the Council has staff work on
these things and bring reports to the Council meetings, and this
was why she wondered why Mrs. Leja was suggesting another way.
Council Member McLaughlin stated he did not think it was
Page 6
ueaumont City Council
August 26, 1991
necessary to appoint someone to work with staff, but rather
direct staff to go ahead and study the issue further, and bring
a report back to the Council, at which time the Council can make
their thoughts known at that time.
Mayor Connors asked if there were more than two alternatives, the
one with the mini -parks and the easement, with the City Manager
responding those are the two alternatives at this time, however
there are other ways this can be done. The parks could be put on
individual properties, and negotiate with those property owners,
as there are properties that have not yet been mapped.
Mayor Connors then asked why staff could not be directed to come
back with all the possibilities, but release the one which would
hold up Aware Development as she really is not comfortable
holding up Aware any longer.
The City Manager replied that one of the things that Mrs. Leja is
talking about is when the Council is prepared, they go to the
community and let the community help the City design a park.
That is the time he would like to see a Council Member or two be
involved because it lends more credence to staff working with
those people, as you are going to be asking for some evening
meetings, some Saturday meetings. He has found, from past
experience, that the people - because of being involved - seem to
buy into the park - seem to have a little bit more involvement
when they went to the park - and even got involved as far as
donating things to the park, and things along this line. It just
seemed to work very well.
He continued that if the Council's idea is to get to the point
where they are ready to take an approved park to the community,
at that time, as a staff member, he would like to see Council
Members there sitting at the same table with those people.
Mayor Connors said what she would like to see is for the Council
to have all the possibilities available before they go to the
citizens and say - these are the places that we have - then
citizen input should be obtained.
The City Manager agreed that at that point they should also have
the ability to have the sums of dollars needed to be laid on the
table, to determine how far they could go - how large, etc.
Council Member Leja thought the citizens should be involved at
the beginning of the process, simply because there is a lot of
talent available, and a lot of people that could give levels of
expertise in helping the City develop the alternatives - several.
plans that can be developed, or at least an appointed committee
to develop all the alternatives. She continued that the Council
had discussed many times the importance of getting the community
involved from the very beginning, instead of bringing them in and
saying, o.k., these are your choices, and see which one that they
like. She pointed out that a lot of cities are being very
successful in having their input at the very beginning of the
process.
Council Member McLaughlin pointed out that since they have two
people serving as a resource committee, himself and Mrs. Leja, he
didn't think it would be necessary to appoint two or three other
people to other committees, but rather let this be one of the
first chores for the two on that committee.
Mayor Connors stated she thought if you went to the citizens at
the beginning, before there is an understanding of what is
possible and what is not possible, you will probably get requests
to do things that can't be done. Then you have to come back and
find out whether or not it can be done, resulting in a delay of
the park. She didn't think it would happen as quickly if you
don't know what is available and what isn't when they start
talking.
Page 7
Beaumont City Council
August 26, 1991
Council Member Leja said that is the point of having staff
available as it can be held up just as long if staff develops
this park, and then take it to the people and they say, forget
it, we don't like anything in any of those parks - it is not
meeting our needs - we don't want that. She then compared that
to a child, when you have bought something for them without
asking their input - it will then hang in the closet, and
continued that at this point she thought it was important to find
out what the citizens want, with staff available to tell them
what is possible, and arrive at a conclusion that way - find out
at the beginning instead of risking staff putting in a lot of
hours, coming up with these alternatives, and then the people
saying, we don't like that.
Mayor Connors pointed out that if those are the possibilities,
and then the citizens tell the City they don't like any of those
possibilities, then it can't be done. . . .
Council Member Leja stated if the City came up with all the
possibilities, there would not be enough rooms in the building to
hold all the plans, with Mayor Connors continuing that she wasn't
thinking of the details of the possibilities, she was thinking of
the available properties, the ownerships, how large they are,
etc. She wasn't talking about the details - what you could put
on it and so forth.
Council Member Leja argued that by going to the people first the
City might find out that the people don't want a certain size of
playground, and they might be satisfied with just one type of
playground, or perhaps be satisfied with just Edison, and as a
result staff would have wasted a lot of time going to the
property owners to negotiate. She did think it is important for
the City to find out what the people in that area would like to
have in that community, and then staff proceed at that point.
Mayor Connors asked if Mrs. Leja didn't think they should know
the approximate ballpark figure of what it would cost for the
different type of parks, with Council Member Leja pointing out it
was not going to happen overnight, and Mayor Connors stating they
should understand that as well.
Council Member Parrott reaffirmed his previous statement there
should be parks in that area, but he also felt there should be a
town hall type forum, and let the people express themselves -
indicating what they want. He felt this was very vital to the
entire issue.
Mayor Connors asked if he meant a general meeting rather than a
committee of Council Members and staff, with Mr. Parrott stating,
no, he thought the City could even take the concept being
presented to the Council tonight and show it as a potential park
plan to the people, and advise them we might not be able to get
each individual parcel, but it is a general idea, and ask for
their input and ideas, and collect the citizen's ideas in that
way.
Mayor Connors then brought up the question whether or not they
were indicating no taxpayer money would be used, because if the
City is going to use taxpayer money for these parks, then input
should be received from the entire community, not just in the
area of the parks.
Council Member McLaughlin wanted to know whose concept is the one
being presented to the Council tonight - the developers - staff -
or where has it come from, with the City Manager replying the
developers have not indicated that they want to do anything like
this - this came from Jim Dotson and Mr. Koules.
Council Member McLaughlin then asked if the developers had even
been contacted, with Mr. Bounds stating they had definitely seen
the concept, and feel very strongly - since all three of the
Page 8
Beaumont City Council
August 26, 1991
developers have put a lot of money in engineering to come in with
their maps, and all of a sudden they are at Planning Commission
level and they have been told they have to hold up their maps
now, because the City is going to determine how it is going to
put together a park system - so they have been put off sixty days
now, and as of the meeting of the 20th they were put off thirty
more days before their maps can be heard, which they have put
good time and money into.
Mayor Connors requested information regarding how the Council
would go about making their wishes clear, if it is their wish, to
allow these developers to move forward as if this weren't
happening, and then be creative enough to find a park system
otherwise.
The City Manager said that, to him, what she is asking, is that
the three maps who are covered by the orange boundaries within
Exhibit "A" of the prototype, with the indication being they
understand the situation that each one of the maps crosses over
two boundaries, and that it is the desire of the Council if more
parks than the Edison easement potential are to be placed in that
area, those parks should be moved to parcels of property owned by
one property owner so that negotiation could be held, and the
maps could continue on.
Mr. Bounds then explained if they had one of the property owners
that is involved decide they would agree to sell the City land
from something that is within the maps, it could be worked out,
but when you have one five acre parcel on three different
properties, and the 2.3 acre parcel on three different parcels,
and then the 1.9 acre parcel on Beaumont Avenue on two
properties - the City should be looking at boundary lines,
(agreeing with a statement inserted by Council Member Leja at
this point). He continued that if property is to be purchased or
acquired, negotiations would then only be held with one property
owner, so that it does not destroy or create a problem for the
maps as they go through. Once a map is approved, it can be
adjusted for the purpose of parks, providing you look at the
mapping of lots and so forth. But the key to it now is, by
crossing too many boundaries you are holding up too many people
while the discussion is being held as to whether or not to have
parks, and he did not believe that is the Council's intention.
Mayor Connors wanted to know how they can get the Planning
Commission to do it that way, with the City Manager stating the
Planning Commission has asked the Council for advice, asking Mr.
Koules if that was not correct.
Stephen Koules said he thought there is an answer to that
question in that he believed this was done in part with the
intent to share the cost of a park, and if it is the Council's
desire he thinks these alternatives are somewhat salvageable,
recognizing that the Aware project has time schedules. (At this
point Mr. Koules is speaking away from the microphone, and with
background noise on the tape is difficult to hear). He is
explaining the possible alternatives in that the 1.9 acre parcel
may be in two ownerships, but is very likely to come in as one
project. He then called attention to the Cougar Mountain
Apartment site, which has allowed their approval to expire, being
a single ownership, so if it is the desire of the Council, that
would be a possible alternative to place a park solely on their
site.
The City Manager added these were alternatives which would still
allow the three maps to go ahead, with Mayor Connors stating that
is all she is asking - the Council be able to continue discussion
without tying up the developers - and if the City ends up
purchasing land, and if the cost is very much, she then thinks
input should be received from the entire community because it is
their money too.
Page 9
Beaumont City Council
August 26, 1991
The City Manager called attention to the Shelton parcel, and the
northwest triangle at Beaumont and Cougar Way being shown as not
being a part of Tract Map 24933, so that is a possibility, as
well as Cougar Mountain apartments which has no map on it as yet,
and the two -way ownership up north has no map on it, and no map
on Country Crossing in the southeast corner. However, the three
blue sections are approved maps, but it doesn't eliminate the
City going to one of the owners and discussing the possibility of
working out a sale on a part of that property - thereby not being
necessary to discuss the issue with more than one ownership, and
it would not stop any map that is moving today.
Mr. Koules stated that
Commission wanted is that
not concerned with how
responding she thinks the
want to hold up the develi
unfair.
his perception of what the Planning
they just wanted to see parks, and are
they are placed, with Mayor Connors
Council feels the same way, and do not
)pers from moving forward, because it is
The City Manager brought out that one of the things Mrs. Leja has
said is that she feels we have the capability between the
community, between people that we can enlist to work with the
City, between staff, between Council, that we do not have to go
out and spend a lot of money in the design of parks, and that he
totally agrees with her.
Mayor Connors said she believes this area was originally multi-
family, high density zoning, and the Council accepted single
family because it was a better alternative, and she thought that
is how the parks slipped through the cracks, and that certainly
should be corrected.
She then summarized for the audience that basically what the
Council has decided is they would like to see a process go ahead
whereby the developers would not be held up on their
developments, but the parks issue would be addressed and taken
care of; and that Mr. McLaughlin has suggested the resource
committee that has already been formed come up with additional
members to discuss the parks issue. She then asked if the
Council wants, at this point, to limit that to people who live in
the area, or do they want to invite members from the entire city.
Council Member Leja stated she thought that should be the
responsibility of the resource committee, and they might not be
able to get people from other areas of the City.
Council Member McLaughlin said if the City is going to maintain
them, and declare them as part of our parks department, then it
will take tax dollars to do it, and he felt you have to include
the City as a City, not just a segment of it.
Responding to Mayor Connors' question whether there was more
discussion or if action was needed, Council Member McLaughlin
thought staff should go ahead, and get together with the resource
committee to set up a time to proceed. He added that if too many
people became involved it would take forever to complete as
numbers are not always the answer to all the questions, and you
can have nothing but chaos if you have too many involved.
Council Member Leja asked that it be clarified that part of that
direction is the Council is sending back direction to the
Planning Commission that they wish to pursue parks within
boundary lines if possible, with the City Manager adding it
should be added to that, especially, to exclude the three tract
maps that are in the process of being considered at this time.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Leja, that the Council wishes to indicate to the Planning
Commission that parks in this area of the City, as well as other
areas of the City, is a high priority to them, and they intend to
establish a committee to look into the immediate needs of parks
Page 10
Beaumont City Council
August 26, 1991
in the northern part of the City, and that the Council desires
for the Planning Commission to hear the three tract maps that are
presently before them for consideration, and the parks will be
looked at on properties other than those three at this particular
time.
AYES: Council Member Leja, McLaughlin, Parrott and Mayor
Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member MacNeilage.
10. RESOLUTION NO. 1991 -37 - Supporting the Potrero Creek Reservoir
Alternative as the Site of the Proposed Eastside Reservoir
Project.
A recess was called at 7:56 to allow the Council time to review
the resolution since they had not received it prior to the
meeting tonight, reconvening at 8:07 p.m.
There were no comments or questions from the Council.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Parrott, to adopt Resolution No. 1991 -37.
AYES: Council Member Leja, McLaughlin, Parrott and Mayor
Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member MacNeilage.
11. RESOLUTION NO. 1991 -38 - Adopting the City of Beaumont Multi -
Hazard Functional Plan.
A report was received from the City Manager, a copy of which is a
matter of record in the Clerk's file, with a recommendation for
adoption of this resolution.
There were no questions or comments from the Council, other than
indicating it appears to be complete.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member Parrott,
to adopt Resolution No. 1991 -38.
AYES: Council Member Leja, McLaughlin, Parrott and Mayor
Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member MacNeilage.
12. RESOLUTION NO. 1991 -39 - Finding, Determining, Declaring and
Certifying that the Construction of South Beaumont Groundwater
Storage Unit Test Points and Test Producing Well is not a Project
Subject to Compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), and Adopting Notice of Exemption.
13. RESOLUTION NO. 1991 -40 - Ordering Publication of Notice Inviting
Sealed Proposals or Bids for Construction of South Beaumont
Groundwater Storage Unit Test Points and Test Producing Well.
The City Manager presented his report concerning these two
resolutions, a copy of which is a matter of record in the Clerk's
file, with a recommendation for adoption of the resolutions.
There were no questions or comments from the Council.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Leja, to adopt Resolutions No. 1991 -39 and 1991 -40.
AYES: Council Member Leja, McLaughlin, Parrott and Mayor
Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member MacNeilage.
Page 11
Beaumont City Council
August 26, 1991
14. Consideration of Award of Bid for Stewart Park Playground
Equipment.
A report was presented by the Assistant City Manager Lee Ann
Overstreet, a copy of which is a matter of record in the Clerk's
file, with a recommendation for award of the bid to Moore
Recreation and Park Equipment.
There were no comments or questions from the Council.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Leja, to award the bid to Moore Recreation and Park Equipment for
the Stewart Park playground equipment in the amount of $25,792.72
from the 16th Year CDBG funds.
AYES: Council Member Leja, McLaughlin, Parrott and Mayor
Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member MacNeilage.
Following the motion, the City Manager advised that since the bid
came in lower than had been anticipated, he will be working with
EDA to determine if the City can purchase sand and do some curb
work around the outside so the playground type equipment may all
be brought together and make it easier for growing grass around
it, etc. And hopes to utilize some of the CDBG money that is
left over to be used in this manner if possible.
15. 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 August 12,
1991, and Special Council Meeting of August 19, 1991.
b. Acceptance of Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting
of June 18, 1991.
C. Approval of Warrants as Audited per Warrant List of August
26, 1991, in the amount of $237,145.18; and Payrolls of
July 18, 1991 and August 1, 1991, in the amounts of
$71,909.81 and $72,303.20 respectively.
g. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23646 (89- TM -6). Request for One Year
Extension for a Proposed 50 lot subdivision. Location:
North side of Cougar Way about 1800 ft. east of its
Intersection with Beaumont Avenue. Applicant: Aware
Development.
h. Report of Planning Commission Action at Regular Meeting of
August 20, 1991.
Mayor Connors requested that items number d, a and f be removed
from the consent calendar for discussion.
There being no objections from the Council, Items d, e, and f
will be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member
McLaughlin, to adopt Items a, b, c, g and h of the Consent
Calendar, with Items d, e, and f being considered separately.
AYES: Council Member Leja, McLaughlin, Parrott and Mayor
Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member MacNeilage.
Page 12
Beaumont City Council
August 26, 1991
15.d Consideration of Approval of the NPDES Stormwater Discharge
Permit Implementation Agreement, Between the Riverside County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District, the County of
Riverside and the City of Beaumont.
Mayor Connors called attention to the next page following Exhibit
"A", in which they ask for comments from hospitals and school
districts, and she did not see the local hospital, the local
water district or the local school district on the list, and
asked why they were not included since the City is involved in
this agreement.
The City Manager and Mayor discussed this question, with the City
Manager indicating he would obtain an answer from the Flood
Control District, with the basic question being did the Pass
Hospital, Beaumont School District and Beaumont - Cherry Valley
Water District have a right to comment on this stormwater
discharge, and if so, did they, or will they be commenting in the
future.
15.e Consideration of Approval of Cooperative Agreement Between
the City of Beaumont and the County of Riverside to Provide
Fire Protection, Fire Prevention, Rescue and Medical Aid for
the City of Beaumont for FY 1991 -92.
Mayor Connors said she didn't understand the chart and the
$55,000, the unbilled, and what happens if it falls short next
time, and how is it accounted for in these years, as she could
not follow it.
The City Manager advised the chart is indicating the City will be
billed an additional $55,000 each year until the 1995 -96 billing,
which will be the full amount of $535,727, providing that we have
the level of service that we do today.
Their discussion concerning this question continued, with the
City Manager explaining how they arrived at this formula, as it
still was not clear to Mayor Connors. They then agreed she will
come to his office for a detailed explanation.
Mayor Connors then called attention to the section listing
volunteers, and asked where the monthly amount the City pays to
the volunteers is shown, with the City Manager explaining that
payment is given to the volunteer organization, not the County,
and the County pays the volunteers according to the type of
response they go out on, or in the case of a state run, they are
paid by the State, so this covers the salary and benefits for the
volunteers as well as the full time people.
15.f RESOLUTION NO. 1991 -41 - Adopting a Rotational Tow Service
Agreement.
The Mayor questioned the reference to capability of providing
air, asking what this is used for, with the City Manager
answering that trucks have air brakes, etc., and on occasion air
might be needed to provide additional air from the tow truck to
the truck that is operating so they will have safe brakes.
She then called attention to the following which need correction
or should be added:
Page 11, under Enrollment Period, third line down,
third word from the right side - least is spelled
incorrectly.
Page 12, Waiver of Requirements, in the second
line the word specified is mis- spelled.
Page 15, at the bottom of the page, where it talks
about it being unlawful for the tow truck company
to display a marker indicating a special connection
with the DMV or Highway Patrol, Beaumont Police
Department should be added.
Page 13
eaumont City Council
August 26, 1991
Pages 24 and Pages 25 are switched - Page 25 should be
Page 24 and Page 24 should be Page 25.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Leja, to approve Agenda Items 15.d, 15.e and 15.f, with the
changes as indicated.
AYES: Council Member Leja, McLaughlin, Parrott and Mayor
Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member MacNeilage.
Agenda Item No. 17 will be taken out of sequence, prior to recess
to closed session, for the benefit of the press and audience who
may not stay until the meeting is reconvened to regular session.
17. Consideration of Rescheduling or Canceling Regular Meeting of
September 9, 1991 Due to City Holiday.
There was a brief
anticipated there
attention prior to
City Manager indica
however, a special
were to come up.
discussion concerning whether or not it is
will be anything which will need Council
the regular meeting of September 23, with the
ting at this time there does not appear to be,
meeting could be called if an urgent matter
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Leja, to cancel the regular meeting of September 9, 1991, due to
the City holiday.
AYES: Council Member Leja, McLaughlin, Parrott and Mayor
Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member MacNeilage.
16. Recess to Closed Session Pursuant to Government Code Section
54957 to Consider Public Employee Personnel Matters.
The meeting was recessed to
closed session at
8:47 P.M.,
reconvening to regular session at
9:27 P.M.
Let the Record Show Action Taken
in Closed
Session.
Let the record show that direction
was
given to
the Mayor
regarding preparation of forms for review
during closed
session.
Date Set for Next Regular Council
Meeting
Monday
, September
23, 1991, at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers.
There being no further business to come before the Council, the
meeting was adjourned at 9:28 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
?7V177"I'p-W� wo,
City Cl&4fk
Page 14
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
AUGUST 12, 1991
The Beaumont City Council met in a regular meeting on Monday, August
12, 1991, at 7:05 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor
Connors presiding.
On roll call the following Council Members were present: Leja,
MacNeilage, McLaughlin and Mayor Connors. Let the record show Council
Member Parrott was excused.
The invocation was given by City Attorney Ryskamp, who then led the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
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. Presentation on the Eastside Reservoir by Dennis G. Majors, P.E.,
Manager, Reservoir Planning, Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California.
Mr. Dennis G. Majors, representing the Metropolitan Water
District, presented information concerning the proposed Eastside
Reservoir sites being considered, answering questions from the
Council at the conclusion of his presentation.
5. Appoint Two Council Members to Serve On and Select a Committee to
Formulate a Proposed Plan of Action for Making the Potrero
Reservoir a Reality, and Discussion Relative to Adoption of a
Resolution in Support of the Potrero Reservoir.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Mayor Connors, to
appoint Council Member Leja and Council Member MacNeilage to serve
on and select a committee to formulate a proposed plan of action
for making the Potrero Reservoir a reality; and to prepare a
suggested resolution in support of the Potrero Reservoir for
consideration by the City Council on August 26, 1991.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin and
Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Parrott.
6. Appoint Two Council Members to Serve on a Ways and Means Committee
to Formulate a Proposal Regarding Resource Committees.
After a brief discussion relative to the formation of this
committee, Council Member Leja and Council Member McLaughlin
volunteered to serve.
Motion by Council Member MacNeilage, second by Mayor Connors, to
appoint Council Member Leja and Council Member McLaughlin to serve
Page 1
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
SPECIAL MEETING OF
AUGUST 19, 1991
The Beaumont City Council met in a special meeting at 5:05 P.M.,
in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor Connors presiding.
On roll call the following Council Members were present: Leja,
MacNeilage, McLaughlin, and Mayor Connors. Let the record show
Council Member Parrott was excused.
1. Clerk's Affidavit of Posting.
The Clerk's affidavit of posting the agenda was read into the
record by the City Clerk.
2. Recess to Closed Session Pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(x) 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 Water
District vs City of Beaumont, et al., Case No. 211456,
Riverside Superior Court.
The meeting was recessed to closed session at 5:07 P.M.,
reconvening to regular session at 6:27 P.M.
Let the record show action taken in Closed Session.
Let the record show a report was received and direction given
to special water counsel regarding the pending litigation.
There being no further business to come before the Council,
the meeting was adjourned at 6:28 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
City Clerk
7.
a
Beaumont City Council
August 12, 1991
on a Ways and Means Committee to formulate a proposal regarding
resource committees.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin and
Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Parrott.
Following the motion, it was determined the committee's first
report would be submitted to the City Council at their regular
meeting on September 23, 1991.
Authorize Submittal of Argument in Favor of Measure J, To Continue
the Utility User Tax at its Present Rate, to the Registrar of
Voters to be Included on the November 5, 1991 Ballot.
The City Manager called attention to the fact that an argument in
favor of Measure J is required to be submitted to the Registrar of
Voter's office no later than August 20, and requested direction
From the Council whether or not they wished him to draft an
argument for their review.
Motion by Council Member Mclaughlin, second by Council Member
MacNeilage, to authorize submittal of an argument in favor of
Measure J, to continue the Utility User Tax at its present rate,
to the Registrar of Voters, and to direct the City Manager to
prepare a draft of this argument for review and signature by the
City Council.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin and
Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Parrott.
Designation of Voting Delegate for League Annual Conference.
The City Manager explained the need for designating voting
delegates for the League annual conference, with Mayor Connors
indicating she would be attending the conference, and normally the
Mayor is designated as the voting delegate. She continued that if
Council Member Leja plans to attend, she would suggest Mrs. Leja,
as Mayor Pro Tem, be designated as the alternate.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
MacNeilage, to designate Mayor Ann Connors as the voting delegate
for the League Annual Conference, with Mayor Pro Tem Leja
designated as the voting alternate.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin and
Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Parrott.
Initial Report from City Manager Regarding Curbside Sidewalks.
The City Manager presented a lengthy report regarding curbside
sidewalks, a copy of which is a matter of record in the Clerk's
file. This report specifically addressed the costs involved in
replacing existing sidewalks in new subdivisions, and installing
sidewalks were none exists, as well as removing curb - adjacent
sidewalks and replacing with parkway type sidewalks. This report
also included a "windshield" inventory of existing sidewalks in
the City, with an estimated cost for replacing all curb - adjacent
sidewalks in the City with parkway type sidewalks of $8,425,950.
Council Member McLaughlin advised that after the subject of
sidewalks was raised at the last meeting, he drove around the City
Page 2
Beaumont City Council
August 12, 1991
looking at the situation. One of the things he noticed is that
usually where there are parkway sidewalks, there are very large
trees planted, some four, five, six feet in diameter. The roots
from these trees have lifted the sidewalk. For this reason he is
more in favor of the curb - adjacent sidewalks. Another reason is
the lack of maintenance of the parkways by some property owners.
He also pointed out there are fences and shrubs which would have
to be moved as well, and he felt the City would encounter a lot of
angry citizens if it pursued trying to change the sidewalks.
He continued that the basic cost is shown as over eight million,
and that does not include taking down all these trees, moving
fences and shrubs, or anything like that, and someone will have to
pay for all this, and he doesn't know if the City can force the
property owners to pay the cost. Also, does the City want all the
trees taken down.
He concluded his comments that he felt more input from the
citizens as a whole should be obtained, and perhaps the City will
receive some feedback as a result of articles in the newspaper.
Council Member MacNeilage called attention to dim Dotson's report
in which he states that Country Crossings, Crystal Springs and
Meadowlark are three areas that totaled five million dollars just
to replace those sidewalks. He stated that he didn't know about
Crystal Springs or Meadowlark, but he lives in Country Crossings,
and the way the sidewalks are now, when he parks his truck it
extends to the edge of the sidewalk. If the sidewalks were moved
back a lot of driveways would be taken away. Also, it would
change the setbacks on the houses from 20 feet to a minimum of 15
feet, not leaving anyone any place to park in those particular
areas.
He went on to say he had also looked around, and the only street
that he was even able to come up with an answer was Palm Avenue,
because of the parkway down the middle of the street, and that was
the only place he could find to put a sidewalk in the City. It is
a tough issue, but his feeling is perhaps an ordinance should be
adopted that would call for more space for the sidewalks, and to
get the utilities out of the way of the sidewalks, so that future
developments coming before the Council would have this
requirement.
He said he hoped the newspapers would give a good report on this,
and get the people to give the Council some feedback on what they
think.
Council Member Leja said she thought the Palm Avenue median would
be a great place to have a walkway, because it is away from
everyone's yard, the dogs aren't going to come out and grab you,
etc. She thought perhaps on future development the City could
look at something along those lines. The area she was most
concerned about at this point is Sixth Street and the commercial
areas, because that is your impression when you drive through the
town. She did point out that would take a lot of walking and
checking with every business in the area to ask what they thought,
but she is most concerned about the commercial areas as a target
area.
The City Manager stated that whenever a business changes hands,
the City requires the necessary improvements to be made, but in
many cases there is not sufficient right -of -way, and several
business people have refused to grant the additional right -of-
way unless the City pays for it. If Sixth Street is widened, as
was indicated in the five year proposal, the City would be allowed
to do some sidewalk work with gas tax funds should the Council
desire. With the way things are today, he felt that many of the
businesses could not afford to pay for new sidewalks, as it would
be very expensive, even if the City did all the engineering. He
Page 3
did suggest perhaps this could be done
district on a block by block basis.
Beaumont City Council
August 12, 1991
through an assessment
Council Member Leja continued that it did not appear to be that
much of a problem of there actually being sidewalks, but rather
the appearance, and thought a streetscaping type of effect was
what was needed rather than actually replacing all the sidewalks.
Council Member Leja then stated she didn't feel much would be
accomplished tonight, although they had learned it was going
to cost a lot, with Council Member MacNeilage asking if there was
going to be another report.
The City Manager advised this report did not include the amount of
developed property blocks that have a house and no sidewalk, nor
has he given them the small acreage in the center part of town to
be developed later. Those will take a little more time, but this
information can be submitted to them. In addition, this report
does not include sidewalks that need to be repaired or replaced,
and those actually need to be walked. All of this information can
be furnished, and it can be done with no problem if the Council
wants it.
Council Member Leja said what she is most interested in is what
Mr. McLaughlin suggested, which would be finding out what is more
favorable to the people who live here, and there will probably be
different reactions from different parts of the City. She went on
to say it is good they have a basis to work with regarding how
much it costs to do things, and now it is just a matter of finding
out what the citizens think and want in their area. The majority
may not want sidewalks at all.
Council Member McLaughlin stated the Council now has a rough idea
of the cost, and if the citizens ask, that information can be
provided to them, and this will probably have a bearing on the
decisions that are made by the citizens.
The City Manager wanted the Council to remember he had indicated
to them at the last meeting that you cannot use any of the gas tax
funds that come to the City for this type of work. When the cost
was given to them regarding the higher price of changing the
signals at 6th and Beaumont Avenue, it was given to them on the
basis that if they went to full left turn lanes on both streets,
the street would have to be widened from 6th Street to 7th Street.
That gave them an idea of how much of that was sidewalk work,
because six foot of sidewalk would have to be cut off of both
sides of the street, and in this particular case one traffic
signal went from $100,000 to $300,000. It could safely be said
that 50% of that difference is sidewalk.
Mayor Connors pointed out that if they are looking for a reaction
from other communities they will probably find most people move
into a community and pick out a house, and what is - is, they
don't go tell City Hall that they thought it should be some other
way. You probably won't find one where someone came along and
asked the City Council to change all the sidewalks in town, so
that they could get input that way. So she didn't expect the City
would get a lot of input from communities that way.
She continued that she was thinking about the traffic signal at
6th and Beaumont Avenue too, because at the time it was discussed
they referred to the two options as the $100,000 one and the
$300,000 one.
She stated further that if you had parkways with grass in them,
and side by side you had a nice one, and then you have a weedy
one - and it can happen with a yard, that is true, but if it is
all up to the curb, you would have that section that was not one
way and the other, because both of them would be equally kept up
so far as weeds or grass - there wouldn't be any there.
Page 4
eaumont City Council
August 12, 1991
She went on to say that if you were going to require it for new
development, it will probably happen that what is - is, people
aren't going to complain about it, but that doesn't necessarily
mean that is what they would like. You move in and then a month
later you are wondering why you have to have this parkway to take
care of - which some people think the City takes care of - and
they find out after they move that is not the way it works.
Mrs. Connors called attention to a section of sidewalk on Euclid
adjacent to the Beaumont Woman's Club, which is in very bad
condition due to tree roots, and wanted to know if the City
checked situations such as this. The City Manager responded the
City normally works on a complaint basis, notifying property
owners after a complaint has been received by the City. She then
wondered how much people really cared about this issue, if no one
has mentioned that sidewalk, and she again didn't think the City
would receive very much input.
In addressing the use of the sidewalks by someone in a wheelchair,
Mr. Bounds indicated that most of them used the street, and
appeared to be able to do so without any problem or threat to
their safety. He did acknowledge there is a problem where the
driveways cause the sidewalks to dip, but again, most seem to use
the street.
Mayor Connors said it might be harder for drivers to be careful of
those people in wheelchairs who are using the streets when the
City grows and traffic is much heavier, and they must think of
that ahead of time. Additionally, she wondered if the City
decided to put sidewalks on Elm, her lot goes down while across
the street it goes up. If a sidewalk is installed it would change
the grading of the lot, and would have to be surveyed, have to be
changed, so that it didn't flood, and she asked if the homeowner
would have to pay for it in that case. The City Manager replied
as follows, "not if you made them - not if you required the
sidewalk to be done that way, no, that is your responsibility. If
you make them put a sidewalk in, it would be curb - adjacent, then
they would have to put something under one side to hold it up, so
you would have a sidewalk that stuck out. A good example of this
is where you have talked about masonry walls. Where the people
have put masonry walls back of sidewalks, and they have filled the
property in. Filled up back to that masonry wall, and so they
have a nice flat area, then it drops down two feet or three feet,
or something like that. Well, when you go back five feet, you get
to go back five feet in the fill and put a new fence up, and it
has got to match, so you may put up all the fencing. That is
where a lot of the bucks come in ".
Mayor Connors continued that even if the City required sidewalks
as parkways in new developments, they don't know if that is what
people want. They would have to worry about the upkeep of the
grass in the parkway.
Council Member MacNeilage clarified that what he was saying was
not necessarily parkways on this, but to make the sidewalks wide
enough for new development to avoid the mailboxes and the dip in
the driveways, etc.
Council Member McLaughlin agreed that he was in favor of that
suggestion, and then stated that the only thing he has against
parkway sidewalks is you put a sprinkler system in, and 90% of
them, if you are out walking you are either going to get wet or
you are going have to walk out in the street, or you are going to
have to do something when they are on because it seems like you
cannot get sprinklers to just water that small section without
overlapping onto the sidewalk, and he is definitely in favor of
curb - adjacent sidewalks.
Council Member MacNeilage also agreed he was in favor of curb -
adjacent sidewalks as they are much cleaner and make the whole
street a lot cleaner, but he still thought the sidewalk should be
Page 5
Beaumont City Council
August 12, 1991
wide enough so that a wheelchair could pass the obstacles without
having to go out into the street.
The City Manager advised that the reason they are no more than
five feet now is that anything more than five feet you can put a
car on, and that is what you would have all over town - cars
parked on the sidewalks. He also asked them to remember that a
driveway approach is a driveway approach and a sidewalk is a
sidewalk, and there is a difference in the amount of cement that
you put in them, and the reason there are a lot of those spider
web cracks, is that cars have been parked on them for
years.
Council Member Leja suggested that trees could be planted all the
way down, with the City Manager pointing out that had not been
figured into the cost.
The City Manager commented that before they started talking about
a wider sidewalk he would rather go look at some and see what was
happening to those kind of sidewalks, as they are being damaged
very badly in town.
He continued that if the newspapers would request that ideas on
sidewalks be sent to them, or to the City, that would be a great
service to the City - to get something through a survey like that.
Mayor Connors said the reason she wanted this discussed in such
depth was so that if Mr. Millage came back to the City Manager, he
would have a very in -depth discussion with all the thoughts and
ideas from the Council Members.
The City Manager asked if the Council wanted a further report on
things that haven't been done yet, or would they like to see if
some information comes in from the survey, and then do something
else.
It was the consensus of the Council it would be best to see if
anything comes in from the survey, so nothing will be required to
be on the next agenda.
10. 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 July 22,
1991.
b. Approval of Warrants as Audited per Warrant List of August
12, 1991, in the amount of $260,763.83.
C. RESOLUTION NO. 1991 -32 - Approving Final Parcel Map No. 26990
and Authorizing Recordation Thereof. (89 -PP -2 Danise).
d. RESOLUTION NO. 1991 -33 - Approving the Destruction of Certain
Police Department Records, Documents and Papers, Pursuant to
Sections 34090 and 34090.6 of the Government Code of the State
of California.
e. RESOLUTION NO. 1991 -34 - Ordering That Unpaid Assessments Due
From Certain Properties Within Assessment District No. 1983 -1
Be Collected By Action in Superior Court To Foreclose The
Liens Thereof.
f. RESOLUTION NO. 1991 -35 - Ordering Territory Designated as
LAFCO No. 91 -07 -3, City of Beaumont Annexation 90- ANX -1-
45, Annexed to the City of Beaumont. Applicant: Allied
Group /Nick Saab. Location: 11867 Beaumont Avenue, (West
side of Beaumont Avenue about 500 feet north of its
intersection with 14th Street).
Page 6
Beaumont City Council
August 12, 1991
g. RESOLUTION NO. 1991 -36 - Authorizing an Alternative Plan for
Consideration By Those Employees Who Participate in a Deferred
Compensation Program.
Mayor Connors called attention to a typographical error in
Resolution No. 1991 -33, 10.d of the agenda, on Page 1, under "f ",
where it states "logs over two years old ", the figure in
parentheses indicates twenty years, and should be changed to read
(2) years.
This correction was noted and will be made.
Motion by Council Member MacNeilage, second by Council Member
Leja, to adopt the consent calendar with the change made to Item
No. 10.d as noted.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin and
Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Parrott.
11. Recess to Closed Session To Consider Public Employee Personnel
Matters Pursuant to Government Lode Section 54957.
The meeting was recessed to closed session at 8:47 P.M.,
reconvening to regular session at 9:55 P.M.
Let the Record Show Action Taken in Closed Session.
r
Let the record show no action was taken in closed session.
Date Set for Next Regular Council Meeting, Monday, August 26,
1991, at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers.
There being no further business to come before the Council, the
meeting was adjourned at 9:56 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
City Clerk
Page 7
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
SPECIAL MEETING OF
JULY 27, 1991
The Beaumont City Council met in a special meeting at 10:35 A.M., in
the City Council Chambers, with Mayor Connors presiding.
On roll call the following Council Members were present: Leja,
MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott and Mayor 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. Presentation of Organizational Chart for City.
The City Manager presented the current organizational chart of
the City, reviewing and describing each department and their
function, then asked if there were any questions from the
Council.
Council Member Leja: Not so much how
positions that we directly appoint, do
evaluation process in line right now
directly appoint.
City Manager: In the six years that I
has never evaluated any employee. That i
Attorney - never have.
it is mapped out, the
we have any type of an
for the ones that we
have been here, Council
s the City Manager, City
So, that doesn't answer your question. Is there something that
we could use that we are not - there is nothing in the books
today that says how it is done.
Council Member Leja: In our municipal code?
City Manager: Yes. That can be done by one of two ways. One
could be to change the municipal code, which requires an
ordinance, or it could be merely a rule of Council. A very
simple rule of Council could do it. It doesn't take a resolution
or anything like that. It would become a rule by virtue of the
fact that the majority of Council established a pattern - a way
of evaluation - or whatever. So it does not really have to be a
resolution, although it could be. Or it could be an ordinance
and be in the municipal code. Usually those are rules.
At the present time staff is working with a consultant that we
hired a couple of years ago on a new Employee Handbook, which
also will have another handbook - well, first of all, we will
have a Supervisor's Handbook to follow that, to show what their
responsibilities are in the Employee Handbook. We also are
putting out rules and regulations that will be coming to you.
Anything like that, since it has to do with the way of governing
employees, has to go to the employee bargaining units. And so,
we will take it to them before we bring it to you, because if you
went through the documents, they are very cumbersome, and you
went through major changes, you are technically having to
negotiate with the employees. It would be better to let them
have their input because your input is going to be final anyway.
A lot of work - a lot of hours - have gone into these, and we are
getting very close now. Within - I think we will be at the
bargaining units before the first of the year, with each one -
well, obviously, they don't have anything to say about the
Page 1
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
Supervisor's Handbook, because that is just a way to do things
for them.
Council Member MacNeilage: Under Mitch White, we have three
sergeants and a corporal and two police officers for each one.
The way this is designed the police officers that they are in
charge of are depending on the shift that they are working, or?
City Manager: Yes. The schedule changes from time to time due to
various reasons. It could be schooling that is causing us to
make some drastic changes or whatever. It could be someone
desiring to get some college credit and maybe asking for a change
that causes more than one person change. Technically, the way
that we operate, we operate 12 hour shifts, and, for example,
here - well, let me go one step further. We are operating one
less sergeant at the present time due to the fact that Mitch
White is the interim chief, and is a sergeant. And he is a
sergeant until he is made full chief, or another chief is hired,
then he would go back and take his sergeant shift. Therefore, we
brought up David Stang, a corporal, to take that spot in the
interim.
So what you have, for instance, on day shift, you have John
Acosta and David Van Buren are the two day shift sergeants, and
in the case of this particular way that we operate, John Acosta
comes to work at 6:00 Sunday morning, and either leaves Tuesday
night at 6:00 or Wednesday night at 6:00. What they have is they
have three days one week and four days the next week to get their
eighty hours in when they work 12 hour shifts. Following right
behind that, and following in an exact line, David Stang follows
John Acosta, when John Acosta comes in at 6:00 on Sunday morning,
David Stang comes in at 6:00 on Sunday night. Kurt Jackson
follows David Van Buren.
The officers get to know their sergeant quite well, unless we are
having sicknesses or things like that, that cause disruption, but
the police department operates very well under this type of
system, and I can tell you if you took a vote of the officers
today, it probably would be a very small minority that would ever
want to change from twelve hour shifts. They are hard, but it is
a good shift to have.
Council Member MacNeilage:
City Manager: Yes, oh yes.
Council Member MacNeilage:
Then we also have reserves.
How many reserves do we have.
City Manager: I don't know how many we have today. It varies
anywhere from five to twelve.
Council Member MacNeilage: Are there any ROP students also on
the . . .
City Manager: No.
Council Member MacNeilage: We don't have anything set up there
for . . .
City Manager: This school district doesn't have an ROP program
for that. We did have a cadet program where they did traffic
monitoring and riding with officers, and things like that, but
that has now gone by the wayside. Also within the police
department you see Tony Augustyn, a corporal, who is in charge of
the detectives, and he is also in charge of the Community Service
Officer, who is in charge of the locker where all of the evidence
is kept, and the chain of evidence for that. In the case of
Corporal Howlett, he is in charge of the narcotics unit, and has
one other officer working with him, and if we have any raids or
whatever that they are going to make that are what you call high
Page 2
3.
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
risk, we have a team of officers that are called in. They are
trained to come in and do high risk where weapons are expected to
be, explosives are expected to be, or whatever. So those two men
don't always work alone. They work with some patrol officers,
they work with a special team, and so forth.
Diane Haeggstrom is the D.A.R.E. officer, and I think it is
seventeen weeks a year that she is in the schools teaching,
basically, the sixth grades, and even with the year round
program, we have developed a system with the school district
where each sixth grader in that system will get their full number
of hours, and then when she is not in the schools she is a patrol
officer.
And then in the left hand column, at the bottom, you have animal
control, but then the rest of them are dispatchers. A big
department.
Mayor Connors: Are there any other questions on the chart.
Council Member Parrott: I have no questions on that, but how
about the neighborhood watch. Are we going to get that started
again.
City Manager: We hope that we have enough officers to do that
this year.
Council Member Parrott: I think it is very much needed.
City Manager: It is very much needed. If we had had the
officers we would have had it last year, but we have had a
shortage of officers. And especially this happened because we
had two who were on workers' comp, and, obviously, when you are
paying full salary, you can't go in and hire people to take their
place. You don't know whether they are going to retire or
whether they are going to come back on staff and you have to give
them their jobs back anyway. So it really creates a problem.
Council Member MacNeilage: What about the reserves.
City Manager: The reserves can work - in the place of an officer
- if they are a Class I reserve. And in Class I reserves I think
we have six. Don't pin me to the exact. If you are not a Class
I you can only ride with, serve subpoenas, do all those things
that do not require you to make an arrest.
Council Member MacNeilage: In other words they are not POST
certified.
City Manager: Class I means they are POST certified, can carry a
weapon, can make an arrest. And our reserve units have been
doing a great job for us, but still we must be careful about
trying to assign people into situations where - neighborhood
watch is usually done in the evening, and, so, with a shortage of
officers, we have had that problem. As I said, we hope to start
that back up this year again.
Mayor Connors: Other questions. Okay. Thank you.
Presentation of Residential Projects Approved or in the Pipeline,
and Industrial and Commercial Zoned Land.
Mr. Stephen Koules, Director of Community Development: My item
is to present the residential and commercial growth of the City,
and to discuss some of the idea. We had this graphic prepared by
the City Engineer. It may be a bit faint, and if that is the
case, I will use the old hand -drawn one that I did a couple of
years ago, which maybe makes the point equally well.
In any event, what you see in blue are the projects that have
been approved for entitlement. Most of the projects, of course,
Page 3
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
are broken down into the large specific plans, but you also have
the small tentative tract maps that we have been processing.
You have, of course, the Deutsch piece here, you have Hovchild
project, the Potrero Creek Estates, which was subsequently
purchased by Metropolitan Water District. You have Three Rings
Ranch here, and KSE immediately adjacent to the north of Three
Rings Ranch. The most recent project is the Rolling Hills
project which you see here.
What we have in the pipeline - the first item that we have in the
pipeline - the most imminent one, would be the Noble Creek
project, which is 434 acres, which is shown here. As a matter of
fact a representative is in the audience today. They have filed
a revised Notice of Preparation that we are processing now and
hope to come to hearing in the next couple of months with that
item.
The large project here is the Willow Springs project, that is
1600 -1700 acres. That has been filed a while ago, but there has
been some problems, and Mr. Bounds and I have had recent
conversations with the applicant that indicates they may revise
this proposal and come in with the northerly portion of this
project for processing.
The small projects scattered throughout, and shown by red, are
small subdivisions. We have, of course, the DevCorp maps, we
have the Aware project over here on the north side of Cougar.
We have the Shelton 37 acres parcel here. These two or three
items will be heard at the Planning Commission on August 20,
along with a park concept plan that we have labeled the North
City Concept Plan which we will make available within the next
couple weeks.
Of the subdivision projects you might be most familiar with is
the WDS project, which is a 201 lot project under construction,
as you know. I think there are 75 or 100 homes built. And then
you have a smattering of smaller subdivisons. For example, the
Copeley subdivision nestled against Three Rings Ranch.
In order of the processing, as many of you know, of course, that
one of the first projects to come into the City were the Hovchild
project, Potrero Creek - they were followed sequentially by
Three Rings Ranch, KSE, then we had the Deutsch come in, and then
lastly Rolling Hills.
What we have on the pipeline, as I mentioned earlier, right now
there is the Noble Creek project, possibly a portion of Willow
Springs. We have had negotiations with Lockheed Corporation.
They have indicated an interest to bring their 9,000 acres into
the City. They are also negotiating with an adjacent property
owner for some 1200 acres, so we may, hopefully, have a project
of about 10,200 acres in size to be processed, hopefully, the
remainder of this calendar year.
Now, in terms of the commercial and industrial zoned designations
for the City, I might indicate that in the Hovchild project we
show, if I remember correctly, some eight to five acres of
commercial. The Deutsch, some fifteen acres of commercial. None
in the Potrero Creek project. A couple of acres in the Rolling
Hills. So, there hasn't been much proposal for commercial zoned
land within the larger projects. What we have processed
recently, in terms of commercial and industrial, is the Ehrlich
piece down on the north side of Fifth, and we have the
mini - warehouse next to the Rusty Lantern. They have started
grading, and will be pulling building permits for the
mini - warehouses - or some of the mini - warehouses.
Traditionally, as you all know, the commercial follows the
residential development. Right now there is a very limited trade
area in Beaumont, so I would identify that as the reason we are
Page 4
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
not having a commercial flow of projects. I think it is self
evident that once the sticks start growing in the ground in terms
of the subdivisions, and the business people identify the needs
for commercial needs, then we will have a flood, hopefully, on
the commercial land that we have in the City.
The commercial land that we have in the City is shown here as
yellow. You will note on Sixth Street, with a sliver along
Beaumont Avenue, and then a span from 10th to 14th where there is
residential and then we have the Alpha Beta and the project
immediately to the west that is presently zoned commercial.
We have - I did this kind of hand drawn, because I think it
stands out a little bit more - this is a much nicer map,
obviously, but you all know the commercial land along Sixth
Street, and along Beaumont Avenue. My personal feeling is that,
again, when the residential development starts, there will be a
rush on the commercial land, and, hopefully, the market forces
into downtown to do that over. We haven't had much call for
large chunks of commercial land outside the present City limits,
but when we spoke to the Willow Springs project, they were, at
first, comtemplating some 88 acres of commercial on the south
side of Sixty. I think their perception now is there may not be
a marketing need future for that, especially in light of Moreno
Valley putting a big auto mall about ten or twelve miles away
from the City.
The industrial zoned land, I think is strategically located. I
think we are fortunate the way the land plan lays out for
Beaumont. As you know we have about 400 acres on the south side
of the freeway and the railroad, and much of that is vacant.
Personally I think it is good industrial land, and we certainly
have been trying to invite any industrial user to the City as
best we could when we have been approached.
That is basically the overview of the way the projects lay on top
of the existing land designations of the City. We have, of
course, the park plan which you are familiar with . . . . . . .
That is basically my presentation. I will be happy to answer any
questions.
Mayor Connors: Anyone.
Council Member McLaughlin: I think maybe Steve you ought to
point out where the wastewater plant is located.
Mr. Koules: Yes. The wastewater and sewer treatment plant is
located here. The City acquired some 120 + or - acres around
that. We zoned that industrial at that time as a pre - annexation
requirement to LAFCO. So this is the existing one million daily
capacity plant, and the proposed additional expansion will be on
surrounding city -owned property.
Council Member Leja: Understanding that you have to have the
housing here in a lot of cases before you get the industry here,
considering what we have already approved, and what is in the
pipeline, are there particular areas that we should be placing,
so that we have a balanced community, toward industrial
development, commercial development, maybe planning now for the
future for the infrastructure to be in place so that we can
actively recruit instead of having a time lapse between the
people coming here and the industrial and commercial.
Mr. Koules: Well, I think - yes - I think that the fact that we
have the residential growth - it is not fictitious, it is on
paper, the developers have put up money to acquire the land and
develop, so I think it is a foregone conclusion that commercial
development will follow. I want to split that question to
commercial and industrial. So I think it would benefit the City
Page 5
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
to start thinking in terms of architectural standards along Sixth
Street and Beaumont Avenue, and the question is - what do you
want the City to look like, you know, a few years from now.
Beaumont Avenue is very different, commercial -wise, than Sixth
Street. They are small lots. Most of the lots are I would said
fifty or sixty by 140. You get what I call, for want of a better
term, cottage industry, for Mom and Pop stores. You might want
to think of some architectural or street scene landscaping
treatment along that street.
I think on Sixth Street, you have some larger lots, obviously the
swap meet property, across from the swap meet is another ten acre
piece where you will have some fair size commercial users. I
think that citizens, City Council, Planning Commission ought to
start thinking in terms of an architectural requirement. Because
the first development on a block sort of sets the tone. That is
what, obviously, Sun Lakes did for the Pass area. They came up
with a good project that has made our job a lot easier because we
can point to that and say well that is the quality we want. As a
matter of fact, that was my conversation with Mr. Lodder, who is
in the audience now, on his property Hovchild. And Mr. Lodder
said, we are going to do better than Sun Lakes. So that is the
type of attitude - that was three years ago. So that is the type
of attitude we are looking for, and I think we can transpose that
to commercial development as well.
In terms of the industrial development, that doesn't necessarily
tie as closely to my perception as the commercial does. Because
an industrial user, as long as there is some housing stock for
his employees along with commuting distance of adjacent cities,
they will come in. But I presume they are looking for some
incentives besides the relatively low cost of rent in the - I am
not in the real estate business, but I would think that
industrial is favorably priced here. Especially with the
railroad nearby. Maybe it is a matter of exposure, selling, it
may be worth joining with the Chamber of Commerce to try to
promote businesses.
I think we have a good City, I think we have a great shot at
doing some fine things, and I think, again, that we are fortunate
that the land use designation - what landowners are allowed to do
- are laid out this way, with the industrial here, the commercial
here and the residential. We are going to have very high
quality, large projects, and the task is to tie it together with
the older section of the City, and before I go off the subject, I
think the City Council showed a lot of insight years ago when
they changed the high density residential zoning in the inner
City, and kept what I say is the heart and soul of the City. You
have nice tree -lined streets, and those areas will be gentrefied
by younger people corning in and buying the older houses as single
family homes.
Council Member Leja: So what we are looking at is almost a
streetscaping type of thing. . .
Mr. Koules: I think streetscaping is very important - most
planners do, most architects, and most City Administrators - that
is what people like - they like aesthetics. And people, of
course, don't just buy a home, they buy a community, they buy
into a City, and the 1990s are very different than the 1960s.
People want - they want nice settings - they want an attractive
street and attractive community.
Council Member Leja: I know one of things that the League was
emphasizing last year was pedestrian oriented - the cottage
industries - for transportation purposes and everything else -
that communities should start looking more toward pedestrian
oriented businesses and communities.
Page 6
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
Mr. Koules: Yeah, I think Beaumont Avenue qualifies for that,
and I am sure the merchants along there would be happy to have
some kind of a situation that invites walking. You know, maybe a
City owned parking lot somewhere where people would park in and
start walking along the shops. But that is your - --
Mayor Connors: This is an informally run meeting, and we are not
chairing it as formally as we usually do, and I want the Planning
Commissioners to realize that anytime they would like to ask a
question, or make a comment, they are welcome to, as well as the
Council.
Chairman Ring: That one project, isn't that going up above
Brookside.
Mr. Koules: The Noble Creek project. Yes, the City - presently
the City sphere line is westerly extension of Cougar, so this
project would come past Cougar to Brookside, then past Brookside.
There is about 100 acres of the 434 acres north of Brookside
Avenue.
Chairman Ring: Is that out of Beaumont's Sphere of Influence.
Mr. Koules: That is presently out of Beaumont's sphere of
influence.
Council Member MacNeilage: Is the very northern portion of that
property, is that Cherry Valley Boulevard.
Mr. Koules: I believe it comes up to Cherry Valley Boulevard.
City Manager: Northerly is ... on both sides of Beaumont Avenue.
Council Member Leja: Have you gotten any indication where the
developments such as Deutsch and some of the others are - what
their hearing dates are, or any idea of what their LAFCO
hearings . . .
Mr. Koules: Mr. Bounds may better address where Deutsch is at
LAFCO, I don't have that information.
City Manager: Deutsch has not completed their application to
LAFCO. The City has done everything it can now, and is waiting
for documents - one is the financial document that has to be put
in. I am going to be working with them this next week, because
one of the things we have to watch is not to let the timing run,
because then we would have to go back and do everything we have
done over. They are well aware of that, and they have started
moving now. But once we turn it in, we are told six months. But
all we have to do is get ours in to stop the clock running on the
City's side.
Council Member Leja: What about the other projects that . . .
City Manager: KSE is in, but, I was there Thursday and asked
them if they had it calendared, and they said no. KSE and the
City annexation. I think that is the only two we have over there
right now, Steve, isn't it.
Mr. Koules: Yes, KSE is pending and then Deutsch.
City Manager: And then the City property down on 4th. We don't
have any that are calendared though.
Council Member MacNeilage: On the other map that we have over
there, you show Oak Valley, but not on . . .
Mr. Koules: Well, okay. This is an old map that is courtesy of
John Stewart that he provided to us, that is why his property is
shown in dark red. Okay. Oak Valley we didn't show here
Page 7
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
because, and maybe Mr. Bounds has more updated information than I
do, but there has been no movement on Oak Valley. Their stated
intention was to bring their 2200 acres south of the easement
into the City of Beaumont. They have had their problems, and you
are familiar with them. I haven't heard from them in quite a
while. Maybe Mr. Bounds can update that.
Council Member MacNeilage: I have a question on Oak Valley. We
have a beautiful golf course that is sitting over there the
public is still not able to use. Do we have any idea when the
club house will be built to where the public can use the golf
course.
City Manager: Landmark, at the present time, as most people
maybe know, has a purchase agreement out in the regulatory agency
of the federal government. It has to be approved due to the fact
that Landmark held most of its property in Oak Valley through Oak
Tree Savings and Loan in Louisiana. Oak Tree Savings and Loan
was told to divest itself of some of its company owned property,
and so Landmark had to look at all they had in the United States
and determine what was sellable and wasn't and so forth. I have
heard recently, well I have heard some comments from time to time
that Landmark is broke and has filed bankruptcy. If it is I
would sure like for someone to give me a number and I will look
it up for you. I can find no bankruptcy number, and can find a
lot of millions of dollars somebody is going to make there. Plus
the fact that the offer that the Dihatsu Company has made to
Landmark, through the federal government, is that 10% of the
property would remain in the hands - or that they would be 10%
owners, Landmark - because they desire to hire the management
team that Landmark has in place for the property.
The - some seven though - whatever - according to the last
purchase that was made, and I don't know when that was, the Oak
Valley property is a well divested property as far as uses. The
property from east of I -10 to Noble Creek - from 14th Street to
Brookside - is called a business park, even though it has a golf
course in it. So all of the use of that property is designed for
use of businesses. I can give you an example - when I was in
northern California, people were trying to move out of San
Francisco, and I can remember one big ranch in the area of the
east bay where, for instance, the standard credit card operation
moved from San Francisco, because they were o big they were
going to have to buy another block and teare buildings, and
that is quite costly in that type of a City. And they moved down
and built, probably, roughly, an eight story building that has a
parking garage in an area four times the size of the building.
Because it is wall -to -wall computer operations. Things like that
are what you find in a business park. Very quiet, a lot of
people working in a lot of cases. Some cases not very many
people working - but certainly where you get the jobs is from
those large operations where you are almost elbow -to- elbow.
That is the type of thing you are looking at. That, certainly,
is on hold because no one can buy when you don't have a seller to
buy from. They have - they brought a gentlemen from one of the
oil companies out of Ontario, who is recognized as one of the
young men in his group in his abilities. One of the leaders.
And they are still are paying him until they figure out who owns
that - who is going to own it - and his job would be to fill that
business park. Plus, they also have a real estate company that
they own in New Orleans that has been showing that property for
about the last two years. Its a big property and has to have a
lot of infrastructure, it needs a sewer plant probably. It could
be built with a septic tank. It would take the County to approve
it at the present time because it is not annexed. And,
obviously, they can't build a building under their present
condition.
Now, the last time I talked to Andy Vossler was about two weeks
Page 8
,,eaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
ago, and his indication was that the regulatory agency are saying
the last of August, the first of September. They have been
saying something like that since February if I am not mistaken.
So I really can't tell you any more. They put in a requisition
of funds to start their EIR and the regulatory agency wouldn't
allow them to draw those funds. So they would be started right
now and doing an EIR, or updating the EIR for municipal purposes
if they were allowed to do it. But, still, who is going to own
it, I don't know.
Council Member Leja: What is already in the pipeline - what has
been approved? Are there any other big vacant pieces of land
that there is nothing happening with, or just sitting there.
Mr. Koules: Well we have the Lorna Linda ownership, which is on
the south side of railroad here. That is about 400 plus or minus
acres. Lewis Homes had expressed an interest. I don't know what
is happening there, but that is a substantial, important chunk
of ground, which will develop at its own point in time.
I can't, offhand, think of any projects - large - Lockheed, of
course, is a very significant piece of ground. In terms of
square miles, it is larger than the present City itself.
Council Member Leja: The Loma Linda property, is that zoned half
for residential . . .
Mr. Koules: Well, it is a designated specific plan, so the City
has a lot of latitude. We can work with them to have a business
park, but they came in - the Loma Linda people came in about two
and a half or three years ago and talked to Bob and myself,
talked about a business park, trying to get some water
orientation, you know, some nice projects - but that didn't
materialize, subsequently we have met with other prospective
developers, but nothing has panned out, but it is a great piece
of ground, and we have the latitude with the specific plan
technique to negotiate some good land uses.
Commissioner Prouty: Mr. Koules. How far along is the sewer
plant in its progress, I mean, we are looking at . . .
Mr. Koules: Maybe Mr. Bounds would want to address that
question.
City Manager: We are calling March, 1993 to have it on line.
Meaning that anyone, at that point, could connect up that is in
the system - paid their dues so to speak. And the reason we say
that is because mains to those properties will be put in
according to who puts up the money to have the mains run. At the
present time we are in the final throes of getting down to
getting an actual discussion with each one on what they want as
far as allocation - do they want half of the units allocated
to be bonded now, and the other half in the second phase, and
things like that. That is going to be taking place within the
next sixty days - we will complete that process.
We are hoping for having bonds sold by the end of the year. I
don't know, with the market that we have got right now, it is not
really that bad, it is little bit high, but we could also get a
little downturn. And the idea of bonds being sold by the City,
they are tax free bonds, and therefore, they are sold at a lower
interest rate.
Council Member Leja: What made us decide to go for tax free
bonds - switch to that instead of the Mello -Roos. What made the
change between Mello -Roos to tax free bonds.
City Manager: To not use up the - well, Mello -Roos is tax free
also.
Council Member Leja: Yeah, but, we have definitely taken the
shift away . . .
Page 9
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
City Manager: We are talking about an assessment district, and
that is to protect the amount of Mello -Roos so that we can get
the biggest bang for the buck. So, basically, we will be using
two tools to finance and get the lowest interest for it, which
can be passed on then, obviously, to the buyer.
Council Member Leja: So pretty much what we are saying in the
wastewater treatment plant - all this is contingent on the
wastewater treatment plant being finished.
City Manager: Everything.
Council Member Leja: Industrial and commercial development.
Unidentified speaker: Could you speak into the microphone.
Council Member Leja: Sorry about that. Am I even hooked up.
There are a lot of wires back here. Do you want me to start
over. Okay. Basically what I am - everything that is on the
board right now is contingent upon the wastewater treatment plant
being finished, and that includes industrial development and
everything.
City Manager: We could handle some commercial today, and a
little bit of industrial, unless they were a very high wastewater
user.
Council Member Leja: How much commercial could we handle.
City Manager: Well, you have to look at the commercial. It is
according to what they need. Every commercial is different. One
has one rest room and one has fifty. So you have to really
compute out what they need. You have others, for instance,
service stations, you have grease bays, and those are very rough
to deal with. So you really have to deal with each individual
commercial.
Council Member Leja: So we are looking at the capacity that our
present system has.
City Manager: Right.
Council Member Leja: How much capacity does that system have.
City Manager: I don't know it today, very little though. Very
little when you figure in it in terms of what we call equivalent
dwelling units. But, as I say, for instance, if you looked at -
if we were connecting up Builder's Emporium today - Builder's
Emporium probably is equivalent to a half house. Doesn't have a
use for wastewater treatment. At the orange juice squeezer down
on B and Veile, is huge. They use a lot of wastewater treatment.
Council Member Leja: So, there could be some industrial
development that we could seek out that we could
City Manager: Put on today.
Council Member Leja: Yeah.
(I cannot determine who the next speaker is, but believe it may
be Commissioner Prouty): But the plant is maxed out the last
time we were told.
City Manager: It is not maxed out, it has a few left, but it is
so few that we have had to stop the houses. We could pick up all
the capacity today with single family homes, but that wasn't the
way the Council wanted to go two weeks ago. They thought they
needed to keep some for job producing uses.
Council Member MacNeilage: What is the capacity of the new one
going to be.
Page 10
City Manager: Three million,
dwelling units is 10,000.
Council Member MacNeilage:
completed in March.
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
first phase. The equivalent
Then the first phase will be
City Manager: Yes. The second phase will be completed,
according to when we start it, and it will be started according
to need, and you are not going to get rid of that first three
million overnight - 10,000 dwelling units. If we operate at
2,000 a year we will be high. Staff does not intend to put it
in a position where we would ever have to hold back like we are
holding back now. It would be ready before it was needed.
Mayor Connors: Do you have any other questions of Mr. Koules so
that he can sit down.
Mr. Koules: If I may just add - Councilwoman Leja's question -
there was another project that I inadvertently left out. The
Heartland piece, about 350 acres. It is on the north side of 60
at the westerly limits of the City. That is a vacant piece of
ground. You may have seen signs up there with residential units,
commercial, but there is no entitlement on the property. They
have been told by Mr. Bounds and myself two and a half years ago
that they would have to file a specific plan. The only thing
they can put on that property now is one single family home. So
no matter what signs you see, they have to come in and do a
specific plan and a full EIR. That is the other project.
Council Member MacNeilage: Is that the property where the
motorcycles are raced out there.
Mr. Koules: Yes, they do. They do get on the property and the
people - representatives of the ownership called me, as if I
could do anything about the motorcycles.
City Manager: Actually, there is one other piece. The square -
larger square right to the right of Heartland - no to the left -
to the left - right there. That is the John C. Heers property.
They have owned that for some 12 to 14 years. Has no entitlement
today whatsoever. They would have to do a specific plan and so
forth. It is in the City limits.
Council Member MacNeilage: How big of a piece of property is
that.
City Manager: 132?
Mr. Koules: Yes, I think it is about 100 plus acres. And then
you have the Mao property of 91, but they have to come in for a
specific plan. What they sometimes try to get is get a density
factor over the phone. It can't be done. They have to come in
and file a specific plan, let's see what the ground reading looks
like and try to negotiate something.
City Manager: We also have two other projects that aren't shown.
The one is just now starting to be in the talking stage out on
First. I have a discussion with them next week. Lockheed also
owns property which is the large square on Jack Rabbit to the
right - back to the left. Right there. No. Right to the right.
Right there. They own -
Mr. Koules: 500.
City Manager: No, they own more than that, but they are looking
at bringing in, I think, its a 160. And one of the things that I
was talking with one of the people one time - the Mission Viejo
Land Company has bought 540 acres just west of Jack Rabbit. And
the properties with Heartland just touch by point, and that is
not the greatest thing to go to LAFCO with, although it can be
done with corridors and things like that. So I just asked
Page 11
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
Lockheed would they consider the possibility of letting us have
thirty acres that we could annex that could be used by them for
whatever reason. They - the vice - president that I was talking to
came back and he said what if we give me more, and I said, tell
me about it. Within three days I had it back and said we would
like to look at this front piece, and I think it is 120 or 160,
something like that. He said will that serve your purpose -
and yes it does. So those are two pieces that could help him put
in an interchange across 60 at Jack Rabbit, which will be needed
eventually. But those are a little bit longer term.
Council Member Leja: How much longer term.
City Manager: They indicate they are coming in next week to talk
to me about getting started, so - and I am meeting with Mission
Viejo next week, and one of the things that they are starting to
see is that if you want any sewer in the first phase, now is the
time to get your dollars out to pay for them - the City is not
going to pay for them. So all of a sudden they started getting a
little more active. So I would imagine that we will start doing
some processing on their EIRs and so forth probably before the
first of the year. But it would be some time before any movement
will be made as far as LAFCO.
If I could, Mayor Connors, one of the things that I just wanted
to try to show what has been happening. In the past say two
years, roughly, commercial and industrial people that come to my
office, realizing that Steve gets people in his office too. For
some reason they were sent to my office, and have made
appointments with me - usually average about two a month. In May
mine picked up to four during that month. Two weeks ago I had
four in in one week. Now, what I am talking about, I am not
talking about a realtor who comes in and says I think I can find
somebody to use the property. What I am talking about are
people who come in who are looking at putting property in escrow
or whatever. And I can tell you that two weeks ago one gentleman
came in with one of his planners, and he said I have just put two
pieces of property in escrow at the corner of 14th and Beaumont
Avenue, and I first thought before he went ahead, he had put in
the west side because you have got two vacant parcels. Well that
wasn't true. He had put in escrow the Alpha Beta Shopping Center
and the property just to the west of Beaumont Avenue across from
it, which is also a commercial site.
Those are the type people that we are talking to that we count,
and no reflection on any name, but Coldwell Banker does a lot of
commercial work, and they have people in the pipeline, and they
will call you on the telephone - what have you got. Well, I tell
them you come out here and look. You can't talk about this over
the telephone. Well, most of them you don't see. They were just
- if you had something hot - they would - -- these are actually
people who are talking about spending money. And that shows, I
think, the fact that we are getting closer to that time for the
sewer treatment plant. We are starting to see the - some of the
people that have to rent to big names - the commercial type
people - are realizing that they are getting into the bargaining
position where it is time to start -- and obviously when that
happens, you either you get somebody that has got a lot of money
to sit on, or you have got somebody that, you know, is a younger
person that doesn't sit on money - they have to spend money to
get some return. Those are the ones that are very easy to work
with because they are ready to start talking now.
Council Member MacNeilage: How do we get - how do we get these
people instead of just inquiring, to actually getting involved in
putting this in. What is going to start it going. What is
really going to get these people interested in our city.
City Manager: I think there are two things that could happen
fairly quickly. One, we could start providing either elected or
staff people to be at certain places where these people gather,
Page 12
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
for whatever kind of meeting they are in. And you get into the
pipeline where you go make contact with them. Two years ago Lyle
Millage, of the Chamber, and I went to Las Vegas to a shopping
center show. You don't even have to trip them. They came for
the purpose of talking. This is the type places where you have
got people that are not interested in selling MacDonalds to each
other. They are interested in finding land and the people -
- -- so it was a very receptive audience, and we have gotten a lot
of contacts from that one trip. Those are the types of things
that we can start getting in the pipeline. Start going to.
Secondly, and I know Council Member Leja and I have been talking
recently, about getting some advertising started that can be
sent, that can be provided -- strange, we were talking about
your Coldwell Bankers, and some of the bigger commercial people,
you talk about brochures, and you go take them by the larger
offices, and they will start then calling you when they need some
more. They like to have something to give to the people.
So those are the type things too - you are letting someone else
then use that brochure to talk to the person until you can get
him out here.
Mr. Koules: If I may add to that - developers come in to see us,
for example, a couple of weeks ago MacDonalds came and we went
out to the site to see the MacDonald representatives. I think if
you - they buy on expectation and of course if you promote the
expectation, and that is what we try to do with the brochure that
Bob hands out, and the statistical tables, saying don't look at
the scene the way it is now, look at the way it is going to be,
both in numbers, and now we have to think in terms of quality as
well as numbers. But I think if you sell them on that, that
image and that expectation. . .
Council Member Leja: I know -- the representatives - the
government relations, representatives in their real estate, Vice -
President from In- and -Out Burger came and met with us at the
first of the year, and told us that they based their purchases,
and they purchase the land, solely on projections, not what is
already there, but on projections, and they were very interested,
but it seems to me, like Mr. MacNeilage said, we need to go that
step further. Sure, we are getting all the nibbles, but we have
to have something in place, and maybe that is something that we
should be discussing in Item No. 5.
City Manager: One thing along that line, Council Member Parrott
brought me an item and an address one day for a eating
establishment. We immediately sent off a letter. We don't care
what state they are in, so far as their corporate headquarters,
to see if we could get a dialogue going. And many of them you
don't get an answer, but what did it cost - 290 and a piece of
letterhead paper and an envelope. That is not very expensive as
far as a try is concerned. But anytime that anyone just happens
to run across any corporate headquarters of an establishment that
you would like to see, we would be glad to put out a letter
immediately to them.
Council Member Leja: Between number five and number three we
have got to do - you know - we have really got to have a full,
in -depth process - you know, a process that we follow that is
more in detail.
Council Member MacNeilage: To sell the City.
Council Member Leja: Exactly. So I will be ready to talk about
that under Item No. 5.
Mayor Connors: Are we ready to go to Item No. 4. Discussion of
financial tools available to the cities. Will you be doing this
one Mr. Bounds.
Page 13
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
4. Discussion of Financial Tools Available to Cities.
City Manager: Basically, as far as infrastructure, those things
that cities need - streets, sewer, water, city hall, police
stations, fire stations - prior to 1978, when Prop 13 was put on
the ballot, and the people of the State of California
overwhelmingly approved that proposition, General Obligation
bonds were the way that cities really built themselves. For
instance, one of the things that has slowed down the building the
wastewater treatment plant today, we can't put out - or we don't
dare try - to do a general obligation bond, and I will explain
why in just a second - for that wastewater treatment plant,
therefore, we have got to get landowners and developers to put up
their properties as collateral to allow us to sell bonds, and
agree those bonds back. To be able to build that plant.
In the old days, we went out and built a plant with bonds. We
paid the bonds off with what is called sewer connection fees. We
would have the plant ready to do, and then you would come in,
take out a building permit, and pay your fee. It won't happen
anymore. The reason - any general obligation bond today in the
State of California requires a two- thirds majority - what I tend
to call minority rule - when you stop and think about it, if 66%
of the people wanted it, they don't get it, because minority
ruled in that case. There is not, that I am aware of, a general
obligation bond in the State of California since 1978. So you
can see that all those people that have a lot of money, can do
anything they want to, they are not doing it either, so small
cities don't even try. The public just automatically would turn
them down.
So today we have special assessment district bonds, which is what
we are proposing for the building of the wastewater treatment
plant. That entails the landowner - and it has to be the owner,
not someone that is in option - the landowner signs to allow his
property to be used as collateral, and that collateral is placed
up so that the City can then sell tax - exempt bonds, that means
that the bond holder does not pay income tax on the interest that
he makes, therefore, that is the reason that the interest rate is
lower on a tax -free bond. And that bond, then, is put out, it
could be ten, fifteen or twenty years, and the property owners,
along with their property tax, have the assessment placed on
their property tax bill, and they can pay it, as you may pay now,
December 10 and April 10, or they can pay each year both payments
at one time. The problems with the bond is that if the - some of
the landowners let the bonds go, then we go into a special
situation where we have to start a foreclosure on the property,
and in the normal case, where you may be aware, that if you don't
pay your taxes, after you go through the loopholes, you can have
about seven years, and then an extra year to redeem it, before
you have to do anything. You just sit there and owe the County
and the City and fire districts, or whoever, that money for that
time.
You do it a little differently though with an assessment district
bond. It is not the City's money. The bondholder has the money.
They are the ones who have the right to it, not the City. We are
merely the collecting agency, therefore, we are required, and you
have seen it a couple of times on the small district that we have
in town today, where we have to file to get them to pay, and if
you want to call it using the threat of condemnation, it is not
exactly that, it actually starts the process. But then, once the
bondholder sees that they don't push you to get it paid any
quicker.
The special assessment district bonds which was used from 14th
Street to Brookside, and has served to put a sewer line - sewer
main to the north there that covers properties such as Shelton,
Aware, Country Crossing, that sewer line that goes up through
there was put in with an assessment district, and at the time
they assessed themselves, some of them assessed themselves for
Page 14
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
the sewer connection fee, and that is being paid in the bond.
Those who have bought houses in the area do not have a bond on
their house, there is no assessment against your house today,
because we require that to be paid off in closing the house. So,
the only property that still has an assessment district is the
Shelton property, Aware property, and a portion that Devcorp
still owns, and the corner piece at Brookside and Beaumont
Avenue, on the south of Brookside and east of Beaumont Avenue.
That is the only bond issue that we have even got in the City
today.
Secondary, and another large way in raising money, is through a
Mello -Roos Improvement District. Mello and Roos were one
assemblyman and one senator who tried to arrive at something to
allow cities to continue to grow, realizing that general
obligation bonds could no longer be used. So that is an
outcropping of Prop 13. Land, again, is put up for collateral,
and when we talk about voter approval, like in general obligation
bonds, 2/3 majority. I failed to say that in special assessment
districts, it is not an actual vote, its a petition where the
landowner says I petition to get my property in, and then some
people can be squeezed in by the City if they so desire. Again,
the land has covered well over two- thirds of any action like
that.
Mello -Roos is actually an election taken. You say, go ahead and
put me in. All the documents are prepared and one day there is
an election, and a landowner indicates - the Deutsch Company -
whoever is authorized to vote for them, and we even have to know
that, comes in or gets an absentee ballot, and in that case votes
1100 acres, or 500 acres, or whatever they want, into a Mello -
Roos District.
What can you do with it. Well, you can provide infrastructure.
We could have provided the wastewater treatment plant. But the
cost of that and water lines, and things like that, you are going
to put it up where it is going to be difficult to use anything
from that. And one of the things we have been talking about is
schools being part of that bonding program. And Mr. Rossi is
here this morning, and we will be looking at how we can best be
involved with the school district.
There is another bond - or not bond, but a system, which is
called a Mello -Roos Services District. In a case like that, many
cities have gone on the basis that in the first year, or two
years, whatever they estimate, the - a new developer may come in
and be grading property and doing all sorts of things, and desire
to have some police protection, and can, and needs fire
protection, that the drain on the City prior to getting any taxes
of any size, that there should be an assessment charge for
services. Usually, what I have seen so far have just mainly been
in the form of police and fire services. Something that we have
to go out and hire people, or buy equipment, to be able to spread
any further than we have the ability to spread it at this time.
Those are short -term, like I said, one year or two year, usually,
maximum.
We have several districts that are allowed under, strangely
enough, the streets and highways code. There is one called a
landscape and lighting district, and that is for a service. You
can pay for the upkeep of median strips, entrances to
subdivisions, and so forth, providing if there is an election
taken, and the people agree to that. In many cases, what happens
is the developer puts that on prior to people buying the houses,
and is the total owner, and he says put this on and set an
election for me so I can vote.
There is a lighting district of which we have a lighting district
in the City today. Unusual - hard to explain to people in
the fact that you don't see it on your tax bill. It comes out of
a portion of what is called the one percent tax. And so that
Page 15
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
just comes off of the top. And every streetlight in this City,
the current that is going to it is paid for by that district, so
we don't have a separate fee that we have to pay out for using
that money when it comes in to pay those current fees, as well as
the current that goes into stop signs. But, again, this is a
strange district in that nobody sees a bill for it. That is just
the way it is.
You have special taxes. Special taxes are the realm where you
put them to a specific use. Probably some of the biggest ones
that were used in the last ten years were paramedics. Cities
found that they would like to have paramedics on the street,
couldn't afford it, so they determined if they could get a
special tax put on. There has been some movement now to take
some of that out of the special tax - but I will give you a
reason why that doesn't work exactly. That is the only thing
that is provided for this vote of the people - it is different
than the two - thirds majority. It requires a simple majority to
approve that.
General tax, meaning if the Council decides to put a tax on it
would be used for - could be used for such things as police,
fire, streets or any municipal purpose. Due to the fear of what
Proposition 62 said, this has put the cities in this year into a
strange situation. Where there was a general tax considered, the
Constitution says that there shall be no referendum - that the
taxing body has the right to tax. Proposition 62 was put on the
ballot, and there is some now legal problems with it that says it
has to go to a vote of the people. Again, it would be a simple
majority.
The Utility User Tax that the Council has recently adopted,
effective July 1, is going on the ballot in November due to the
fact that it raises close to a quarter of a million dollars, and
with the straits that the City is in, and most other cities and
counties are in, it is needed desperately this year.
Mitigation fees are not a tax, but they are a tax when somebody
has to pay them. A law was passed, AB 1600, that says that when
you are putting on developers fees - there must be a
determination that those fees will be used for the proper
purpose, and not just to put in a boot over here some day, and
somebody forget, and then start drawing the money out for some
other use. So what you do, if you are looking at - in the future
- a City Hall building, a fire building, or whatever, you come up
with the ways that you can show that it will cost the building,
or buy the land, and that it be fair to the lotting procedure
that is used in the City today. Example. Fire mitigation is
probably the biggest one used by anybody. The County uses a
situation where you build a fire station and furnish it, and
equip it with one pumper. Well that cost is estimated at a
million to 1.1 million in today's prices, so at the present time
they figure approximately 2400 homes, at $466 a house, or 300 a
square foot for commercial, as a fire mitigation fee. And every
building permit has that fee charged against it in the County
today. That is one of the ways to raise money. Police can be
the very same way. You have to determine what buildings will be
needed, what vehicles will be needed, what equipment will be
needed, and the average is running about $400 a house today.
Transportation mitigation. That is where you would possibly have
bridges, four lane streets, high cost items of that nature. Say
if you need a four lane street, and the property that is being
built on both sides of it are not putting that kind of traffic on
it, the City might agree to pay for two lanes of the street
through a mitigation fee, and the other two lanes would be
required by the developer himself.
In the case of the area that Mr. Ware is in, where we have Cougar
Way, Palm Avenue, both are going to have some kind of a bridge,
there is a channel through there, this could be done through a
Page 16
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
mitigation fee, but it would mean that no buildings would be
built until the fee is up high enough where we could take it out
of this fund and pay for that. So it is the chicken and the egg.
Do you want to build houses first or what.
Traffic signals have been at the rate of $150.00 per house. And
it appears that the work that we have done so far, with the
number of houses being built, the number of traffic signals to be
put in in the future, it is going to be about $250.00 a house.
There could be other things - drainage, such as Marshall Creek,
such as Noble Creek, all of these things could be done through
fees, and those we will be bringing to the Council probably
within the next 45 to 60 days to consider what you are going to
do with mitigation fees.
In the case of those that are building now, we have established a
fee that you have approved individually, and we are just doing it
by the acre at the present time - lower than these costs.
Then you have regular fees that have to be watched by AB 1600
also, and that is fees you charge for building permits, and that
is supposed to pay for the building plan check, building
inspection, things along that line. Planning fees - that is to
operate a Planning Department, so you have a lot of fees
established there.
Grants are something that in the 50s, 60s and early 70s were
extremely good. With the situation today, it is going to be
interesting to see what the Feds do. The catalog was about that
thick the last time I saw it. They haven't been sending it out
lately, and it is interesting, boy, you go through it and you are
really happy with it until you look at one place, and it says not
funded. So it is a non - funded book. I would venture to say that
three - fourths of the last book I read were not funded. But you
have got to put them out because they look good, and all the
Congressmen are sending these out to their constituents, and
nobody looks at them, but this is something we constantly want to
stay aware of. Office traffic safety is one we can get from time
to time. We have reused those here in the City. So there is
some fed, some state, usually a one time item, and then there are
private foundations that are starting to get harder to get now
because of all the dropoffs of the feds and state having to do
with grants.
I am sure I have missed some. There is such a myriad of funding
available, and there is a lot that is not used by cities for
their own purpose of being very highly political - any questions
that you have - oh, excuse me. I walked over one.
Redevelopment is the tool that is most readily available, and has
from time to time been attached by the newspapers, as it should
when it is illegally used, or improperly used, as has been some -
apparently in this county and some cities, and so forth.
The purpose of redevelopment came from an old redevelopment law
that the federal government had, and that is where you would file
for some money, and they would send you the money - it is kind of
an interesting approach, it didn't last very long because there
was so much corruption in it that it really got bad. They had
council members having their property bought from them, and then
buying it back at a lower cost, and it just really was very
poorly done. But a lot of cities in the 50s and 60s used that to
the advantage of really doing a job in old towns, as we call it.
The old town commercial area, or whatever, where they really
needed to do some work. Where they really needed to take
buildings out.
The outcropping of that was State law was provided, even today in
the State of California, where, due to blight and there is a lot
of discussion and arguments over this - and the law specifically
Page 17
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
says what blight is, but we still have a tendency to want to
argue, even though the law is very specific on what it is -- but
you have a blighted area, the Council can form itself as a
redevelopment agency, or it can appoint people and give them the
power to become a redevelopment agency, and this redevelopment
agency - then, at that point you have the right to develop an
area plan. So what you usually do, once you become the agency -
and it is done by ordinance - is you first have to appoint a
project area committee to work with staff and usually one or two
consultants, who prepare a plan for a particular area that is
selected by the project area committee, with the help of the
Council, and when I say your planned area, I mean actually has
the streets named in which it will be surrounded by. Example:
You may take Sixth Street from the state -owned property of the
street to Beaumont Avenue, and you may say the number of feet
that takes in one block away, that is an example. That would be
targeted for the project area committee to come up with a plan to
redevelop that area. Looking at the buildings, looking at the
infrastructure, looking at all those things. We come out with a
plan for the cost, and that is where you need some consulting
work done, of how much should be raised in this project. It also
will come out with a time - it shall be ten year, twenty year,
thirty year, whatever, plan.
Now the key to redevelopment is where does the money come from.
It is no more money than anybody else would ever pay. What
happens is on a key date all property tax are frozen at that
price. If it is a house, if it is a commercial building, if it
is a vacant lot. That is a frozen base, and all of the agencies
that are getting money from the property tax today continue to
get money on the frozen base, so it never does down for them, and
it never goes up, until the project is over. The excess money
then comes from whenever a property is sold, it is reappraised by
the County, it is put on at a different price, you can raise
taxes over that. It is o.k. with Prop 13 to do that. Or -
every property goes up 2% every year automatically, according to
Prop 13. So you take the 2% a year increase, and all other
involvement, and a new building is put on as a reappraise, and
those are the monies that the redevelopment agency has at its
disposal. It can, through tax anticipation, put out letters -
certificates of credit. You can borrow money against that in
taxes coming in. It can bond to be paid by taxes coming in. It
has several ways to raise money in that way.
And then, four times a year, there is a check that is received
from the tax collector for that portion that is now to become its
property. The first year is the lowest year, so each year it has
to go up 2% - it has got to go up. And so the first few years,
if you don't have too much money, but you can borrow toward the
tax anticipation, and they have got all sorts of formulas, so
that you don't get hurt as far as borrowing too much and things
like that.
Mayor Connors: I think - before we go any further - we should
discuss where we are going with this meeting, because we are now
on Item 4, and we are an hour and a half into the meeting, and we
are at noon. Items 8 and 9, if they were not important would not
have gotten on to this agenda. And I am wondering if we
shouldn't decide whether we want to finish this discussion and go
on to 8 and 9, or whether we want to set a time limit on the
meeting, or what the input is on this - on the situation, because
it is obvious that were we to spend as much time on the rest of
the agenda as we have so far, we will be here all day.
Council Member Leja: Are you saying that we leave out 5 and 6.
Mayor Connors: No, I am saying go to 8 and 9, and then, if we
have - do we have a time limit - or do we want to go to a certain
discussion, or what, in order to make sure that 8 and 9 get
discussed, and do we have a time limit we would like to set on
the meeting, or what.
Council Member Leja: Eight and nine are closed.
Page 18
Mayor Connors: Eight is not closed.
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
Nine is closed.
Council Member Leja: Nine is closed. Nine I feel - sometime,
surely, we will need to break for lunch for the people in the
audience, if anything, and we have food here. Maybe nine, we
should just work through our lunch, during the closed session,
have our lunch during the closed session.
Mayor Connors: Then you are saying leave the meeting time open.
Did you want to say something, Mr. Burch. Anyone else have a
feeling on this.
Council Member Leja: That was just a suggestion.
Mayor Connors: If we were going to simply go through the entire
thing no matter how long it takes, then we would not have to put
the closed session during the lunch break because we would be
just staying here until we are done.
Council Member McLaughlin: I have a sneaking suspicion that
since we discussed as much as we have on these other items, there
will be less discussion coming in on the latter part of this
agenda, so probably it won't be that long discussing these other
items.
Mayor Connors: Well, if we are expecting thorough discussion on
each item, and we have just brought up the subject of
redevelopment, and I'm expecting that to last another half hour
or longer by itself, I don't know how long the discussion might
be, in lieu of the March 9 meeting.
Council Member McLaughlin: Well it seems like to me some of
those items have been covered several times, so it shouldn't be
that much.
Mayor Connors: Okay, then you want to continue the discussion
from here for as long as it takes.
Council Member MacNeilage: Excuse me, my feeling is, if we
continue on it - the agenda as it is and keep in mind the time
for what we are discussing.
Mayor Connors: Well, that is a difficult thing to do because the
purpose is to get together in a special meeting to thoroughly
discuss these things, so we hate to cut off discussion. We can
adjourn the meeting to another date, and continue it, so far as
that goes - to another Saturday morning, or - I mean, if I try to
cut off discussion at any given point, that will not work,
because someone that wants to say something, or bring something
up, is going to want to do that.
Council Member Leja: I am prepared to be here for as long as it
takes.
Mayor Connors: Is there anyone with a problem with that. Okay,
what time do you want to have this lunch break.
Brief discussion among the Council concluded they would eat while
continuing the meeting, since they have food available.
The meeting was recessed at 12:02 p.m., reconvening at 12:22 p.m.
Mayor Connors: We had just finished the explanation of financial
tools available to the City, and we are ready for questions or
discussion of those.
Council Member McLaughlin: I don't know - I was just thinking
about you should mention on our grant funds. I think grant funds
are getting less and less, so it is making it rougher and rougher
to do some of the many projects that cities are able to do.
City Manager: Grants are almost gone. And they are going to
Page 19
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
become, I think, whatever money is put up, as a tool, political
tool, almost like the old cracker barrel, U. S. Legislature. I
think they are going to become very, very difficult to get due to
regulations that are put on. Certainly, we are going to continue
watching for them.
Mayor Connors: Okay. Is there anything else.
Council Member MacNeilage: I would just like to stress the point
once again, I think that we need a redevelopment agency in the
City of Beaumont.
Mayor Connors: The subject of redevelopment has come up several
times now in the last two or three years, and we are basically
still at the point where redevelopment comes up. And I don't
know exactly what we will have to do in order to get this thing
discussed in a serious way.
It seems as though, I can't remember when it was, at one point
the City Manager was asked to try to provide us - and it is a
complicated thing to do - with the changes that have been made in
the redevelopment law in the last few years since the election
that was held here on redevelopment. But that entails a lot of
changes. How did that project go.
City Manager: It was going along pretty good, but that was two
or more years ago, which are two or more years of changes. I am
really going to have to start it over again, because I would have
to go back and look at everything that has been done.
Council Member Leja: During the break a couple of the people in
the audience in the back told me that they can't hear us.
Council Member McLaughlin: They also asked if they could put
their hands up and talk. Would that be permissible in this
informal meeting.
Mayor Connors: I suppose that it would. I don't know that that
was our original intent. We were having sort of a study session
thing here, but when we are presenting information, it is
possible that someone in the audience might have a question about
that information. Did someone have a question about something
that we did have on here. Is that why that question came up.
Council Member Leja: Maybe when you were mentioning how do we
get to the process of just not bringing it up at every study
session or when we do at council meetings - I mean - what are we
going to do around here. That is one reason, and not wanting to
skip through the agenda, but that is one reason I suggested
formation of resource committees. Maybe an area like that would
fall underneath one of those once we get to that point of the
agenda.
Mayor Connors: Okay. All right. Is there any other discussion
then on Item 4. Questions, or. . .
Council Member MacNeilage: To get back to redevelopment, it is
going to get quiet again.
Mayor Connors: I felt like what we were saying was that we would
bring that up again on Item six. That was the way I understood
it. Were you approaching it from a different angle than that.
Council Member MacNeilage: Okay.
it again.
Council Member Leja: I think fo
your mind - but, we need to show
things that are priorities for
redevelopment agency is a way to
City.
Well. I was just approaching
us to seriously - I can't read
maybe we need to discuss some
the City, and maybe forming a
achieve those priorities for the
Page 20
5.
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
Mayor Connors: I think at our last priority meeting here, we did
have that. . .
Council Member MacNeilage: That was one of the priorities. . .
Mayor Connors: Under - two or three of the Council Members -
Council Member Parrott encouraged revitalization and rehab of the
downtown area. Council Member Leja, redevelopment. Council
Member MacNeilage, beautification and community involvement, and,
I think, that, as a summary, redevelopment came out number one
here - one of the top five priority issues. So we already have
it as a priority. And that was three or four months ago now. So
we actually have to do something specific if we are ever going to
do it. Instead of just bringing it up all the time.
Council Member Leja: Any suggestions.
Council Member MacNeilage: Maybe if we brought it up at a
Council Meeting.
Mayor Connors: Discussion of redevelopment.
Council Member MacNeilage: Yes. And that way we would be
eliminating a lengthy issue today.
Mayor Connors: Well, then, I would suggest that someone with a
strong interest in redevelopment ask to have that placed on the
agenda.
Council Member Leja: Want to flip a coin. Does this mean we are
on number five.
Mayor Connors: If there is no more discussion or questions on
Item No. 4. Okay. Item 5.
Review Priority Issues Discussed at the March 9, 1991 Council
Meeting and Adding Any New Priorities.
Mayor Connors: Okay we will review this. Not everyone in the
audience has one, so we will review it. The study session of
March 9, each Council Member was asked what their priority issues
were. What they were the most interested in seeing done in the
City. Council Member Parrott, Leja, MacNeilage and myself all
stated things that would fall under the jurisdiction of
redevelopment, which made redevelopment the top priority issue.
The second priority issue was encouraging community input and
involvement, which is a very tricky one if the community does not
get involved.
Three was the community image, which also falls under
redevelopment, and furthering the drug war. And that is where we
left off on priorities. And I think Council Member MacNeilage is
really eager to start this discussion.
Council Member Leja: MacNeilage or Leja.
Mayor Connors: Leja. I meant Leja.
Council Member Leja: He can start first.
Council Member MacNeilage: I
redevelopment because I think we'
- because I think it will end
future, and we will all be able
Planning Commission would have
don't know, but if anyone.
am
ve
up
to
que
going to skip right over
-- if you can believe that -
on the agenda in the near
discuss it. But maybe the
;stions on redevelopment, I
Chairman Ring: How do you start it. What is the story.
Council Member MacNeilage: I guess to start with we need to put
Page 21
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
it on the agenda.
Mayor Connors: I think probably if we were to give each of the
Planning Commission Members a copy of these minutes from the City
Council meeting of April 8, Item 9, which is a presentation of
the pros and cons of redevelopment. It covers how you start it
and so forth. That would probably be very helpful to them. And
then they might be in a better position if they wanted to attend
the meeting at which this is discussed, they would kind of have
the background to it. Otherwise, we will be getting into another
long discussion on it, and I think we should provide each of them
with a copy of this and that would help. Is that okay with you
as a way to do it.
Council Member MacNeilage: The other item that was on the
priority issues, which was encouraging community input and
involvement, we got some answers to that at that time, but I am
going to put Mayor Connors on the spot like she did me at the
last council meeting, and ask her what has happened with the drug
war, how much progress has been made on it since the last
priority meeting, and what else can be done.
Mayor Connors: Council Member MacNeilage is referring to his
bungie jump. I do have some drug war t- shirts at home. You may
have realized, or read lately, that the Pass Area Drug Abuse
Council has disbanded. And the reason for that was that the
community had begun to take up the slack and start working on the
drug war.
In the past few months any progress that has been made has been
made from things that have been put into practice previous to
that. The schools now have in place programs for each grade
level from kindergarten through 12th grade, which was not the
case originally. And we also have the D.A.R.E. officers not only
in Beaumont, but in Banning. And as far as we ourselves, we are
funding the D.A.R.E. officer, and, of course, we realize that we
are having financial difficulties all over the state right now,
and that will probably be about as much as we can handle at this
time. And, of course, we also have our narcotics unit in our
police department.
But all of the progress that has been made since March would have
been made in those areas that are already in place.
Council Member MacNeilage: The D.A.R.E. program. This is - the
way this is set up, it is only for certain grades, K -6 or
something like this.
Mayor Connors: The D.A.R.E. program is taught to 6th graders.
The school district has other programs in place at other age
levels according to what age level they are and are able to
understand and comprehend and be able to work with them at. The
D.A.R.E. program is 6th graders, and the reason for that is
because the junior high level is the highest risk level for
beginning drug use. And the D.A.R.E. program teaches not only
what drugs are and what they do to you, but it teaches positive
reinforcement and the ability to say no, not just telling them to
do that, but building up their own self image and making them
able to do that.
Council Member MacNeilage: The - I understand that not long ago
that some of the high school and junior high kids were expressing
an interest in getting a drug program in those areas that we
don't have, and I am wondering if there is something that we can
do to get a drug program in the junior high and high school - or
if this . . .
City Manager: There is a drug program in the high school.
Mayor Connors: You may be referring to what you read about some
of the students wanting to extend the D.A.R.E. program into the
Page 22
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
next grade, but that is not how the D.A.R.E. program works, and
these were students and others who did not understand that
particular thing. The school district does have drug programs
all the way through.
Council Member Leja: So, basically what we are doing now is just
the drug war, we are only targeting youth in the drug war.
Mayor Connors: Yes.
Council Member Leja: Okay.
Mayor Connors: Well, no. We would have to count the Narcotics
Unit.
Council Member Leja: Yes. But as far as our educational
process, we are targeting predominately youth in preventive
measures.
Mayor Connors: The drug council was furnishing and updating a
resource list for help for drug users. And that will no longer
be the case if anyone is interested in that aspect of that. Some
way through the City providing that information. And that was
for everyone of any age.
Council Member Leja: Okay. Because I am aware there is a school
- the day counsel, through the school district, which is drug,
alcohol, tobacco education. And, basically, when you look at
drugs, that is the result of something. And the result of
students at risk. And students at risk can be identified at the
pre -K level. And just not for drugs too, risk can mean teen
pregnancy, runaway, suicide, drugs, gangs, etc. etc. And I would
certainly like to see the City target a youth services program,
as well as maybe having more participation in finding out what
we, as a City Council, can do of furthering their complete
program, which involves all of the different elements that
students are at risk with.
Mayor Connors: I had been discussing with Terry Rohrer, who is
the person at the school district that is working on the drug
problem, to tie it all together, and I told him that when the
Palm Springs session ended that the school district went to, to
get in touch with me, and we could see what kind of cooperation
we could have between the City and the school district. He has
not called back as of this date, but I be would happy to call him
if that is what you would desire to have done.
I really would like to see them change the name of that to
students that are more at risk, because everyone is at risk. All
the kids are at risk, and sometimes we are really surprised at
what kids end up on drugs, and there doesn't seem to be a reason
for it. And there is, of course, but we don't want to lull
people into a sense of false security with their kids either.
Council Member Leja: I assume this is spontaneous. Probably,
one of the areas that the City can look at, drugs, then you look
at the cause and what we can do in preventive measures as well,
would be to set up some type of a committee that focuses in on
youth services, which the drug war would fall under. Since there
is such a tremendous need just in youth. In so many different
areas besides drugs. Maybe we should look at a committee that
addresses . . .
Council Member MacNeilage: A resource committee.
Council Member Leja: Yes. That addresses youth services. You
know, even down to educating them in civic involvement. A
speaker or bureau program between the City and the school
district. There are a lot of programs that the League uses, and
that they have available the information to us. It is just a
matter of focusing in on a particular area, and I think from what
Page 23
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
Mayor Connors said, it is a big challenge, and it is a big job,
and maybe this needs special attention, such as direction toward
providing more youth services. Even down to including in that
setting up day care review for day care facilities. The type of
codes that we want to cover it since that is becoming a reality.
I foresee a lot of things under that one heading that need
to be addressed.
Mayor Connors: Are you talking about something that works
with youth about the way the senior center is set up.
Council Member Leja: Well I am not saying we set up a
special department. I think, first of all, we have to find out
what is out there. Find out what is available. Find out what is
affordable, and work from there.
Mayor Connors: And you are suggesting a committee to go find
out.
Council Member Leja: Yes.
Mayor Connors: Mr. MacNeilage, you wanted to say something.
Council Member MacNeilage: There was - I just wanted to
bring this up just because I saw a need for it in our City
also. The Coachella Valley has a program set up, and I guess
it is just for informational purposes, where they have gone
through and spruced up their schools, so to speak. And done
a lot of remodeling, and things of this nature, and they did
this with - they had some facts they had followed that showed
that when kids were brought into these schools that were
cleaned up and remodeled and things of this nature, that
their grades went up proportionally. I think this is
something also that we could possibly look into. But I don't
know where the funding would come from, or things of this
nature.
Maybe this is the school board's problem, or something that
can be brought to them. I don't know, but anything like this
could help the children have a better attitude towards their
school and their community.
Mayor Connors: Well, as far as funding is concerned, I think
the public needs to realize that we are just now at our
budget process, and so anything that we decided that we would
like to do, we would have to enact, probably in the next
year, the next budget session, because we don't have the
information yet to discuss it for this budget. But if we
don't start at some point, we never get it. But I think the
public should realize that it might not be an overnight
occurrence.
Council Member Leja: It sounds like what Mr. MacNeilage is
also addressing is the facts of the need of not understanding
if it is the school's job or not to do this. I think one of
the obligations that we have as a governmental agency in a
community is to assist in providing quality education for the
people in the area. And, to me, that is a priority. I think
it is just - I mean, true, you have a school district and
everything else, but I think it also should be a priority for
us as well. And maybe one of the ways that we could help is
to hold joint meetings with the school district, and develop
an agenda of mutual concern.
Mayor Connors: I think that the first step that we have to
take is to hold a joint meeting with the school district in
order to further discuss this once we have a consensus here.
Council Member MacNeilage: With the resource committee, or
with. . .
Mayor Connors: With the school district.
Page 24
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
Council Member MacNeilage: No, I mean the resource committee to
meet with the school district or the Council.
Mayor Connors: No, with us to meet with the school district
because the school district would probably like some input into
that resource committee. Mr. McLaughlin.
Council Member McLaughlin: It seems to me like that we keep -
what we keep hollering on here is the children, which is very
true, and we don't seem to have anything that takes care of the
parent to realize maybe what is taking place, and why is the
parent, and so forth. Maybe there is a reason. We have a lot of
people that are separated. One family trying to raise the whole
family, all the kids, and they just can't be on top of all this,
and nobody has said a word about maybe we should start some place
along here and get the parents involved in this issue. It is all
- the school takes care of the kids, and we take care of this -
but nobody takes care of this parent that maybe should have some
education along this line to be of a greater assistance to their
children.
To me, we sort of start here - and I think we should start up
here more towards the top where the child is going to be living.
Mayor Connors: Well one of the reasons that is happening is the
same problem getting community involvement. And there are
basically two kinds of parents when it comes to kids on drugs.
There are poor parents, not financially, but poor parents that
aren't doing a good job, and then there are good parents who
can't believe it is happening. And so it is hard to get those
parents involved, and we need to try to find someway to do that.
The school district may have some suggestions on that also.
Council Member Leja: As part of this, Ann, I wish someone from
the school district were here right now, but as far as the day
committee goes, that is one of the levels of this program. Is
developing a parenting to work directly into the communities with
the parents, in whatever capacity, and getting more community
involvement, and an education process for the parents. Like you
were saying, the need is there because a lot of times that is
where the students become at risk is at the parental level.
Mayor Connors: The school district has even provided a means for
the parents to try to determine in the privacy of their own homes
whether their children are children at risk, by sending home a
questionnaire and a video that will help them to maybe see the
problem, and help them to understand that it can happen to their
kids, so they are working in that direction. And, probably,
where we need to go next with the drug problem is in a joint
meeting with the school district.
Is there any other comment on . . .
Council Member Leja: Also, there is something else that we could
look at along that line as well, which also deals down to the
community level with aids and preventative measures for seniors,
and that type of thing. The League of Cities has a program
called California Healthy Cities project that I am very
interested in finding out more information about that. I
think that should be a priority since we have such a diversity of
age groups here - but very strongly in the senior aspect. And
maybe even sitting down and meeting with the hospital board too,
because that is something where we have to help in some way, at
least provide a cooperative environment for there to be good
health care provided, and preventive care provided as well. And
that gets down to the - I mean there could be some collaboration
with the hospital along the drug education, as well as other
areas.
Mayor Connors: Okay. Is there any other comment. Is there any
comment about the other priorities on the priority list from
March. Is it a consensus of the Council they would like to see
Page 25
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
a joint meeting with the school district.
Council Member Leja: Yes.
Council Member McLaughlin: It couldn't hurt.
Mayor Connors: All right.
City Manager: Did you want that - request it to be - to
basically discuss the drug education, or do you want it to be
more broadly established.
Council Member MacNeilage: I think more broadly.
Council Member McLaughlin: It will probably grow broadly.
Mayor Connors: But you have to agendize it . . .
City Manager: We have to both put out agendas, and we are only
going to talk about those things that are on the agenda.
Mayor Connors: How about - can't we say discussion of issues,
the city and the school have in common.
Council Member Leja: How about develop an agenda of mutual
concern. We have to develop an agenda of mutual concern before
we sit down and discuss the agenda. Because what they might
think is important, we might not think is important, and we need
to have a good working relationship before we get into the big
ticket items.
Mayor Connors: Well, that leaves Mr. Bounds with the same
problem, because he wants to know what mutual concerns, what you
want on it yourselves on this side of it.
City Manager: Why don't we do something like this. Each one of
you - take until next Wednesday or Thursday or something - and
drop down notes, and I will try to come up with an agenda back
out to you - and if you agree, write yes - and if you don't, put
no, and other things - and then I can go to the school district
and ask. Unless you know what we are going to put down right
now.
This will give you, I think, more time to think about it, because
there may be something one of you are not thinking about that you
would really like the next time we meet to talk about. And from
that, if I can take a proposed agenda, then, to John Wood, and
tell him what the Council has in mind.
Mayor Connors: This will take shorter time, but some time,
because the school board will also want to hold a meeting.
City Manager: One of the things we could do is indicate - it is
kind of hard for the Mayor to send a letter to the Board
Chairman, just to say we would like to meet with you, and we will
talk about it later. I think if we go ahead and put together a
proposed agenda that you can buy into, then, certainly, they
would then have input as to what they want - then .
Council Member MacNeilage: They would have time to prepare also.
City Manager: Yes. Does that sound reasonable.
Council Member Parrott: Sounds good to me.
Mayor Connors: Do you have suggestions for a cut -off date then
for submitting what you would like on this agenda to Mr. Bounds.
And please make it a cut -off date that you are going to stick to,
so that he has what he needs.
At this point a suggestion is made that it be Friday, at 5:00.
The speaker cannot be identified.
Page 26
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
Mayor Connors: Friday, 5:00. Okay, is there anything else on
the priority issues list that you want to discuss at this point.
Did you want to add any priorities.
Council Member Leja: Well I think it is worth addressing -
community input and involvement. That is very important, and
finding a way to get that is tough too. We have quite a few more
people here today then we did at the last meeting that we had.
And, probably - there is such a tremendous need - if we want to
accomplish with redevelopment, and we want to - you know - if we
want to do everything in the correct pattern and correct way, we
have to have community involvement, and that means, you know, do
we break it down to a smaller level first, and then branch out,
and go in to get more community involvement or what.
Council Member MacNeilage: My feeling is that redevelopment is
going to bring them out.
Mayor Connors: Not necessarily. If you do something they don't
like, you will get community involvement. They aren't
necessarily opposed to redevelopment. We don't know that yet.
And if you do something that they do like, usually you don't hear
from them. So, what other way there is to get community
involvement besides making everybody mad I have no idea. That is
the most sure fire method.
Council Member Leja: That's true. One of the ways, possibly,
that we could look at more community involvement is greater
cooperation or communication, let's say, between other agencies,
such as the Chamber of Commerce, or the Pass Water Agency, or
neighboring cities, or the Kiwanis Club, or the Rotary Club,
basically, marketing ourselves that we want that input from you.
And, you know, that is going to take a philosophy that we say,
this is what we are committed to, and we really want to get that
involvement from the community. And, that, I think, would be the
best step to start in. Would be to go to the organizations who
are already in place and start at that level, and then you will
see a filtering down of word of mouth out to the communities as
well.
Council Member McLaughlin: Well we could put out a news items in
the papers that we would appreciate them bringing their answers
or their letters back to the city hall as to some of their
thoughts.
Council Member MacNeilage: Maybe even the formation of the
resource committee would help in this matter also. The resource
committee could use their strings to get people involved that way
also, for different committees.
Mayor Connors: One of the problems in getting people involved is
if you tell them exactly what you are looking for, and exactly
what you want them to do, it is easier to find someone, then if
you just say we would like to have you come and get involved.
Because they go, well, fine.
Council Member MacNeilage: Maybe by the formation of a resource
committee those people can outline exactly that, and come up with
a general idea for the public upon where their help is needed.
Mayor Connors: The public is one of our resources, and so that
could be one of their functions, is to find people interested in
various areas, and to help out.
Okay, is there anything else specific to the priorities, or do we
want to go on and discuss the resource.
Council Member Leja: Well, one other area I would like to
discuss is economic development, and we have touched on this
some, and I will try not to back space. But, I would like to see
the City take a philosophy having an environment that is
Page 27
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
conducive to expansion of present business in the area.
Attraction of new business into the area, and retention of the
businesses that we already have here as well.
I think that is something that we should give top priority in,
and, basically, it is going to take in a lot of work too, working
with different agencies that are out there trying to get as much
information from them as possible, as well as making our City
attractive to businesses. As well as from the city hall level as
well.
Mayor Connors: You would like to see that added as one of our
priority issues, I would assume, especially since it also falls
in with redevelopment quite nicely.
Council Member Leja: Well economic development we have to have
whether we have redevelopment or not, and . . .
Mayor Connors: Right, I realize that, but redevelopment is
helpful to it, is where I am at.
Council Member Leja: It falls down below - as a way to get to
your objective, but economic development - I mean, for me, my
philosophy of the community is that we have to provide a balanced
community, which means affordable housing, work and play, or
recreation for the area. And I think that is a philosophy I
would like to see the City progress more in, in having more of a
balanced community.
Mayor Connors: It seems like since we have redevelopment as our
top priority issue, that the Council may want to realign those
issues in order to put economic development as its first
priority, and redevelopment being supportive of it rather than
ahead of it.
City Manager: One of the things you are looking at, if economic
development is your top priority, one of the ways to fund it is
redevelopment.
Mayor Connors: Yes. So it seems as though it should be number
one and redevelopment number two, because they go together, but
you have to have the one for sure. Do any of the Council Members
object to that line of thinking. No. Okay. Then I guess that
is acceptable.
City Manager: Number one.
Mayor Connors: Do I hear a third.
Council Member Leja: If I have to emphasize - I don't want to
take up anybody else's time, but - and I am trying to explain,
whether you are no growth or pro growth, you have to have a
healthy economic base to work from, because developer fees stop,
and you have got to have economic development to keep generating
those tax dollars to maintain the quality of life and improve the
quality of life. So to me that is one of the more primary things
that we need to be looking at.
City Manager: Number one.
Council Member Leja: Number one.
Mayor Connors: Number one I think. No objections, it is number
one.
City Manager: All of them drop one place in order.
Mayor Connors: Is the rest of the list in the proper order for
you.
Council Member MacNeilage: I don't see why we need to put this
Page 28
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
actually in order of priority, but priorities as we see them,
these are things we would like to achieve, but maybe not in any
such order.
Mayor Connors: It was because it was a priority meeting, and we
wanted to know, if we are spreading ourselves out among many
things, we need to know what is our most important priority, keep
those things in mind in the order they are in.
Council Member MacNeilage: Okay, I will go with it.
Mayor Connors: Okay, are we ready for item number six,
discussion of formation of resource committees.
Council Member Leja: One other thing I wanted to bring up real
quick. Another - we have already stated this too, and this has
to fall in as well as a very important aspect of our City
government, is the formation of our wastewater treatment plant.
You know, I think that anything that can be done to expedite that
process is going to help us in the long run. But we have to make
sure that we have a - and I am sure Mr. Bounds has this worked
out - is a complete project plan taking in all those little -
you see, I am not aware - we are looking at March of 93 as our
target date, but are there any little things that are going to be
able to creep in there and set us back.
City Manager: Sure, there always is.
Mayor Connors: There always are.
City Manager: Thirty six million dollars plus, yes. The bond
market is one thing.
Council Member Leja: You know I kind of like to know since there
is so much dependent on that one facility that we are addressing,
I mean, risk - risk management I guess is what you would call it.
I don't have a business degree, but risk management in a sense
that we are looking at all those things that can filter in and
cause the delays, and dealing with them now, so if things were to
arise then we have already addressed them, and we don't have -
o.k., now we have got to deal with this problem. Do we have a
risk management plan as part of our wastewater treatment plant.
City Manager: Well, I am not
means in that realm. Whenever
it was, we immediately work
problems back when the State
tertiary. That was one proble
get that taken care of, and we
sure exactly what risk management
we come across a problem, whatever
that problem. We started with
agency said you are going to go
;m. Big money problem. We had to
did it quickly.
When we had to make the decision to go compost, it wasn't
something we planned on, but we had to take care of that as it
came by. When we realized that it would be difficult to sell
bonds, and we talked to some bond house who said if you try to
sell sewer bonds, with all the things that have been said about
the water in the area, you had better get your water in line
before you come out. So we now are in the process of corning out
with a new EIR, which we had to do, showing water. And that is
coming on to be out for public comment, I think, the first of
September. I don't have the dates in front of me, but I am sure
that is what it is.
We slowed down the General Plan, fortunately, and got that all in
as well. And that will be coming out.
As far as knowing anything that can creep up and come in, that is
why I have meetings with the consultants, and say o.k., pounding
each other, as well as me pounding them, having to do with
anything that can foul us up. So if there is anything that is
going to cost us more time and money we can get to it right then.
But there is no plan, that if we follow these steps, there will
Page 29
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
be no problem. With this kind of a job it just doesn't work that
way.
Council Member Leja: I guess what I am saying, with all the
consultants that we have working for us, and I know every time we
have to approve more money, it kind of, oh, no what. I guess,
when you go to SBA to get a loan to start a business, they want
you to factor in that you have thought through the process of
saying there is a possibility that this can happen, and how can
you correct - or can we correct it now so that it doesn't happen.
And that is what I see, also, as a need for our consultants to be
able to do, is to come in and, say, you know with a full laid out
project plan, and say, you have the risk of this happening here,
you have the risk of this happening here, and you have the risk
of this happening here, and you have the risk of this happening
here. These are some ways that you can deal with it. And that
is what I am talking about risk management. It is eliminating
our risk before it occurs - before the problems occur. And I
would certainly be in favor of seeing something like that
available to us to show that the process has been thought all the
way through, so that in December a problem arises, that, well,
yeah, we knew this could possibly happen, but we weren't counting
on it. Meanwhile we have to put everything back so that we can
deal with the problem. Not saying that just because we do a risk
analysis, that it is not going to happen, but it seems like
preventive is always better than the reactive measure, and it
saves in time, as well as money too.
But since the wastewater treatment plant is such a priority, and
I noticed in Mr. McLaughlin's priorities he thought the
completion of the wastewater treatment and the water department
was of top priority, and I think that to keep on line with the
March 93 time line, I mean, that is something that our
consultants should be looking at as well as keeping us informed.
City Manager: Well they get sounded on that every time we meet,
because I don't like to hear that we have a problem. But, to
think that we can - I mean there are books and books written on
what you are talking about, to try to keep us all in line in so
many words, but you are dealing with a very difficult situation.
We are dealing with a lawsuit now that we don't think is going to
stop anybody.
Council Member McLaughlin: Dealing with Sacramento a little bit
too.
City Manager: It is not just Sacramento. The Regional boards
and people like that. And they pass down issues even though we
have got our permit. They can make changes on that without -
oh, usually, they want $5,000 before they make the change, but .
Council Member Leja: Yeah, but those are unexpected factors that
are put into this. What I am talking about, the consultants we
have hired have done this type of thing before, and so, surely,
they know of the things that can creep in and occur. Instead of,
you know, so that we can go ahead and deal with more than one
area of the wastewater treatment plant one time. I am not sure -
I don't know what all is happening now. You know, I would be
interested - I don't want to know the technical part of it,
because that is what we hire them for, but, you know, to keep my
spirits up on the thing, I would like to know more of what is
going on in the way of the planning process of the whole thing,
and how we are in the time line, and if we have filtered in the
possible fall out of anything negative occurring.
It is just an observation, and it is simply a suggestion at this
point. I don't know how the other Council Members feel about it,
but it is important to this community, and these are things that
strongly concern me.
Page 30
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
City Manager: Actually, I can tell you that if you are going to
put in form of priority, then sewer and water is the top
priority. If you only worry about economic development, we don't
have any more sewer, you are not going to put any more buildings
up.
Council Member Leja: That is right.
City Manager: So, obviously, it is that necessary. I am meeting
with some portions of the consultants every two weeks for this
purpose. Let me find out if they can put something in writing
that - I don't see how we are going to put something like this in
writing personally, because you say, here is fifteen more things
that could happen, but may never happen, is one of our problems,
because if they miss one, then we will say to them - hey, you
missed that.
Council Member Leja: Yeah, but if they made an honest effort, I
mean, just like in a business, I mean, this is, in some ways a
business that we are putting the same type of thinking of putting
this project together, and even the biggest industry - Eastman
Chemical, they have to put programs such as this together, and
they also have to address of what could happen. I hope that is
not too big of a project for our consultants to do.
City Manager: Well I think a lot of this you are going to read
in the EIR that is coming out right now, because that is a big
factor. Does everybody accept that EIR, if not, that is a
problem.
Council Member Leja: Also, too, you look at - now maybe we
should have started - I don't know when we started the EIR
process - or the EIR that you are talking about, I was thinking
General Plan - but, you know, once you have filtered in some
things that can happen, you know, if I am investing in a plant,
or if I am investing in a project - to put it down in simpler
methods, when you are on a airplane, and you are on the runway,
and the pilot tells you one time, sorry you have been delayed
thirty minutes, and you don't hear anything else, and then they
say, oh, sorry, you have been delayed another fifteen minutes,
sorry you have been delayed, after that, another ten minutes, you
know, to me, I would get a little nervous about that. And I
think the same thing with the people who are investing in the
wastewater treatment plant. What can happen. Is March 93 a
realistic deadline, or is that a realistic time of completion.
Or, are there some things that can happen that is going to
prolong it, and then when we get closer to that time, sorry we
have had to delay some more.
Maybe there needs to be - I don't know - it is probably just my
own feelings, but I am trying to see from all aspects of what can
happen, because a lot of people that live in this community who,
economically, are dependent upon the completion of this thing,
and they are having to put their business plans to work, their
plans for improvement of their businesses based on that March 93
deadline. And I am just hoping that that is what we can stick
to, and maybe a way to insure that we stick to that is with some
risk analysis of this whole matter.
City Manager: I can assure you we can come back with something
for you, but it may be very scary. It may say we may be in 1995.
That is not our goal though.
Council Member Leja: Yeah, we can have our goal. . .
City Manager: But if we put all the things that could happen, we
can run the thing for a long time.
Council Member Leja: But the things that could happen that we
could go ahead and correct, so that they don't happen.
Page 31
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
City Manager: Well, let me get with the consultants and see.
There are things that we don't have any control over. The
courts. . .
Council Member Leja: You see, I - I understand that.
City Manager: .everything, can mess us up. And that is a
problem that we don't like to admit, but we don't have any
control over it either.
Mayor Connors: And the State stays up nights trying to think
these things up, we know that.
Council Member Leja: Yeah, I know that too.
City Manager: Let me see what kind of - because I don't see any
other way that a written report - it seems to me that I am going
to have to get each consultant to go through and prepare
something like that. Because one is dependent upon the other
also. Let me see what I can come up with.
Council Member Leja: You know, maybe in the resource level we
could sit down, let's say, have a committee for utilities and
water, to deal with this, and have the consultant's, you know, I
don't know if they have already done this, or maybe even not that
level, but it seems like there needs to be some interaction more
from all of the consultants at the same time, and let them earn
their money. I know that they are, but let them be a little bit
more creative in the fact that we want this to work, and their
reputations, are at stake as well, and we want to .
Mayor Connors: Did I understand you just now that you felt that
there might be a resource committee made up oaf consultants of
various areas, I think, because. . .
Council Member Leja: No, no, no, no. . .
Mayor Connors: Because a resource committee doesn't sound to me
- a resource committee doesn't sound to me like it would be made
up of experts.
Council Member Leja: No, that is not what I am saying. I
stopped half way through a sentence. Maybe, from the Council
standpoint, so that more information can be given to the Council.
I don't know if it is even necessary. But I just feel real
nervous about it.
City Manager: I feel very strange right now that no Council
Member seldom ever asks me any questions. And I am not going to
force myself on them and say, it is time you learned about the
sewer plant. But I will be very frank with you, and I am having
to be frank, because you are aiming this at me, I believe.
Council Member Leja: No I am not.
City Manager: Yes you are, ma'am, I'm sorry. I am a little
surprised that we have gone this far without asking questions.
And there are not many questions that have been asked of me at
all.
Council Member Leja: Exactly. And I have come in your office
and asked questions before, and there is a lot there that needs
to be learned by all of us, since we are approving the money for
it, and our responsibility are to the, you know, to - you know,
there are all kinds of things that are occurring, and I just feel
like it is something that we all should be better educated in. I
don't want to know the technical aspect of it, because that is
not my - but certainly to, it just seems like that this
particular project is such of vital importance to the community,
that, and like I came in to you the other day, and said people
say what is the hold up of the wastewater treatment plant, we
Page 32
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
have heard it has been delayed again, and we have heard this and
we have heard that, and I have to say, I don't know.
City Manager: One of the reasons that came about is there is a
newspaper in town who were given March 93 months ago, and they
came out with a headline that said it had been delayed again.
And they were using a bad date. I can't keep them more informed
then they can keep up with us.
Council Member Leja: And I came in right after somebody - right
after that newspaper came out, and people were saying, what is
going on, and I said I don't know, and I came directly to you
right then and asked.
City Manager: And I had to admit to you I don't know what they
are doing. The reason I had to - I had two from that office in
my conference room showing them grafts and everything when we set
March 93, and then to come up with a story that now we have
delayed the March 93, after - this was several months - really
made me feel a little bit strange as to where do we do next.
Mayor Connors: A lot of the information, a lot of questions that
we have discussed so far in this meeting, are things that I was
already aware of. And I know that some of the departments, when
there is some piece of important information, a memo is given.
Now it could be very complicated to write memos that would cover
complicated subjects like this, but perhaps as we went along, and
there was some ,small addition to something, like a change in the
date for instance, just that much, if the Council Member was
informed of this that much, then the Council Member would know
what to ask. Is that where the problem lies, in not knowing.
City Manager: That type of thing is no problem to me, and I
would be more than happy if we came in, you know, and sat down,
several of you at one time, or however you would want to do it,
and we can go all the way back and come through the process of
where we are today. And some of the problems that we have run
into that we did not anticipate. And consultants that are still
with us, and some that aren't, and things like that. I would be
more than happy to do that. That would be very difficult in
writing, to come up with a document like that, because it has
been involved now, for what, two years or so.
But I would like to keep you informed as much as you want. And,
please, let's get together, and let's talk about it, anytime that
you have got any concern, and let me - I'll see what I can get
from the consultants to try to, I think, to alleviate what you
are talking about right now. And everything that we see, I hope
there is not any big changes that we don't know about, but I will
assure you that we can get that type of material and give it to
you.
Mayor Connors: Mr. Bounds, as we know, is very busy, but he
does. . .
City Manager: You got me some help, let's give some credit for
that, because. . .
Mayor Connors: I was getting to that. He does have an assistant
at this point, which should be of great benefit to us. Also, you
can make an appointment with Mr. Bounds just like anyone else,
rather than just dropping in and taking your chances, which
sometimes you feel, well he is busy, he has an appointment or
whatever. But, rather than just waiting until you have specific
questions, it might be helpful if you went in and asked what was
new with this subject or that subject, or some other subject, and
he will voluntarily tell you everything that he can think of to
tell you about any item that is on here. And then we might not
have this misunderstanding.
City Manager: Now I work for you all. I am open to you. Please
Page 33
6.
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
use me. No matter how small you may think the item is, or how
big you think the item is, you don't need to wonder. If we have
the ability to know within the City, you shouldn't have to wonder
about it. You should contact me by phone, I think each one of
you have got my home phone number. I work seven days a week, as
you are well aware. And many of you have called me, and I don't
mind it. Or, like I say, you know, sometimes you drop in and I'm
not busy, and I will take you right then, no question. But I
really want to be open to you, because you need to know anytime
that you have got somebody asking you, you need to be able to
answer that question. And we don't want to give a question that
is going to hurt you later in the community. We are going to
give you the facts so that you have got the best going.
Mayor Connors: I don't know. . .
Charles Ware: I would like to make a suggestion on something
that might help you. One of the things that I do when I do a
project is I do a critical path. And I set down and figure out -
before I get my billings in, I figure out how long it is going to
take me to do a tract. You can do a tract in about 188 days.
You have so many days for plans, and so many days for framing,
and stuff like that. You need to do a critical path of what you
have to do between now and when you start the sewer treatment
plant, and put some dates on it, and hand that out to your
Councilmen, and then they can track - you don't even have to talk
to them, then they know if you are on schedule or not, and if
you are not on schedule, then you know you have some problems,
and that is the problems that you address. I think it would take
a lot of pressure off of you if you had a critical path. It
takes a lot of pressure off of me.
City Manager: This is what we were working on until we ran into
some snags, and right now the consultants are coming up with what
Charles is talking about, to update to see if we have got any
snags. They were given that order this past week.
Mayor Connors: I have noticed it is a fairly new development
that there is some communication among Council Members also,
other than at meetings, and I welcome some thoughts from Council
Members as well, and discussion of any of these things and
whether we think there is a problem, or how we might feel, and I
think if more of us communicated with each other, we can only
discuss things two at a time, but we are certainly free to
discuss things two at a time, and that might help also.
Council Member Parrott: I think the Brown Act hinders a lot of
conversation and consulting with one another, and you need to do
that if you are going to discuss anything sensibly.
Mayor Connors: Well it hinders us in discussing things three at
a time, but not two at a time, or two of us with Mr. Bounds,
which would save some time also, if there were two of us at a
time.
Council Member Leja: I think, along those same lines, when Gary
and I went to a conference in San Jose, they cite never to call
Council Member to Council Member to Council Member to get a
consensus, because you will get in deep trouble about that.
Mayor Connors: Right. That is polling, and that is entirely
different. Are we ready for item number six, discussion of
resource committees. Okay.
Discuss Formation of Resource Committees.
Mayor Connors: Would the Council Member who placed resource
committees on the agenda begin the discussion.
Council Member Leja: Actually Mayor Connors gave a perfect lead
in to that, and so has Mr. MacNeilage and Mr. Parrott. I don't
know if you did or not Don.
Page 34
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
Council Member McLaughlin: No I didn't.
Council Member MacNeilage: That's all right, he was here.
Council Member Leja: The fact that this would provide an
opportunity, as much work as - because Mr. Bounds has a
tremendous project under his hand right now with the wastewater
treatment plant - and we have identified the areas that need to
be targeted, as well as being important to the City, and we have
to continue in addressing other areas of the City instead of just
one area.
Also as a means of getting more community involvement, I think
forming resource committees is an excellent way to do that. And
some cities do it with one Council Member, but usually with two
Council Members on a particular committee, and they can draw in
help from the outside, whether they be a - possibly a staff
member, if Mr. Bounds agrees to that. Citizens from the
community, from other agencies.
One of the areas that we have talked about being youth services.
Or economic development. Just a lot of areas that can be
addressed, but I can't see us today sitting down and saying,
these are the committees that we need. I think the first thing
we need to do is have possibly two Council Members, and they can
draw help from other cities, or whatever, that have programs such
as this, to sit down and discuss and bring up a proposal. The
types of committees that we see that we would need to address the
priorities that we have, and anything else that we can see that
will be falling into the needs of the City, and how they will be
formed, and guidelines, and any particular priorities that we
would like - or goals to accomplish from those committees.
Mayor Connors: A resource committee on resource committees.
Council Member Leja: Well, actually, it would be called a Ways
and Means committee, I think is what they call it at the federal
and the state level, and most organizations. And I just feel
like this is something - you know, we are a small city and we
can't afford the staff to do all these things that we want done.
But, I think this would be a great way to invite people in to
work with us on particular projects, so that everyone buys in to
it and it is their project as well.
And it is also a way that, let's say, we are looking at doing
something down 6th Street as far as a particular project, well
you are going to need some people that can go in and talk to all
the businesses there. This isn't going to be easy. This is
work.
But it is up to the committees to come up with - you know, it is
an excellent way to brainstorm, like Mr. Parrott said, and you
said, we need more communication, and more brainstorming about
some ideas. Also, it will give us a perfect target line toward,
when we go to the League of Cities conferences. When things are
of interest to us, and that is our particular committee area, or
our particular resource area, it would behoove you to go to those
particular seminars. I don't think that you shouldn't go to
something that is not your committee, but it is just a way, I
think, that we can accomplish a lot more for the City.
Mayor Connors: It will kind of focus everything so that we are
tied together.
City Manager: If you
provide you a staff metr
we need someone, rather
sense a secretary, to
meetings and so forth.
meeting committee. . .
set up any
ber - one as
than you all
keep notes
We will pi
Page 35
committees
a resource
being tied
for you,
,ovide a st
at all, I will
person, and also
down to be, in a
minutes of your
of f member for a
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
Council.Member Leja: And we can do a lot of brainstorming that
way without violation of the Brown Act.
Mayor Connors: Now if we were to decide to set up a committee to
discuss which kinds of resource committees we wanted to have, we
would have to put that on as a specific agenda item as to who is
going to be doing that. This agenda is not set up to do that
today is it. It just says discussion.
City Manager: We can sure have it on the August 12 meeting.
Mayor Connors: That is what I am thinking. And perhaps, if we
are going to put it on the August 12 meeting, the Council Members
then, by August 5, would like to give input as to which kinds of
committees they would like to see. And what their interests are
if they would like to serve. Because if we are going to have
resource committees set up of Council Members, we are going to
need to know your areas of interest.
City Manager: So you are looking at the appointment of, or where
do you - the appointment of a ways and means committee to
recommend committees that should be formed, or need to be formed,
or whatever.
Council Member Leja: Well, a proposal of it, that way we can
focus it so that it is complete, not just fragmented.
City Manager: Appoint two Council Members to serve on a - do you
want to call it a ways and means.
Mayor Connors: Yes.
City Manager: Committee. . .
Mayor Connors: To formulate proposal.
City Manager: Just proposal? To formulate a proposal.
Mayor Connors: It doesn't seem to be a complete sentence. To
formulate proposal -- regarding resource committees.
Council Member Leja: Yeah.
City Manager: To formulate a proposal regarding resource
committees.
Mayor Connors: Yes. Would you read that for the Council.
City Manager: Appoint two Council Members to a Ways and Means
Committee to formulate a proposal regarding Resource Committees.
Is that o.k. Do you want me to read it again.
Mayor Connors: Yes.
City Manager: Appoint two Council Members to a ways and means
committee to formulate a proposal regarding resource committees.
Mayor Connors: Mr. MacNeilage, is there something on your mind.
Council Member MacNeilage: Oh yes. I also feel that if any of
the Planning Commissioners would like to get involved in any of
these maybe they ought to put what committees they would be
interested in getting involved in also.
Mr. Burch: Well, we thought we were going to escape.
City Manager: Okay, when I receive on August 5, by August 5th,
the committee desires from the Council and Planning Commission,
then I will provide a copy of that in the packet so that you will
know who - wait a minute - which committees. We haven't even got
any committees.
Page 36
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
Council Member Leja: Exactly.
Mayor Connors: Well which areas their interests lies in. Some
people are interested in economic development. Some people are
interested in transportation.
Council Member Leja: Shouldn't we wait until after we form the
committee.
City Manager: Actually, though, I think that you should come
back and have your proposal on committees. . .
Mayor Connors: But how do we know which committees we want, is
the reason that I said that, because. . .
City Manager: Oh, o.k., you are saying not which committee you
want to work on, which committees we need.
Mayor Connors: Which committees we would like to have, yes.
City Manager: Committees. . .
Mayor Connors: If that is what they are interested in, that is
the committee they would like to see formed.
City Manager: Desire committees for the community.
Council Member McLaughlin: It seems to me like you have got to
form a body of people first, and then go to what deals you are
going to do, and who would want to be on it. Here we only have
two council persons that are involved in this, and they are going
to say what we are going to do in a sense of what committee wants
on.
Council Member Leja: No.
City Manager: What I have got is a note to myself - is that by
August 5 you will indicate to me the committees that you desire
to see for the community.
Council Member McLaughlin: That is what it should be.
Mayor Connors: Right.
Council Member Leja: Yeah, that is what it is.
Council Member McLaughlin: But as far as what you would desire
to be on. . .
City Manager: No. This one isn't for that. And I made a
mistake here. Committees that you desire to see formed for this
community, by the 5th.
Council Member MacNeilage: What about public input on that also.
Council Member McLaughlin: We haven't got time.
Council Member Leja: Well. . .
Mayor Connors: Well, if it is on the agenda, the public is
welcome to come and discuss it with us as part of our agenda.
Council Member Leja: And there is no rule that says. .
City Manager: Now these aren't the final committees. .
Council Member Leja: No, you start with a skeleton, and then -
and you build from there. You know, the two people who are
putting this together, they might want to, let's say, call
Yucaipa, somebody out of Banning, or - to give them more input.
They can get input from anyone - from staff.
Page 37
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
City Manager: Ninety days after the committees are formed, you
may come up with another committee, you are not just going to
throw it out and not take it, so you are going to still -- and a
committee that is formed, may say, guys, we don't see the purpose
in all this and we would like to see you take us off, and you may
drop some later. That would be an ongoing thing.
Mayor Connors: I understood that each of these committees would
have two Council Members on it, and I think that is where some of
this problem is coming in here. And then they would go out and
recruit for that committee. And that is why I wondered if we
needed to know what areas the Council Members were interested in
if we were going to appoint them to any committees.
City Manager: But that would be at a later date. You are not -
this whole thing is two Council Members to serve on one
committee, from this there are going to be recommendations coming
to the Council to finally decide on the committees formed. Then
they can have two weeks to decide what committees they would like
to be on.
Mayor Connors: And I think that is where all this confusion
came from. Did we clear it up or make it worse.
Council Member McLaughlin: Well, we haven't set any as to how
many members would be on each committee.
Mayor Connors: No, no.
and formed our. . .
Council Member Leja:
City Manager: Right.
Mayor Connors: Yes.
That would all come as we worked along
That would be part of the proposal.
City Manager: So right now you are going to indicate only the
committees that you feel would be good for this community to
have, and that is all. You will not be saying you want to be on
any of them or want to be on seven.
Council Member McLaughlin: I think we will work it out.
Mayor Connors: Is there anything further on discussion of
resource committee. Okay, we will go into Item 7.
City Manager: We will send a memo to each Planning Commissioner,
even though they are here, as a reminder of this, and that way
the two who aren't here will know. Okay.
7. Discuss Ways that Beaumont Can Assist in Making the Eastside
Reservoir a Reality.
Mayor Connors: We will go to number seven, discuss ways that
Beaumont can assist in making the Eastside Reservoir a reality.
Okay, who is leading this discussion here.
Council Member Leja: In case you are not familiar with the
project, the Eastside Reservoir is a Metropolitan Water District
project, and I have been attending the public hearings that they
have been having in Hemet, not driving to LA for their hearings,
but - - They have eliminated all their considerations. They have
eliminated pretty much all of their original sites that they
proposed except for two. One being Domenigoni - well actually
three, Domenigoni and Vail Lake, Domenigoni and Potrero. And, of
course, Potrero is right here.
I am very interested in seeing it happen - what this facility is
to do is to provide water to basically most of Southern
California. Mr. Bounds can give you all the background as far as
what it is proposed. I think many of you have already received
Page 38
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
their last summary of their EIR. We are in the countdown stage
at this point of when the Board makes their decision.
Now, in their rating process we were second in the rating
process, and that involves a lot of areas such as environmental
issues, just all the technical things - if Mr. Bounds - there
were some copies that we had made that kind of lines it up, that
a gentleman in the audience had compiled and allowed us to use,
that gives a comparison level all the way across of all the
different areas that are factored into their rating system.
And, like I said, we finished second. And I might be wrong
about this, but it is my impression one reason why we finished
second is simply is because we have more kangaroo rats, and we
also have wetlands. Which are two really - well - that kind of
evened out because all the sites had problems with the indians,
but when you are looking at your comparison chart, you will see
it is mostly threatened, endangered species and sensitive
species.
In meeting with their engineer, and discussing this at length,
and with Mr. Bounds and other people in the community, this is a
project that has made it today, and they are looking at making
this on line by 1997. I won't go into all the technical things,
I am just telling you what can happen here.
With the problem that we have with the kangaroo rat, and all the
mitigation and the 404 filing process in Washington, there are
so many agencies that have to give us a stamp of approval,
where Domenigoni, I believe,' they don't have the wetlands
problem. They do have some kangaroo rats, but not as many as we
do. A word of advice, don't let anybody graze sheep on your
property. They seem to follow right along. Kangaroo rats like
sheep grazing areas.
What I would like for them to do is, of course, adopt the Potrero
area as their first site of development, but that is - the odds
are against that at this point, due to the endangered species
action, and like I said the 404 processes. The time that it
would take to get through the filing of all the process, through
the federal level would take somewhere, they said they estimate
three to five years to five to seven years. Well, this has to be
on -line by 97 for today's needs.
What I would like to do though is to see the community work
together and bring in other communities as well, because I have
had calls from San Jacinto, Yucaipa, and I believe Banning has
passed a resolution making Potrero - stating that they would
prefer to see the site selection be Potrero.
But, realistically, we have to look at it realistically too,
what can we do in case that they don't. One of my suggestions
would be that, in the case they select Domenigoni as their
initial site, that we lobby them to also include - because we
need to be planning for the future - fifteen years from now -
twenty years from now - and that is the reason, with planning you
don't get pushed in the crunch, and you don't have to say okay,
we needed this yesterday. We're already addressing that. And
what I would like to see the Board approve is a proposal, if they
were to approve Domenigoni - also, to be committed to also
developing the Potrero reservoir, as w.ell as a planning step.
Simply because it is our understanding that there are no other
sites in Southern California, and they need storage facility
sites. And there are none. This is - the Potrero and the
Domenigoni areas are it. So, as far as natural types of storage.
So, you know, I would like some input on that, and Mr. Bounds and
I discussed some ways that we can get more community involvement,
and we need to see if this is something that we want to pursue as
far as lobbying the Board, and issuing possibly a statement on
what we feel the needs - tourism would certainly come to the area
Page 39
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
with a reservoir such as this, because they are proposing full
recreational facilities with this.
But just, if you read your EIR summary, you can tell all the
technical needs, and how this is a more favored site as far as
natural gravitational pull, etc. But, now we need to look at
just basically what can we do to help this become a reality, and
that is what I would like to address, for the Council Members and
Planning Commission or anyone else in the audience that would
like to have input on this.
Mayor Connors: We have a request to speak from J. J. Lapinsky,
and if we can do it this way, we have a name and address for the
record that we can submit. If you would like'to say something
now, or did you want to wait until the Council has discussed it,
or? There is a microphone right here at this chair sir, if it
would help.
Council Member Leja: This is the gentleman that provided all of
this for us.
Mayor Connors: The request to speak stated you are representing
yourself sir?
Mr. Lapinski: Yes, I am. Can you hear me. The paperwork
apparently that you received is something that I had compiled
that was taken from the summary which was the MWD report dated
June, 1991, which was under discussion in Hemet on July 11.
Mayor Connors: That is the EIR summary?
Mr. Lapinski: The EIR summary, correct. That is the only thing
I had to work with.
Mayor Connors: Okay.
Mr. Lapinski: My observation, and I think it is born out by the
analysis that I made, the EIR summary did not analyze in the same
way. They had it by each location, with the three so- called -
three different items that they so- called rated. And the three
of them were significant environmental impacts, mitigation
measures and unavoidable adverse impacts.
My analysis of that is that the only place that made any
differences upon which they could have arrived at their
conclusion was in the first portion of it, which is labeled
significant and environmental impacts. There were no differences
that I noted in the so- called mitigation measures, and the
unavoidable adverse impacts. So, to that extent, everything that
they measured that would have given the rating to Domenigoni
Valley over Potrero Creek has to be in that first portion.
Well, looking it over, without getting into too many details, for
example, they have on the left hand side you will find items such
as cultural resources, paleontological resources, noise, land use
and so on. Well, I have noted the differences are only in these
particular subjects. Cultural resources, paleontological
resources, noise, land use and that is it. Oh yes - starting out
- I am sorry - I should have started out with hydrology,
biological resources and endangered species.
Well, basically, under the hydrology section, we had a better
rating than Domenigoni Valley. They had 57 90', we had 23 %. In the
biological resources, we had 2502 acres, no, rather, they had
2502 acres, what they called less upland vegetation. We had
4731. Well, that is quite a difference. But then if you had to
put Domenigoni Valley with Vail Lake, then they exceeded, and we
are lower.
So my observation was that, between the DV and the DV /Lake, when
they combine, which they no doubt will, as a possibility, to get
Page 40
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
the number of acre feet that we need, then they are exceeding
what Potrero Creek stands. As a matter of fact, if we were to
put the Potrero Creek alone, they can supply 1,100,000 acre feet
of water. And that was the discussions that took place in all
the prior reports. Now somewhere in the process they reduced
them down to 800,000. Now somewhere in the process, also, they
say, they are going to need 1,200,000 acre feet. Well that still
is in excess, so they are down to 2/3 of what they estimate
themselves that they are going to need by the year 2030.
In the endangered species, we had - Domenigoni Valley had 263
acres of SKR, Potrero Creek had 1380, and DV had 289 with Vail
Lake. So when you combine together what you have in effect
between the two of them you add the 1262 acres against our 1300
acres.
I would also like to call your attention to a newspaper article
that appeared in the Wall Street Journal of July 8, 1991, in
which a Bush and a Jack Kemp panel produced a report where they
are recommending, as an advisory item, the minimizing of wetlands
and endangered species items. Why? This builds up the housing
costs, and they were trying to get to the point of producing
lower housing costs. So in anticipation of this, my
recommendation, or suggestion to the MWD would be to take a look
at that possibility and reduce, perhaps, the amount of
significance that they haven't touched to the SKR.
Now nowhere in that report, if I read it correctly, I couldn't
determine how much of a weight have they been attaching to one
item as opposed to another.
Council Member Leja: There is an article regarding that on the
back of it.
Mr. Lapinski: In cultural resources D Valley had seventeen, and
we had eleven. Paleontological they had no recorded items, we
had a high in there, and so did the combination of Vail Lake.
The noise levels are significant in D Valley because of the
residences there, whereas in the Potrero Creek there is no
residential areas within the 55 decibels that are indicated as
significant. In the land use, in D Valley they have 87
residences that they would have to take out. We only have
seventeen at Potrero Creek. So those are significant
differences.
And, as a conclusion to this particular portion of it, I would
say the MWD conclusion or determination of favoring D Valley and
Vail Lake over Potrero Creek has to be determined under
significant environmental impacts, since the other two appear to
be even. My observation and analysis would seem to favor Potrero
Creek in the significant aspects that I have noted on the prior
pages.
Now this press article that I want to call your attention to -
this was in the Sunday paper of July 14, 1991, on Page B -3. And
the title of it was "District Balks at the Rat Barrier Cost.
MWD is taking a second look at $450,000 proposed to build a 1.2
mile concrete wall at Lake Skinner to keep the SKR out of the
area. Item was to be considered at the Metropolitan Board's
meeting (I don't know the date), but was tabled after the cost
jarred the staff members at the water agency ".
Now I have a copy of that article if anyone is interested in it.
My observation at this point is this, but before I get to that
let me point out something else that you could get from this
particular report. On Page S -22, the total cost of the D Valley
would be one billion three hundred thirty four thousand, four
hundred fifty eight thousand dollars, the Potrero Creek is one
billion zero eighty six, eight hundred ninety six thousand, and a
combination of DV and Vail Lake would be one billion four hundred
ninety eight thousand eight seventy two. The cost per acre of
the DV is 16.68 - acre foot rather. Potrero Creek is 13.58 and
Page 41
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
the combination of DV and Vail Lake is 18.74. The difference
between the DV and Potrero Creek amounts to two hundred forty
seven million, five hundred sixty two thousand dollars less.
Potrero Creek is that much less.
Okay, percentage -wise that represents a decrease of about 18
that is a pretty good return on your money. I can't make that.
The acre foot difference is $310.00 difference from Potrero Creek
being less.
Now, by this observation, I would like to point out that if the
MWD favors D Valley over Potrero Creek, and Potrero Creek is in
second place, yet DV overall cost is two hundred forty seven
million, five hundred sixty two thousand more than the overall
cost of Potrero Creek. In view of what I just got finished
telling you about the fifty thousand dollars at which they
balked, what are they going to do about the two hundred forty
seven million. In other words, it looks to me like they should
probably be standing still. They can't even take a look.
Not only that, that amount of money represented - oh yeah, in
other words, at this point, they are only talking about eight
hundred thousand acre feet. What if we have to go to the one
million one hundred thousand feet. Our costs would go up about
fifteen million four hundred eighty thousand dollars only on the
differences that we save them money on being Potrero Creek.
Now the overall ranking of the DV site over Potrero is on Page S-
18, in Figure 7. The DV has a point 76 and Potrero has a point
64. The difference is roughly 15% - 15.08. So compare that to
the cost of Potrero Creek over DV, they were 81 %, but we don't
have that kind of big difference in the overall rating under
which we come in at second place.
If you want to convert the percentage cost of that overall rating
of DV into the cost of what they are going to charge, you will
discover also that the second rate outfit here comes out being
cheaper, so we have the cheaper area represented by the two
testing points if you want to consider that.
Now, we are getting to the point where you inquired as to why and
what could we do to help Potrero Creek be selected. Well, I have
attended most of the meetings, if not all of the MWD that they
had. My brief observations here is that number one our Chamber
of Commerce, and other civic groups and interested groups, have
not been conspicuous, were conspicuously absent at much of the
meetings, if not all of them. We should concentrate on the cost
factor. Potrero Creek site would have an overall cost savings of
two hundred forty seven million dollars, or roughly $310.00 per
acre foot of water.
If MWD Board balked at spending four hundred fifty thousand
dollars on Lake Skinner project involving the SKR, what should
they do reference to the above at a cost of two hundred forty
seven million. Which is roughly fifty five hundred times greater
than the four hundred fifty thousand dollars. And if we took the
saving and applied to the budget of Beaumont City, we could
supply the City for the next 62 years with the saving that
Potrero Creek would produce over the DV Valley.
Minimize the emphasis placed on the SKR, and use the Bush -Kemp
study on advisory, which exists, less emphasis to be placed on
the endangered species to help keep housing costs down. And as
they used to say, perhaps they are putting their emphasis on the
wrong syllables. I thank you. Any questions.
Mayor Connors: Thank you sir.
Council Member MacNeilage: You have done your homework.
Mayor Connors: Before we go into discussion or questions on this
Page 42
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
particular item, we have a request for a break, and we will be
taking a ten minute break and come back to this subject, if that
is acceptable.
The meeting was adjourned at 1:56 p.m., reconvening at 2:12 p.m.
Mayor Connors: Okay, we just had a presentation by Mr. Lapinski
on the Eastside Reservoir and I believe some of the Council
Members had questions they wanted to ask.
Mr. Lapinski: May I add one more item. My suggestion would also
be that since the Metropolitan Water District Board is going to
have a meeting, and I don't know when they will meet but you
would find that out, and my understanding is that this particular
location selection is coming up for final determination by the
Board, it is either in September or October. And my suggestion
would be that we should have some powerful representation at that
particular Board meeting. And that is composed of quite a few
people, and I got the impression that they are kind of a
tightwad, so if you - if we could ever push the idea that they
are saving a lot of money by using this particular location, as
opposed to the one that is being proposed by their engineers,
maybe you have a chance to prevail. I am only thinking out loud
based upon my observation of some of the things I read.
Mayor Connors: Okay. Mr. MacNeilage, I think, has something he
wants to discuss with you.
Council Member MacNeilage: I hate to go back on the agenda, but
I think we are going back to looking at item number five and
number six again, which is we need to form a committee and make
this a priority, is my feeling. Mr. Lapinski is very educated in
this, and I would really, myself, love to see him involved in
this committee, and other communities, to get involved with them
to get as much support from other communities as we could to make
this project a reality.
Council Member Leja: At many of the hearings, we usually kind of
stayed in the background, and there was usually not enough room
for us - most of the residents of Domenigoni are in opposition to
Domenigoni being selected, because they have homes there and they
don't feel they are being given a fair value of their property.
Council Member MacNeilage: Maybe we should recruit some of them.
Council Member Leja: I think that is a possibility, but I have
attended those meetings, Lyle Millage has attended those
meetings, Mr. Koules has attended those meetings, and the thing
is we show up there and we don't realize anyone else from the
City is going to be there. There have been members of the Pass
Water Agency. I remember Mr. McLaughlin and, I believe, your son
were at some of these hearings. So there is some interest out
there. The Chamber of Commerce, I think, has taken - their
Executive Board - has taken a strong interest in this as well.
So I, you know, like I have said before, Banning, San Jacinto -
I pretty much set - at the hearings - and took down names of
everyone there that was in opposition to it, and they were in
favor of the Potrero site. Go on with what you were saying.
Council Member MacNeilage: To again, I think it is very
important that we come up with a committee right away, and
possibly to have two or three people appointed into this right
away, and to have those people go through to the other cities and
other areas that are obviously in favor of this, and to,
hopefully, to recruit some city officials from other cities, and
really go in there with a lot of power.
Mayor Connors: What I am hearing here from the Council is that
they would like to see this on the Council agenda also, in order
to discuss formation of a cohesive group, in order to pursue
this, and perhaps a resolution, or something of that sort, from
Page 43
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
the City that could be presented in time for that meeting in
September or October, so that . . .
City Manager: The earliest the meeting can be held is September
10. Their staf f cannot be prepared for this item to be on the
agenda before that time. They meet once a month. It is a 51
member board. It would be hard to lobby them.
Mayor Connors: And this gives us two regular Council meetings at
which to accomplish. . .
Council Member Leja: So we need to set up a strategy on
everything that needs to be done.
City Manager: One of the things that Jan and I have talked about
is preparing a strategy from our side, and seeing if we can sell
that to some cities to be more closely united, and maybe have a
little bit more power than just one city. Banning has passed a
resolution, has already sent that in. But I think - I am sure
they could do another one if there was some feeling of a stronger
way of putting anything or whatever. We certainly could go to
Calimesa, Yucaipa.
Council Member MacNeilage: The committee should be somewhat
formed as soon as possible so these people that are on the
committee will be able to get all their ducks in a row, so to
speak, and to be able to recruit from other cities, and get as
much information as soon as possible. The more we can get on it,
the quicker that we get it, the better prepared we will be for
the meeting. I feel it is really important that we really get
going on it.
Council Member Leja: And there are a lot of people out there
that aren't even aware that something like this is happening.
Mayor Connors: Probably just about everybody.
City Manager: Eastside Reservoir doesn't really mean much.
Council Member MacNeilage: They don't know what it is.
Council Member McLaughlin: They don't even know where that is.
City Manager: That is what I say - east side LA.
Council Member MacNeilage: When you even say Potrero Creek, they
don't know.
Council Member Leja: And if that means taking the dog and pony
show to the Kiwanis meetings, Don is good at that.
Council Member McLaughlin: What.
Council Member Leja: And, you know, there are a lot of different
avenues that we can take - from all angles.
City Manager: One of the things that you might consider, is if
you have volunteers of two Council Members, they could go ahead
and start working even before they become a committee.
Council Member Leja: Yes.
Mayor Connors: That is true.
City Manager: And then they could be officially recognized on
the August 12 agenda as being selected - because, you know, we
are not talking about using money or anything like, we are
talking about doing the hard work.
Council Member McLaughlin: I would suggest that we could have
all of us, if we are in favor, to certainly be volunteers to go
Page 44
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
ahead and be working towards the end that we are working for.
You don't just have to necessarily be on a committee to . . .
City Manager: 0h, no. I think what was the reason for the
committee is the fact that you can meet as often as you want
without having agendas out, and things along those lines, but,
secondly, if we are going to be talking about going to other
places, the quicker a good, formulated, well- written document is
put together for potential - our proposed resolution or
something, that can be done very quietly at this time.
Council Member Leja: And even, I think all of us are going to
enlist our services to work towards this, but there needs to be
somebody to sit down and say, okay, these are all the different
ways that we can pursue this project. . .
Mayor Connors: And let's go do this, this and this.
Council Member Leja: . . . And we need you to do this, we need
you to do this, we need you to do that, we need you to do this.
And then, you might have some input, well, what about this. Why
don't we go to this organization, or why don't we - I know some
people in this City, and that is where we need to tap all of our
resources.
Council Member MacNeilage: I would also like to ask Mr. Lapinski
if he would be interested when we form a committee - if he would
be interested in being on that committee also, so we could
appoint him at that time.
Mr. Lapinski: I don't know if I would be able to serve. I might
be an adviser to you. If you need any help I would be glad to
help you with anything that I have, but I don't know that I have
got the time to devote to a full committee or anything like that.
But my suggestions are strictly on the basis of observing this
particular report, and my thought is, is that if you would tear
the report apart, you have a good point of presenting it to their
board, and this is the point I am making. In other words, I
didn't have volume, I just had the summary. And the way they
presented it, you couldn't see the picture, but I think if you
will analyze what you have just been handed out, you may come to
the same conclusion that I did. And then if you could pick out
the high points of the area that is left over, and upon which the
engineers who put this study together, could have formulated
their conclusion, this is maybe where you could tear it apart.
And I think the biggest deal is money. I don't know how you
could pass up two hundred forty seven million dollars. And if
you multiplied that by what it would cost for a bond issue, and
let's assume - what would you have, a twenty year bond, and say
that you were going to pay what - 5% interest on a good security
- that money would double itself in less time than the bond
matures.
Mayor Connors: You would be interested, then, in being helpful
to us as an adviser and in answering questions.
Mr. Lapinski: Yes, I would go along with you in trying to be
helpful in anything I could. To help you along with this cause.
I think it is an important item, and I think that water is a very
important item, and I think that, somewhere in the process, these
people that put this thing together - somewhere they minimized
their need. They start out talking at one million one hundred
thousand acre feet. And if you look in this report, there is
also a statement in there showing what they estimate that they
need by the year 2030. Well they are down only to 800,000 feet.
That is only two - thirds of what their needs are going to be at
2030. Well if they use Potrero, they could already get one
million one hundred thousand acre feet out of it without going
anywhere else. That is it.
Now, Mrs. Leja here, pointed out something that bothers me a
Page 45
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
little bit. She indicated that if Potrero Creek is going to be
considered, there is going to be a very long time delay caused by
some kind of federal laws, permits, or whatever. And Domenigoni
Valley doesn't have that. Now I don't understand why they don't
have it, when I don't see a big difference between the two
locations, and if they don't have it, and they already have
received the permission, when and how did they get it, and at
whose instigation did they get it. Why didn't we, as a Potrero
Creek site, also get invited to do the same kind of in advance
permission.
City Manager: Typically in the 404 report or project area, it is
a federal program. The federal people who deal with us called
Fish and Wildlife and there are a couple of more agencies -
they have the ability to say you do not have to do a 404. In the
case of Potrero Reservoir, MWD has already been told they must do
it. That is where you get the information from.
Mr. Lapinski: You say they have already been told that they
wouldn't. . .
City Manager: They have to do it.
Mr. Lapinski: They have to do it?
City Manager: But not on Domenigoni. You see what you do is
you, I will be very frank with you, negotiate. We are
negotiating right now on the sewer lines, because we cross a
little wetland down here. We are out negotiating right now to
get the best deal we can. Of course we have got something to
negotiate with. Their problem in negotiations are different in
that, as Council Member Leja pointed out while ago, one problem
we have got in Potrero is wetland. Wetland is a 404 report.
Domenigoni does not have wetland.
Mr. Lapinski: And Domenigoni doesn't.
City Manager: No, not by federal . . .
Mr. Lapinski: What about the minimization based upon this
advisory panel. What has been suggested. How about the
minimization of wetlands that has been suggested by the advisory
panel.
City Manager: Well, that is something - but to say that will
happen before September 10.
Mr. Lapinski: Well, it is new. It is already out. I could give
you a copy of the article.
City Manager: Have you ever watched to see how fast Kemp does
anything.
Mr. Lapinski: No.
City Manager: He puts the news out about a year before he gets
ready to do anything, and right now he is still on vacation.
Mr. Lapinski: Well these people are looking at years ahead, so
we could probably tell them - hey, let's minimize it.
City Manager: No, you talking - no, the situation is down to the
point for anybody to get up say September 10, or October 11,
whichever day it is, that Domenigoni either than Potrero should
not do a 404, that is out of the realm of MWD, so they are not
going to listen to that. And when, you know the number of
planners that they have got on staff that worked on this project,
that we have talked to - they are not going to get that.
Mr. Lapinski: Are we spinning our wheels and wasting our time.
Page 46
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
Mayor Connors: Mr. Koules, did you have something on this.
Stephen Koules: Yes. I would like to offer, maybe, a different
way of looking at this. The Potrero site is clearly economically
saving - it is a better site. And, also, what they rank as a
social impact is exceedingly favorable. I have been working, you
know, with CEQA since its inception, and when a City Council,
Board of Supervisors, has found a project that there were impacts
that could not be mitigated, the Council or Board of Supervisors
could make an overriding finding of social economic
consideration. That project, again, has got unmitigable
environmental factors is a legal right to throw that out if there
are social overriding findings. Well, maybe there is a legal
angle to play where you flip that equation over, and if there is
social economic favorable factors to downplay the environmental
impact, which seems to be logical. You are just taking the same
relationship and flipping it over.
Now, that has never been done before - it has never been
approached - but it is just something I toss out and recommend
that you might consider. And maybe you might pursue that if your
degree of interest and intent - maybe you might get a legal
loophole here to toss around. Because it seems to be logical to
do that. If you could throw out a project that has an adverse
environmental impact, because there are good social economic
reasons, or for good social economic reasons, then downplay the
environmental aspects.
Mr. Lapinski: Okay, Mr. Bounds, you think this thing will not be
considered on September 10.
City Manager: Whether not a 404 report has to be done on
Domenigoni.
Mr. Lapinski: Is there a 404 report - what does it look like.
Do we have any.
City Manager: Federal. I don't have any, I wouldn't even. .
Mr. Lapinski: Would they have one there.
City Manager: Who.
Mr. Lapinski: DV Valley. Do you think they have a 404 report on
D Valley.
City Manager: No, they have already been told they don't have to
have one.
Mr. Lapinski: But we were told we had to.
City Manager: What.
Mr. Lapinski: We were told in Potrero Creek that we had to have
one.
City Manager: That's right.
Mr. Lapinski: And that takes several years.
City Manager: The estimate that was made by us was by their, I
think he is the third planner in charge, that estimated four
years. That is about right.
Mr. Lapinski: But they are telling us now, when they have been
in this business for about three years.
City Manager: That is right.
Mr. Lapinski: They have been doing this about three years, and
they are telling us only now.
Page 47
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
City Manager: Dennis Majors has been in this realm for a long,
long time. He has been doing dam work for years. Did you hear
the statement - he has worked for other people. He. .
Mr. Lapinski: Is it your observation and conclusion that we are
probably spinning our wheels.
City Manager: I don't want to say that.
Mr. Lapinski: Oh, you don't want to say that.
City Manager: You are not spinning your wheels. . .
Mr. Lapinski: I'm being kind of practical. In other words if. .
City Manager: I can tell you this, and I think it is well known,
they've selected the site. Now, are we big enough, and can we
get the power behind us to change the heads of all the - not the
heads, the member units, because, mostly, that is what makes up
their board. Can we change them very quickly.
Mr. Lapinski: Well the President of that board is from Riverside
right. Mrs. . . .
City Manager: Also in favor of Domenigoni.
Mr. Lapinski: Oh she is.
City Manager: Yes. She is a leading water person.
Council Member Leja: You are talking about spinning your
wheels, considering the future needs - like I said earlier, this
facility is for today's needs, and if they were, and all
indications, and are going to approve Domenigoni, we need to be
looking towards the future, and helping them look towards the
future. 97 is their look of on -line capability. I think it
would be in our best interests to put our number one priority as
Potrero should be their first selection, but also realizing that
Domenigoni portion of it, that we need to look at what can we do
to work with them so that they will continue to pursue Potrero,
so that twenty years from now, when the land is much, much
higher, why not go ahead and start working towards that now -
start the federal process now, for 98. Or. . .
Mr. Lapinski: My thought would be, at this point, in view of the
fact that they might have already made up their mind, I think the
only recourse left over is to give us one more good shot, and
that is to appear before that board. Since we can't get very far
with any of these engineers, they have already done their work,
and they are going to make a presentation pretty much as what
their summary says, then the only thing left over is if the board
will listen to anybody that is there. Do you have any comprising
powers. I mean, you could go to the board and give them a good
talking.
City Manager: No. We don't have any compromising power, we
could certainly go and give the indication, on my behalf, would
be from the City Council. The City Council said thus and so.
Let me make one comment, that I think that you picked up, and you
may have mentioned. When we were talking about, two years ago
roughly, the reservoir locations, and the fact that they were
looking at fifteen, or something like that. Do you remember at
that time there was a preview of what we needed by year 2010,
2020, or something like that. It is pointed out in this report
they are at that number now. Not 2010, not 2020. So the
revelation that came through the report is that by 2020 no longer
is the need - whatever it was - it is about double that.
It appears to me that you go after Potrero what ever way you want
to go after it, but also, let's give a back -up position, that if
they favor Domenigoni, that we haven't shut the door and said we
Page 48
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
are just a bunch of idiots out here, and they really rattled the
cage. But if we provide a two - pronged approach, if you select
Domenigoni, would you consider, because of your report, and take
it right out of the report, because of the needs, will you
consider buying it immediately, and keep the plans and studies
going now.
Mr. Lapinski: That they get off the pot, so to speak, and do
something about all the people that are there - they are going to
want their lands - take it now. Is that what you are saying.
City Manager: Yes, yes.
Mr. Lapinski: Well that means twice as much money as they are
probably obligated to spend right now then.
City Manager: Well, but the problem is this. How much is it
going to cost if they wait until 2010.
Mr. Lapinski: Well they already took over one big project that
is probably going to eliminate them by the millions of dollars
right. And, of course, they are looking probably at Lockheed,
where Lockheed could also probably cause a development that could
cost a lot of money. So if they smart, they would be looking at
those. I don't know what the status is of Lockheed, but if they
are anywhere close to saying, well, we are going to build a few
thousand homes here, and if you don't stop us, you are going to
have to buy them if you want the land in the future. And I think
this is a good argument.
Council Member MacNeilage: Maybe one argument is to have the two
hundred forty seven million dollar savings that we would get from
Potrero Creek would purchase the land for DV.
City Manager: The only problem is, Domenigoni is almost all
purchased. You see, we've forgotten all about what MWD has been
doing. They spent 25 million dollars to buy land over there.
Guess what. Tell me that that is not number one choice. They
didn't offer Lockheed anything close to a price.
Mr. Lapinski: How many acres are we talking about there as
opposed - they bought about the same acreages, around 4700, is
that what they want.
City Manager: You mean in Domenigoni.
Mr. Lapinski: The total acreage they want there, and the total
acreage. . .
City Manager: They bought the meat of Domenigoni, and they
bought a lot of houses already in that number. The problem
houses are still left, but because of the EIR coming close, they
have been told - stop buying right now. Wait until this is
finished.
Mr. Lapinski: You see the amount of money that they have already
committed for the total cost, already include all of that. They
have included all that.
City Manager: No, it didn't include it.
Mr. Lapinski: You don't think so.
City Manager: What they are doing is using other reserves to buy
land.
Mayor Connors: Mrs. Lapinski wants to say something.
Mrs. Lapinski: What is to stop them from changing their minds,
if all this land (speaking from the audience and unable to hear
everything that is said).
Page 49
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
City Manager: My comment is this. Yes. If the Council decides,
and we push for Potrero, we push for it. But let's don't find
ourselves out in left field as being an adversary totally,
because eventually, if it is not now, personally I feel that this
area needs Potrero. They are going to need. . .
Mr. Lapinski: Offer an alternative.
Council Member Leja: Exactly.
Mr. Lapinski: If you have got a solution, also offer an
alternative.
City Manager: Please go ahead and authorize your staff to buy,
plan and let's be more ready then we were before. Because the
book says they need both. I don't think that is any. .
Mr. Lapinski: Do you think they may need the one million one
hundred thousand feet plus what DV Valley has.
City Manager: Oh yes. Well, they have indicated, for safety
reasons, that they can't go to anymore. That
was pulled back to 800 because of safety reasons.
Mr. Lapinski: They could not do even more in Potrero either.
City Manager: They said that Potrero would pull back for safety
reasons. Potrero is 800,000 I think is, now, or 825.
Mr. Lapinski: Yes, it is all even at 800,000.
City Manager: Okay. But that was done for safety reasons. That
is what they told me. I have been in contact with them right
along, and I haven't seen them hiding their heads, or anything.
I have had them point out places in the book to look . And the
comments useless. We made statements - use them. They are not
against us being over there and after them.
Mr. Lapinski: Well, then, we ought to do whatever we can along
those lines, because I think that is the only thing left over.
If we don't do it now, you are just going to be stymied. You
won't have any more input nowhere.
City Manager: Let's don't put a large agency in a position where
they blackball us. . .
Council Member Leja: Exactly, where you slam the door.
City Manager: And walk away. And then, because of the costs
later of development in Potrero, then we have no reservoir coming
in at a later date. I think the key to it . . .
Mr. Lapinski: Your thoughts are very well taken. I think they
are very good. Just make that point to them, but I think we
ought to make that point at our next meetings with the board. I
don't know how far we could get there, whether there will be an
opportunity to talk or not. I have never been to a board
meeting.
Council Member McLaughlin: I would like to ask kind of a silly
question, in a sense, maybe. Here we are where - I don't know
where they are getting all this - we are short of water, they
have even got to bring in supplement water - and it looks like
this water is going to have to come from the Colorado River area.
I am wondering, you know, they seem to like they can't get an
awful lot of water - where is the surplus going to be coming from
to fill this - either two reservoirs, or any of it.
City Manager: They have got that planned and all taken care of.
All tied down. I tell you, MWD is not a dummy water department.
Page 50
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
Mr. Lapinski: Well, I think somewhere in the process, up north,
they have . . .
City Manager: Those people have got this tied down for the next
forty years, where it is coming from. And if we only knew all
that, we would be brilliant people.
Council Member Leja: They just have to find a place to put it.
Council Member McLaughlin: Yeah, but they have got to get it
first.
City Manager: They have got - Dennis Majors sat and told Jan and
I we can buy water right now if we want water. It is not the
time to buy water because others are rationing. So you don't go
bringing a lot of water into a place to show that you have got a
glut on water, when they are having to say - you know, this is
just as big a political round as anything else. MWD is like
mother agency. It is a wholesaler only. They don't sell water -
they can't sell water to the City of Beaumont. MWD is owned,
technically, by the member agencies. Eastern, LA Power and
Light, those are the people that own this thing.
Well, they are playing all kind of games with water right now,
that some of us have never even thought about. And if we thought
about them we would probably say, that's naughty. They shouldn't
be doing that, because other people are being rationed. That is
why they don't say a lot of things a lot of times. It is just
like he said, we can buy water today. It is available right this
minute if we need it. This is what I have told you all along.
Water is for sale right now. Surprisingly enough.
Mayor Connors: Well I think we have to come to some sort of a
idea here of exactly how we are going to approach this. Right
now we are talking about putting it on the next agenda.
Council Member Leja: I thought Mr. MacNeilage had said something
about - what was the last thing you suggested - maybe right away.
Mayor Connors: Making it or putting it on the priority list, and
forming a resource committee to find ways to approach it. Do we
want to discuss forming a resource committee for it, and discuss
a resolution on it, for the next Council meeting. Is there any
other thing that we want on that Council meeting. That we want
to agendize for it.
City Manager: In a way I hate to see you adopt a resolution on
the 12th of August, then on the 26th, if that is the right date,
it is not the resolution you want. I think you need to come on
strong with the best you've got. Two members of the Council
indicated that they will be volunteering, we can go ahead and
start working on some of this. You could appoint two members to
serve and select a committee at the August 12. And then I would
say that you are going to be better off if you come back August
26 with a concentrated effort, saying we have gone to other
cities and they agree with this type of approach. Here is a
proposed resolution. I would hate to try to get that resolution
ready that quick.
Mayor Connors: I wasn't thinking of voting on the final
resolution on the 12th, but that we would have to discuss on the
12th in order to direct having it written.
City Manager: So you are talking about appointing two Council
Members, and I was thinking a minute ago, we said to serve on a
committee. In the case of the ways and means, it is my
understanding that you are looking at them using some other
resource people to come up with formulation proposals. Should we
also not look at that motion being to appoint two Council Members
to serve on and select a committee, or such and such, so it is
just now the two of them having to do the work.
Page 51
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
Mayor Connors: Right.
City Manager: Is that okay.
Mayor Connors: Rather than it just being two Council Members.
City Manager: Give them the authority to select people.
Mayor Connors: They would be able to have people help them.
City Manager: Okay, serve and select a committee in this
particular case to formulate a proposed plan of action for making
the Eastside Reservoir a reality. That would be resolutions or
whatever then, a plan of action, does that sound right.
Mayor Connors: Yes. We can go with that.
The balance of the City Council are also indicating agreement
without speaking.
City Manager: Restating proposed motion - Appoint two Council
Members to serve on and select members no, additional members -
for a committee to formulate a proposed plan of action regarding
making the Eastside Reservoir a reality.
Mr. Koules: Eastside Reservoir refers to all the sites. You
might want to be more specific.
Mayor Connors: I couldn't hear.
Mr. Koules: Eastside Reservoir refers to all the sites, so you
might want to be more specific and call it Potrero.
City Manager: Making Potrero Reservoir a reality.
Mr. Lapinski: You know, the meeting they had in Hemet, they
passed out a form where they asked for comments. And they are
accepting comments until August 1.
City Manager: That is basically on the EIR. And I should have
made them. I personally feel there should be no discussion on
the EIR. Let's not be an adversary on that. That is a big
enough project by itself. Let's go for siting of the reservoir.
Siting the reservoir in the right place. Let's let the EIR
alone.
Mr. Lapinski: You don't want to worry about the cost.
City Manager: We are not going to pay the cost. Why should we
worry about it.
Mr. Lapinski: Well, the taxpayer.
City Manager: They don't pay to that organization.
Mr. Lapinski: I don't know about that.
City Manager: I do. Do you live in Riverside. You would have
to do that in your resolution, because we don't pay that tax.
Mayor Connors: Do you have what is necessary on here for us to
be able to discuss requesting a resolution to be drafted.
City Manager: I think when you pass the motion, a plan of
action, that is being all inclusive.
Mayor Connors: But I thought it read appoint two Council Members
to discuss a plan of action.
City Manager: To serve and select additional members for a
committee to formulate a proposed plan of action regarding
making. . .
Page 52
Beaumont City Council
July 27, 1991
Mayor Connors: In other words they are to formulate that in time
for us to be able to put a resolution on it.
City Manager: Well I think that it has to be understood that it
has to be back for the 26th, on the agenda.
Mayor Connors: Yes, so it would have to. . .
City Manager: We don't have any extra time.
Mayor Connors: So that would be like the 19th that it would have
to be done by.
City Manager: Yes. That is why I am saying if two volunteers
here today know that they are going to volunteer totally, they
can go to work.
Mayor Connors: Well.
Council Member Leja: Any volunteers. I'll do it.
Council Member MacNeilage: And I will give her a hand.
Mayor Connors: If there is no other position, then we can go
into item number 8.
8. Consideration of Claim Filed by Beaumont Unified School District.
A report was received from the City Manager concerning this
claim, which is based on a previous claim known as Tobar vs City
of Beaumont, et al. Mr. Bounds' recommendation was to reject the
claim based on the findings that the documents and evidence
reviewed thus far fails to establish liability on the City of
Beaumont, and it is impossible to evaluate the claim without
extensive discovery.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
MacNeilage, to reject the claim based on the following findings:
1. The documents and evidence reviewed thus far fails
to establish liability on the City of Beaumont.
2. It is impossible to evaluate the claim without
extensive discovery.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
9. Recess to Closed Session to Consider Public Employee Personnel
Matters Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.
The meeting was recessed to closed session at 2:50 p.m.,
reconvening to regular session at 3:27 p.m.
Let the Record Show Action Taken in Closed Session.
Let the record show direction was given to the City Manager
during closed session.
There being no further business to come before the Council, the
meeting was adjourned at 3:28 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
City Clerk
Page 53
CORRECTION TO MINUTES
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
JULY 27, 1991
Corrections to the minutes of the Beaumont City Council meeting of
July 27, 1991, as follows:
Page 23, eighth paragraph, second line, second word -
"day" should be changed to read "date ".
Page 25, sixth paragraph, second line, last word -
"day" should be changed to read "date ".
City Clerk
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
JULY 22, 1991
The Beaumont City Council met in a regular meeting on Monday, July 22,
1991, at 7:02 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor Connors
presiding.
On roll call the following Council Members were present: MacNeilage,
McLaughlin, Parrott and Mayor Connors. Let the record show Council
Member Leja arrived at 7:04 p.m.
The invocation was given by Council Member McLaughlin, who then led
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
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:
Mr. Roger Berg, 1164 Euclid, addressed the Council: About two
weeks ago, myself and my Dad made a complaint to the City
Building Inspector about a fence out on the City right -of -way,
north of our houses on Euclid. It is about three feet on the
City right -of -way, and no one got back to us and say what they
were going to do about moving the thing out. The guy just put it
up and we happened to notice it was in the City right -of -way
because my Dad used to own the property and he gave the right -
of -way to the City. I would like to know what is being done
about getting that fence off there.
Mayor Connors: Did you go back and inquire at the City offices -
the person you had talked to.
Mr. Berg: Yeah. Talked to - I seen the Planning Director come
by and look at it, and seen the Building Inspector go by and
look at it, but still the fence is there. I mean are we going to
red tag this fence and get it removed. It is out on the public
right -of -way. Are we going to let people just do that throughout
the town. That is what I am wondering because it seems to me
that is what is going on in this community - you make a complaint
and nothing is done about it.
Mayor Connors: When you did go back and talk to them did they
give you a reason why . . .
Mr. Berg: No,
they haven't
done a
thing. They know there is a
fence there and
they haven't
said a
word.
Mayor Connors:
What did
they
tell you when you
Mr. Berg: They didn't tell us anything - they just said they
would check it out. I called the Building Inspector Monday to
say . . .
Mayor Connors: Mr. Berg - did you go back and talk to them after
that to see what their determination was, was my question. And
what did they tell you.
Mr. Berg: (Speaking to his father) You gave them your plans
Page 1
- eaumont•City Council
July 22, 1991
the Building Inspector - didn't you. Mr. Oscar Berg replied he
gave them a copy of the original subdivision map.
Mayor Connors: The second time that you spoke with them. Is
this the second time that you spoke with them.
Roger Berg: Yeah.
Mayor Connors: Mr. Bounds, do you know anything about this.
City Manager: Mr. Oscar Berg came to my office on Monday of last
week, and had the map with him at the time. And, I think at that
time, he thought that Mr. Hall was not in the office. He was, so
I asked him if he would go down and talk to him, and he did. I
was given the matter by Mr. Koules and Mr. Hall on Tuesday
afternoon of last week. I went out to the property on Wednesday
afternoon of last week and met with the property owner. We
looked into the footage and so forth. The man is not continuing
to build anything further. The matter will be taken into
advisement, and if there is no legal way, then certainly the
fence will come down - which he agrees to do.
I don't know anything about the two weeks you have been talking
about. All I know is I heard about it last Monday, which is one
week from today.
Mr. Berg: What is the hold up on making them take the fence
down.
City Manager: I would like to look into the legality of whether
or not there is some other way, and as I say, and if it takes
another whole 24 hours I didn't think that it was bothering
anyone there.
Mr. Berg: Well, it does when the City has other things that they
do - and they will shove it on some people just within one hour's
notice, and then some people, they just seem to - they ignore it,
so I would like this fence taken . . .
City Manager: Roger, I have not ignored this. I have been
working on it . . .
Mr. Berg: I don't know why -- it is obviously on the City's
property is it not.
City Manager: It is in the right -of -way about two and a half
feet.
Mr. Berg: And it just went up, so I don't know why the fence has
got to stay there. I have seen the City go out and red tag
projects before and told them to tear the thing down. I mean .
City Manager: I didn't realize it was hurting anybody in the
next 24 -48 hours.
Mr. Berg: It is. It is hurting because it is a visual
obstruction. Because . . .
City Manager: Oh no, Roger. It can't be a visual obstruction,
it only looks into a man's backyard.
Mr. Berg: Okay, let me tell you . . .
City Manager: It does not do anything to traffic.
Mr. Berg: Okay, then I, let me - if I get the feeling of the
Council right, then, the City ignores some things, and some
things they pursue. We ignore the fact that Beaumont Yamaha has
got motorcycles sitting out on the City right -of -way. You tell
me that they have got a permit -
Page 2
4.
5.
Beaumont City Council
July 22, 1991
City Manager: A Conditional Use Permit. . .
Mr. Berg: . . .but they didn't have it when they moved into what
used to be the Nite Life. And they never applied for another
Conditional Use Permit for that part. So, we are just going to
sit back and ignore it because. . .
City Manager: No, Roger, if you will give me time I will get you
a letter - answer your letter . . .
Mr. Berg: I really think the City is starting to ignore some of
this stuff and push on other people.
Mayor Connors: Mr. Berg, if you didn't want to have an answer. .
Mr. Berg: I want an answer. . . when is the fence going to come
down.
Mayor Connors: We cannot talk to you if you keep talking at us.
Mr. Berg: Okay. Can you tell me when the fence is going to come
down.
Mayor Connors: I think Mr. Bounds was telling you what the
problems were with the fence, and that he has been working on it.
Mr. Berg: How long is it going to be. Can you give me fifty
days, sixty days, a year or what. What is it going to be.
City Manager: It will be done in less than seven days from
today, which is only fourteen days from the day that I first
heard of you coming in here. . .
Mr. Berg: Okay - all right . . .
City Manager: Not two weeks ago like I heard you say.
Mr. Berg: I may have. . .
City Manager: You didn't come to me two weeks ago, or one week
ago. I got information on it - went out and checked on it -
five days ago. . .
Mr. Berg: Okay, we'll wait and see what happens in a week then.
City Manager: I didn't know that it was really hurting anyone in
twenty- four /forty -eight hours.
Mr. Berg: Well it is.
Special Presentation to Council Member Jan Leja.
A Certificate of Appreciation was presented to Council Member Jan
Leja by Mayor Connors, on behalf of the City Council. This
Certificate of Appreciation read as follows:
"Your weeks of volunteer hours, continued dedication and hard
work in organizing the City of Beaumont 1991 Independence Day
Celebration is valued and greatly appreciated ".
PUBLIC HEARING - 7:00 P.M.
Report and Account of Cost for Weed Abatement, and Hearing of
Objections or Protests.
The staff report and account of cost for weed abatement was
presented by the City Manager, with a recommendation for approval
of the report and account as modified, since one of the
Page 3
delinquent bills was paid after
of the report and account is a
file.
oeaumont City Council
July 22, 1991
issuance of the report. A copy
matter of record in the Clerk's
The public hearing was opened at 7:14 P.M.
There was no one requesting to speak during this public hearing.
The public hearing was closed at 7:15 P.M.
a. Consideration of Approval of the Report and Account of Weed
Abatement as Presented, Modified or Corrected.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Leja, to approve the report and account of cost of weed abatement
as modified.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
b. RESOLUTION NO. 1991 -29 - 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 McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Leja, to adopt Resolution No. 1991 -29.
AYES: Council Member Leja,
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
6. Mr. Louis Millage - Discuss Hazards of Sidewalks in the City.
Mr. Millage presented a lengthy dissertation concerning his
request for consideration of correcting many hazards encountered
by the handicapped and elderly in attempting to use sidewalks
throughout the City. The basic problem with the sidewalks,
according to Mr. Millage, is the fact they are curbside
sidewalks, with the driveway entrances not level with the
sidewalks. He also pointed out many mailboxes and fire hydrants
are in the middle of the sidewalk creating an obstacle not only
to the handicapped and elderly, but to others using the
sidewalks.
Discussion followed Mr. Millage's presentation, with questions
being asked of the City Manager by Council Members.
Answering the City Manager's question, Council Member Leja stated
the first step to look at is how the City can look at new
development, because that has not yet been built yet. From that
point the City needs to look at what presently exists to see if
there are any alternatives.
Mayor Connors asked if the City Manager could give a ball park
figure for installing sidewalks where there are none, and to
replace the sidewalks that are causing the problems, with the
City Manager saying he has no idea, however, sidewalks are the
responsibility of the property owner according to the California
Streets and Highways Code.
Council Member Mclaughlin pointed out one of the reasons the
sidewalks are at the curbline is the fact that most of the
parkways, the area between curbline and sidewalk, are hard to
maintain properly by the property owners, and they preferred
Page 4
eaumont City Council
July 22, 1991
the parkways be eliminated, and that portion becoming part of
their front yard for ease of maintenance. It appears by
solving one problem it has created another problem, so what do
you do to solve all problems that everybody is going to be happy
with. As a result the City will have to see whether it can solve
the problem, without creating more problems.
Council Member MacNeilage asked if funds to correct this problem
could be obtained from CDBG or redevelopment, with the City
Manager answering it would take a period of ten to fifteen years
to get enough funds from this source to pay for this, however,
the funds could be used for this purpose. He also pointed out
this Council could not commit future Councils to the same use of
the funds, but could certainly show this as an idea that could be
used.
Council Member Leja said she would like to see reports as
follows:
1. A report regarding what can be done about new
development coming in to the City.
2. Look at existing sidewalks and report on the whole
picture and designate areas that would be easiest
to fix, with a cost breakdown.
3. Basic overall picture, and then look at stages.
4. How much of the City has sidewalks and how much doesn't
Council Member McLaughlin felt staff should start with what has
sidewalks already, and then work toward the other phases. By the
time you would get the whole picture, that picture will probably
change.
The City Manager suggested the information which he felt would
help the Council, and which he could have by the next meeting,
would be the cost per lineal foot, based on both doing a lot of
work at one time, or a small amount at one time, for a new
project, which would be the cheapest cost. A second cost could
then be submitted for taking a sidewalk out where it is today,
moving it, and putting a new driveway approach in. Then a cost
on a maintenance approach.
Council Member McLaughlin again brought up the subject of whether
or not the homeowner would be responsible to maintain anything
that is done, with the City Manager stating the Streets and
Highways Code does indicate the responsibility of sidewalks as
being the property owners.
Mr. McLaughlin continued that he
time to get information out to
newspapers, in order to get some
be worked out. He felt this was
them would possibly not like to
and maybe there were alternati)
felt there should be sufficient
all property owners via the
input from them to see what can
very important because a lot of
have their sidewalks moved in,
(es which could be looked at.
The City Manager recommended it would be well to have a series of
discussions with the public, as there would be a variety of
comments which would be made, rather than just the one comment.
Secondly, he stated that so far as funding, no
be used for sidewalk work. It is not allowed,
they could use any street money for sidewalks
curb and gutter was taken out, and the sidewall
of a street problem. This is very clear in
Highways Code. As a result, general fund money
used to fund anything which might be done.
street money can
as the only way
would be if the
<s moved, because
the Streets and
would have to be
Mrs. Leja commented that, once this is being looked at, there
would have to be more than one alternative - different things for
different areas of the community.
Page 5
Beaumont City Council
July 22, 1991
It was the consensus of the Council that direction be given to
staff as follows, with the first report to be returned to the
Council at the regular meeting of August 12.
1. Cost per lineal foot for a new project, and a second
cost for removing sidewalk and putting in new drive-
way approach and new sidewalk. A third cost for a
maintenance approach.
2. A report regarding what can be done about new
development coming in to the City.
3. Look at existing sidewalks and report on the whole
picture and designate areas that would be easiest
to fix, with a cost breakdown.
4. Basic overall picture, and then look at stages.
5. How much of the City has sidewalks and how much
doesn't.
7. Consider Approval of Proposed Measure A Local Fund Program for FY
1992 -1996.
The City Manager presented his report, a copy of which is a
matter of record in the Clerk's file, with a recommendation for
approval of the proposed Measure A Local Fund Program for FY
1992 -1996.
Questions were asked and comments made by the Council concerning
this proposal, with extensive discussion concerning the two
alternatives for the signal lights at 6th and Beaumont Avenue.
It was the consensus of the Council the proposal costing $100,000
would be the most feasible.
Council Member Leja did have a concern whether or not the
resurfacing of Beaumont Avenue would interfere with the Cherry
Festival parade in June of 1992, with the City Manager indicating
it would be included in the bid process to require a passable
street for the entire width for the day of the parade.
Motion by Council Member Parrott, second by Council Member
McLaughlin, to approve the proposed Measure "A" Local Funds
Program for FY 1992 -1996, as submitted.
AYES_: Council Member Leja,
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
The meeting was recessed at 8:23 p.m., reconvening at 8:36 p.m.
8. RESOLUTION NO. 1991 -30 - Requesting the Addition of a Measure
Relating to a Utility User Tax to the Ballot for the City of
Beaumont General Municipal Election to be Held in Said City on
November 5, 1991.
A report was received from the City Manager, a copy of which is a
matter of record in the Clerk's file.
There were no questions or comments from the Council.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member
MacNeilage, to adopt Resolution No. 1991 -30.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Page 6
Beaumont City Council
July 22, 1991
9. a. ORDINANCE NO. 704 - An Urgency Ordinance of the City Council
of the City of Beaumont, California, Repealing Chapter 5.44
of the Beaumont Municipal Code and Adding to the Beaumont
Municipal Code Chapter 5.44 Regulating the Conduct of Massage
Services and Massage Establishments and Requiring the
Issuance of a Permit Therefor, and the Licensing Thereof.
(Continued from July 8, 1991).
b. RESOLUTION NO. 1991 -27 - Regarding Fees for Massage
Establishments. Continued from July 8, 1991).
The City Manager reported that due to problems being experienced
by the Riverside County Health Department at this time because of
a reorganization, they are unable to provide the services
delineated in our ordinance. As a result he is recommending this
agenda item be withdrawn at this time, and continue to work with
the existing ordinance in place, with whatever assistance can be
obtained from the Health Department, until such time as we know
what is going to happen with the County Health Department.
By doing this it will allow the applicant currently processing an
application to move forward under the old ordinance without
further delay.
There were no objections from the Council to withdraw both Agenda
Items 9.a and 9.b from the agenda.
Mr. Larry Moore, the applicant for a massage establishment permit,
said he wished to thank the City Council and staff for expediently
trying to take care of this matter.
10. 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 City Council Meeting of July
8, 1991.
b. Approval of Warrants as Audited per Warrant List of July 22,
1991, in the amount of $254,716.04; and Payroll of July 4,
1991, in the amount of $72,854.61.
C. RESOLUTION NO. 1991 -28 - Determining Fees to be Charged to
Reimburse the City for Costs of Registering Bonds and Cost of
Annual Administration of Assessment District 1983 -1.
d. RESOLUTION NO. 1991 -31 - Adopting the Sewerage and Sanitation
Fees Report and Directing that Said Report be Certified to
the County Auditor for Collection on the Tax Rolls.
Mayor Connors requested a correction to the minutes of July 8 as
follows:
Page 2, Item No. 5, the addition of a statement that she
asked whether the City needed to put the shotguns into
the actual motion or whether that had been a decision
that had definitely been made, and she was told that it
was.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Parrott, to adopt the consent calendar with the minutes corrected
as requested.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Page 7
eaumont City Council
July 22, 1991
11. 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 titles of the litigations are:
a. Beaumont - Cherry Valley Water District vs City of Beaumont, et
al., Case No. 211456, Riverside Superior Court.
b. City of Beaumont vs Bowie, Case No. 200647, Riverside
Superior Court.
The meeting was recessed to closed session at 8:48 P.M.
The meeting was reconvened to regular session at 10:30 P.M.
Let the record show action taken in Closed Session.
Let the record show that in closed session Council consulted with
special water counsel who gave indication of direction in which
they are going in the case of the Beaumont - Cherry Valley Water
District, and an attorney's report was received and no further
action will be taken on the case of the City of Beaumont vs Bowie.
Date set for next regular Council Meeting, Monday, August 12
1991, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers.
There being no further business to come before the Council, the
meeting was adjourned at 10:31 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Page 8
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
CORRECTION TO MINUTES OF JULY 8, 1991
The Minutes of July 8, 1991 were corrected at the Council Meeting
of July 22, 1991, as follows:
Page 2, Agenda Item No. 5, add a paragraph just following
paragraph five, to state:
Mayor Connors asked whether they should make the
motion to specify that the City wanted to include
the shotguns in the purchase, with the City
Manager advising it is not necessary to authorize
it. Mayor Connors confirmed he meant that it is
a definite decision, with the City Manager acknow-
ledging that it will be done, as well as the
ammunition for this year.
Robert J.Iffounds, City Clerk
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
JULY 8, 1991
The Beaumont City Council met in a regular meeting on Monday, July 8,
1991, at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor Connors
presiding.
On roll call the following Council Members were present: MacNeilage,
Parrott and Mayor Connors. Let the record show Council Members Leja
and McLaughlin were excused.
The invocation was given by City Manager Bounds, who then led the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
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:
Ms. Waunell Marlar, 261 Apex, Banning, California, addressed the
Council, stating she, as an individual citizen, wanted to present
a bouquet to Jan Leja thanking her for what she helped bring
forth on the 4th of July. She said she had received no bad
comments, and thought it was a tremendous celebration because of
a lot of hard work. Although Ms. Leja said she made a lot of
mistakes, as long as the crowd didn't know that, it was o.k.
She continued that she wanted to thank Beaumont and will try to
find Ms. Leja at home, since she is not at the meeting, in order
to present the bouquet to her.
4. Authorization to Call for Bids for Playground Equipment at
Stewart Park.
The City Manager presented his report, with a recommendation for
the Council to authorize the call for bids for the playground
equipment at Stewart Park. A copy of Mr. Bounds' report is a
matter of record in the Clerk's file.
Council Member MacNeilage asked if CDBG funds could be used to
pay for the City crew's time to install this equipment, with Mr.
Bounds responding it could be, however, when the application was
submitted the Council elected to go with the City paying for this
time, in order to get more equipment for the dollar, and, also,
the County would much rather that you use the money strictly for
equipment and not labor.
There were no other comments or questions from the Council.
Motion by Council Member Parrott, second by Council Member
MacNeilage, to authorize the City Manager to advertise for bids
for playground equipment to be opened at 2:00 p.m., on August 13,
1991.
AYES: Council Member MacNeilage, Parrott and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council.Member Leja and McLaughlin.
Page 1
Beaumont City Council
July 8, 1991
5. Consideration of Bids Received for Sale of Surplus Weapons by
Police Department.
A report was received from the City Manager, a copy of which is a
matter of record in the Clerk's file. His recommendation was for
authorization to sell these weapons.
Council Member Parrott commented that he had looked at the
weapons, proposed to be sold to insure that the weapon which had
been stolen from him was not included, with the City Manager
assuring him none of these weapons were in the Police
Department's possession as the result of a theft, but were
weapons that were taken because they were used in the commission
of a crime, or they had to be taken away from a person due to the
judge determining there was a nuisance involved.
Council Member MacNeilage wanted to know if the shotguns
presently used by the department are old and worn out. The City
Manager stated they are in very bad shape, and the police chief
had originally requested new stocks for the existing shotguns,
(to try to tighten them up and make them do until later), in the
budget for this next fiscal year, however, they would much prefer
to buy new weapons. He continued that the existing weapons are
not abused, just old. He also pointed out the existing shotguns
would be sold as well.
Council Member MacNeilage then asked how many shotguns would be
purchased, with the City Manager indicating he did not know the
exact number at this time, however, it will not use up all the
funds, with the remainder of the money staying as a credit for
other purchases.
There were no other questions from the Council.
Motion by Council Member MacNeilage, second by Council Member
Parrott, to authorize the sale of weapons to L & M Sports for
$12,375.00 credit for Police Department purchases.
AYES: Council Member MacNeilage, Parrott and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Leja and McLaughlin.
6. RESOLUTION NO. 1991 -26 - Extending Memoranda of Understandings
with 1 General Employees Unit of the Public Employees
Association of Riverside County, Inc.; 2) the Beaumont
Confederation of Police of the California Organization of Police
and Sheriffs; 3) The Police Sergeants as Individuals; and 4)
The Management and Administrative Employees as Individuals, Until
1991 -92 Negotiations Have Been Completed and New Memoranda of
Understandings Adopted.
The City Manager explained this resolution would merely assure
the employees their salaries and benefits will continue until
negotiations have been completed with each of the units,
therefore showing good faith that even though the MOUs expired on
June 30, the Council intends to continue those salaries and
benefits at this time.
There were no comments or questions from the Council.
Motion by Council Member MacNeilage, second by Council Member
Parrott, to adopt Resolution No. 1991 -26.
AYES: Council Member MacNeilage, Parrott and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Leja and McLaughlin.
Page 2
7.
MP
Beaumont City Council
July S, 1991
a. Report on Subcommittee Meeting to Establish the San Gorgonio
Pass Area Economic Development Council.
b. Consideration of Council Member Appointee to the Committee
to Establish the Economic Development Council. (Continued
from June 24, 1991).
C. Consideration of Approving the Concept of a Non - Profit
Economic Development Council.
A report was received from the Assistant City Manager concerning
the subcommittee meeting recently held. A copy of this report is
a matter of record in the Clerk's file. It should be noted the
subcommittee is asking only for conceptual approval of the
establishment of a non - profit San Gorgonio Pass Area Economic
Development Council, and not for the appointment of a City
Council Member to the committee.
Council Member Parrott said it appeared there was not much for
the Council to do, with Mayor Connors clarifying the request is
for approval of the concept, with no request for a Council Member
to participate on the committee, stating further that her
understanding of ex- officio member is that Councils and Chambers
of Commerce that are in office are already members, but they are
not voting members, and so forth.
The City Manager indicated it should be noted he was required to
include Item 7.b on the agenda since it was continued from the
previous meeting, however, no action needs to be taken on that
item in light of the report they have received tonight.
There were no other questions from the Council.
Motion by Council Member MacNeilage, second by Council Member
Parrott, to approve the concept of establishing a non - profit
Economic Development Council for the San Gorgonio Pass Area.
AYES: Council Member MacNeilage, Parrott and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Leja and McLaughlin.
a. Consideration of Approving a Mission Statement, Philosophy,
Code of Ethics and Operating Rules for the Senior Citizens
Advisory Body.
b. Authorization to Post Notice for Applications to Fill Five
Vacancies on the Senior Citizens Advisory Body.
The City Manager submitted his report to the Council, a copy of
which is a matter of record in the Clerk's file. He added that
the Council is also being asked to designate exactly what they
wish the advisory body to be called, recommending that committee
would be the best designation for an advisory body of this
nature.
There were no comments from the Council other than a
recommendation that it be approved by Council Member Parrott.
Motion by Council Member Parrott, second by Council Member
MacNeilage, to:
a. Approve the Mission Statement, Philosophy and Code of
Ethics, and Operating Rules for the Senior Citizen
Advisory Committee; and
b. Authorize staff to post notices requesting applications
for five (5) vacancies on the Advisory Committee;
with the designation this advisory body shall be known as the
Senior Citizen Advisory Committee.
Page 3
Beaumont City Council
July 8, 1991
AYES: Council Member MacNeilage, Parrott and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Leja and McLaughlin.
9. ORDINANCE NO. 703 - Second Reading - Adding Chapter 8.40 to the
Beaumont Municipal Code Supporting the Imposition of a Vehicle
Registration Fee to Fund Implementation of Air Quality Management
Plans and Provisions of the California Clean Air Act for Mobile
Source Air Pollution Reduction.
10.
Motion to Read Ordinance No. 703 by title only.
Motion by Council Member MacNeilage, second by Council Member
Parrott, to read Ordinance No. 703 by title only.
AYES: Council Member MacNeilage, Parrott and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Leja and McLaughlin.
The ordinance was read by title only by the Deputy City Clerk.
There was no discussion concerning this ordinance.
Motion to Adopt Ordinance No. 703 at its second reading.
Motion by Council Member MacNeilage, second by Council Member
Parrott, to adopt Ordinance No. 703 at its second reading.
AYES: Council Member MacNeilage, Parrott and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Leja and McLaughlin.
a. ORDINANCE NO. 704 - An Urgency Ordinance of the City Council
of the City of Beaumont, California, Repealing Chapter 5.44
of the Beaumont Municipal Code and Adding to the Beaumont
Municipal Code Chapter 5.44 Regulating the Conduct of Massage
Services and Massage Establishments and Requiring the
Issuance of a Permit Therefor, and the Licensing Thereof.
b. RESOLUTION NO. 1991 -27 - Regarding Fees for Massage
Establishments.
The City Manager called attention to the fact that since two
members of the Council are not present tonight, there would not
be a four - fifths majority to hear this ordinance as an urgency
ordinance. He advised further that if the Council were to
decide to consider this a first reading, it would then have to
come back for a second reading on July 22, then would not become
effective for thirty days after that, which would cause
additional delay for those applicants with applications pending
at this time. He suggested the agenda item be continued to the
next regular meeting, at which time it is expected all Council
Members would be present. This would allow the ordinance to be
considered as an urgency ordinance, and, if adopted, would become
effective immediately.
A poll of the Council revealed they all agreed a continuance was
in order.
Motion by Council Member Parrott, second by Council Member
MacNeilage, to continue agenda items No. 10.a and 10.b to the
regular meeting of July 22, 1991.
AYES: Council Member MacNeilage, Parrott and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Leja and McLaughlin.
Page 4
Beaumont City Council
July 8, 1991
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 City Council Meetings of June
10, 1991 and June 24, 1991, and Special Council Meeting of
July 1, 1991.
b. Approval of Warrants as Audited per Warrant List of July 8,
1991, in the amount of $186,573.09; and Payroll of June 20,
1991, in the amount of $74,301.90.
C. RESOLUTION NO. 1991 -25 - Accepting Grant of Easement -
Drainage, and Authorization for Recordation of Same.
(Ehrlich - 90- PM -1).
Motion by Council Member Parrott, second by Council Member
MacNeilage, to adopt the Consent Calendar as presented.
AYES: Council Member MacNeilage, Parrott and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Leja and McLaughlin.
Date set for next regular Council meeting, Monday, July 22, 1991,
at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers.
There being no further business to come before the Council, the
meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
City Clerk
Page 5
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
SPECIAL MEETING
JULY 1, 1991
The Beaumont City Council met in a Special Meeting at 7:03 P.M.,
on Monday, July 1, 1991, in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor
Connors presiding.
On roll call the following Council Members were present: Leja,
MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrot and Mayor Connors.
1. Clerk's Affidavit of Posting.
The Clerk's affidavit of posting the agenda was read into
the record by the City Clerk.
2. 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 Beaumont- Cherry Valley Water
District vs City of Beaumont, et al., Case No. 211456,
Riverside Superior Court.
The meeting was recessed to closed session at 7:05 P.M., and
reconvened to regular session at 9:40 P.M.
Let the record show the Council received information and
reports from its attorney and the consultants which she has
retained regarding this case.
There being no further business to come before the Council,
the meeting was adjourned at 9:41 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
City Clerk
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
JUNE 24, 1991
The Beaumont City Council met in a regular meeting on Monday, June 24,
1991, at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor Connors
presiding.
On roll call the following Council Members were present: Leja,
MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott and Mayor Connors.
The invocation was given by Council Member Leja, who then led the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
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 Attorney requested that a closed session be added to the
agenda as an urgency item. The closed session would be for the
purpose of pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(a), with the case being City of Beaumont vs Bowie, Case
No. 200647, Riverside Superior Court, for which the need for
discussion arose after the agenda was posted.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member
McLaughlin, to add Item No. 13 for a closed session for pending
litigation to the agenda.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
3. ORAL COMMUNICATION:
There were no requests to speak under oral communication.
4. Consideration of Claim filed Against the City by Victor K. Kezer.
The City Manager presented his recommendation for denial of the
claim based on the findings.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
MacNeilage, to reject the claim based on the following findings:
1. That the documents and evidence reviewed thus far fails to
establish liability on the City of Beaumont.
2. It is impossible to adequately evaluate the claim without
extensive discovery.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
5. Consideration of Approval of Memorandum of Understanding with
Beaumont Unified School District Relative to the D.A.R.E.
Program.
A report was submitted by the City Manager, a copy of which is a
matter of record in the Clerk's file, with a recommendation for
approval of the Memorandum of Understanding.
Page 1
20
Beaumont City Council
June 24, 1991
Mayor Connors questioned the fact the name of the D.A.R.E.
program is not written out, and also the item pertaining to
providing a trained police officer as the D.A.R.E. officer. She
felt the City would provide the police officer, and the School
District would pay for the training.
The City Manager explained the training for the D.A.R.E. officer
was provided by the D.A.R.E. America organization at no cost,
with Mayor Connors stating she thought the free training was only
for the first year.
The City Manager said he did not have a full copy of the D.A.R.E.
America program, with Mayor Connors responding that she thought
this should be checked into as her understanding was the first
year only was paid for by D.A.R.E. America, and then the school
district paid for the training from that time on.
Mr. Bounds indicated he did know the school district must pay for
any materials, but he had not heard that the training must be
paid for. He continued that we would have to have a police
officer on staff at the time they were sent to the training, and
he felt that he would rather have that training under his
control, so the City would have total control of the officer both
in training and during the time they are working in the school
district.
Council Member Leja asked if there had been an evaluation of how
well the D.A.R.E. program is working, with the City Manager
replying they.felt it would take two years to truly evaluate the
program, although it appears to be very good.
The City Manager pointed out that to attempt the change the
reference to the D.A.R.E. program in the MOU by spelling it out,
meant it would have to go back to the school board for approval,
and suggested it be changed next year.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Leja, to approve the Memorandum of Understanding between the City
of Beaumont and the Beaumont Unified School District regarding
the D.A.R.E. Program, and authorize the Mayor to execute same.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
a. RESOLUTION NO. 1991 -23 - Calling and Giving Notice of the
Holding of a General Municipal Election to be Held in Said
City on Tuesday, November 5, 1991 for Election of Certain
Officers of Said City as Required by the Provisions of the
Laws of the State of California Relating to General Law
Cities; and Requesting the Registrar of Voters to Conduct
the Election.
b. RESOLUTION NO. 1991 -24 - Setting Forth Regulations for
Candidates for 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 5, 1991.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member
MacNeilage, to adopt Resolutions No. 1991 -23 and 1991 -24.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Page 2
Beaumont City Council
June 24, 1991
7. ORDINANCE NO. 703 - First Reading - Adding Chapter 8.40 to the
Beaumont Municipal Code Supporting the Imposition of a Vehicle
Registration Fee to Fund Implementation of Air Quality Management
Plans and Provisions of the California Clean Air Act for Mobile
Source Air Pollution Reduction.
Motion to Read Ordinance No. 703 by title only.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member
McLaughlin, to read Ordinance No. 703 by title only.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
The ordinance was read by title only by the Deputy City Clerk.
Mayor Connors questioned where the remaining 600 of every dollar
went, since the City was receiving only 400, with the City
Manager explaining the remainder goes to the South Coast Air
Quality District, as it will cost them considerably more than 600
on the dollar to do what they have to do.
Mayor Connors pointed out that if this ordinance is not adopted,
the funds will then go to other cities and counties rather than
to the City of Beaumont.
It was noted by the City Attorney that the ordinance should be
corrected to reflect section numbers where the A., B., C., are
shown, in other words, Sections 8.40.010, 8.40.020, 8.40.30,
etc., in order to follow the format of the municipal code.
Mayor Connors also asked a question regarding why they were
allowed to select the auditors rather than the City, with the
City Manager explaining the purpose of this provision.
Council Member Leja wanted to know how the Board of the South
Coast Air Quality District was made up, with the City Manager
advising it is made up of appointments by the Governor, with two
cities represented. At the present time the supervisor for our
district is the Chair for this board.
Motion to Approve Ordinance No. 703 at its first reading.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Leja, to approve Ordinance No. 703 at its first reading.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
8. ORDINANCE NO. 704 - An Urgency Ordinance of the City Council of
the City of Beaumont, California, Repealing Chapter 5.44 of the
Beaumont Municipal Code and Adding to the Beaumont Municipal Code
Chapter 5.44 Regulating the Conduct of Massage Services and
Massage Establishments and Requiring the Issuance of a Permit
Therefor, and the Licensing Thereof.
Motion to Read Ordinance No. 704 by title only.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member Parrott,
to read Ordinance No. 704 by title only.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Page 3
Beaumont City Council
June 24, 1991
The ordinance was read by title only by the Deputy City Clerk.
The City Manager said he was contacted by one of the local
chiropractors concerning whether or not the people who are hired
by chiropractors to do massage work in their office would be
regulated by this ordinance. He called attention to Page 2 of
the Ordinance, 5.44.020, which lists exemptions for all of the
healing arts, duly licensed by the State, from the provisions of
the ordinance, and this includes chiropractors.
Chief Mitchell White addressed the Council, explaining the
changes which were made from the existing ordinance for inclusion
in this new ordinance, pointing out the old ordinance is 20 years
old and updating was needed. He also pointed out much of this
new ordinance follows the County ordinance regulating massage
establishments.
A number of questions were asked by Mayor Connors concerning
certain sections of the ordinance, with answers and explanations
given by Chief White.
Building Inspector Kent Hall presented explanations concerning
changes which were made relative to the facilities in which
massage establishments could be operated.
There were no questions from the Council.
The City Manager noted a conflict in the ordinance which
indicated both the City Clerk and the Chief of Police issuing the
permit, feeling this should lie with the Chief of Police. Mayor
Connors then questioned why the City Clerk was the person
designated by this ordinance, feeling this was not appropriate
since the City Clerk is an elected position.
The City Manager indicated he would have no problem with the
Chief of Police being the person designated by this ordinance to
oversee the issuance of permits for massage establishments.
The Council spent considerable time discussing the provisions of
the ordinance.
Margot Tungate, 13129 American, whose husband is a chiropractor,
and in whose office she provides massage services, spoke to the
Council expressing her concerns regarding the impact of this
ordinance on their office.
It was again explained that chiropractors are exempt, along with
other health professionals.
Larry and Trini Moore, 1212 Pennsylvania, addressed the Council
at length, questioning many of the provisions of the ordinance.
As a result of their questions, it was determined the fees would
be $200.00 for each permit fee, and $50.00 for each masseur, and
that the over -18 requirement would apply only to massage
technicians, not office personnel.
There was a suggestion by the City Manager that the ordinance
provide fees be set by resolution, and that a resolution be
brought back to the Council at the next meeting setting the
specific fees. It was determined that a resolution would be
brought back setting the fees.
It was clarified for the City Attorney that the Chief of Police
would be the person designated to oversee the issuance of these
permits.
Due to the number of minor revisions, which were noted by the
City Attorney, it was suggested the ordinance be revised and
brought back to the Council at the July 8 meeting.
Page 4
Beaumont City Council
June 24, 1991
Motion to Adopt Ordinance No. 704 as an Urgency Ordinance at its
first reading.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Leja, to continue this agenda item to the regular meeting of July
8, 1991.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
9. Report on Plans for July 4, 1991 Celebration.
Council Member Leja presented a verbal report concerning the
July 4 celebration, as follows:
They are proceeding with this being the official day of
celebration as ordered by President Bush, and it will be an
All- American celebration.
The evening will begin with a country western band called Second
Time Around, who feature country western swing type music. They
have their original material, and are very good. They are
presently negotiating for a record label.
Following that will be the welcome home and salute to the armed
forces, which will be a salute to all veterans of foreign wars,
with no war taking precedence over the other. This will be set
up in an olympic style setting, since this is in the football
stadium - not a parade.
There will be an honor guard, as well as the national anthem
being sung.
The MC for the evening will be Matt Russo, who does an excellent
job.
Plans are being finalized for fly -bys by some of the air force
units in the area, subject to approval by the FAA, including a
fighter fly -by with the missing man formation, at which time
there will be a moment of silence to honor the POWs and the MIAs,
and those who have fallen in the service of their country.
The next portion of the evening will include performances by the
Penguins, the Crests, the Shirelles and the Drifters.
Following the pre -show activities, the fireworks will begin.
The fireworks display is entitled "Proud to be an American" and
will be accompanied by music and a narrative, including Whitney
Houston's rendition of the National Anthem, and Lee Greenwood's
Proud to be an American. At the conclusion there will be a
taped message from President Bush.
There will be concessions throughout the area, emphasizing an
All- American flavor (apple pie and ice cream, etc.).
Presently the time set for this to begin is 5 :30 p.m.
Mrs. Leja concluded her presentation with information that she is
to discuss advertising with the local newspapers on Tuesday, and
has scheduled a meeting with Police Chief White to discuss
traffic and security.
She also informed the Council the event is being sponsored by
corporate sponsors, in order that the people of the community can
enjoy this event free of charge, and they will receive
advertisement from the event.
She then asked for comments or suggestions from Council Members.
Page 5
Beaumont City Council
June 24, 1991
Mayor Connors asked what the total budget was for all this, and
where was the money coming from.
Council Member Leja advised it would be funded by corporate
sponsors.
Mayor Connors then asked how much had been raised, and have the
expenses already been taken care of, with Council Member Leja
replying that most of it has been taken care of.
Mayor Connors wanted to know if there will be any type of a
shortfall, with Council Member Leja responding in the negative.
Council Member McLaughlin said his understanding was the City was
paying for the fireworks, with Council Member Leja stating it was
her understanding the night the fireworks was discussed is the
cities would help supply the funds for the fireworks, as well as
a foundation they have gone through in the past. What has
happened now is a possible shortfall from the foundation, so any
extra monies that are raised for the concert will go to cover the
fireworks as well. She is hoping to finance the entire event
through private funds.
The City Manager pointed out that one of the problems is it is
not the two cities, but the City of Beaumont and the Banning
Chamber of Commerce, and the Banning Chamber of Commerce does not
have the money to pay their half of the fireworks, and must raise
that money.
Mayor Connors asked if the fireworks only was a joint effort,
and the pre -show not a joint effort, with Council Member Leja
stating she has been working very closely with the Banning
Chamber of Commerce for the entire event.
Mayor Connors questioned where the funds are being placed once
they are collected, with Council Member Leja advising there an
account set up specifically for fireworks and concert fund, and
they identify on the check if they intend it to go to the concert
or to fireworks, or to both. Any extra money would be carried
over toward next year's expenses.
Mayor Connors then asked if the apple pie and ice cream booth is
all set, and if so, who will be doing that.
Council Member Leja indicated the Rainbow Girls will have this
booth.
Mayor Connors continued with a question concerning whether or not
the honor guard and bands were already set, with Council Member
Leja answering in the affirmative. Council Member Leja then
asked if all this needs approval from the City Council.
Mayor Connors responded that she felt the City Council should be
kept informed regarding what is happening and what is going on
for the pre -show and the fireworks, and that is the reason she
has some questions - and the reason she appears to be confused is
because there was an article in the paper the end of last week
saying that the fund raising was going slowly, and they were
falling short.
Council Member Leja said at that time that was the case, as when
Ms. Marlar submitted it to the paper, she was looking at simply
the fireworks, and when the article was submitted that was the
case. She continued that it doesn't hurt for people to keep
giving money so the entire event can be paid for by private
funds, and not have to ask the cities for any money.
Mayor Connors commented that was exactly what the City wanted to
have happen.
Council Member McLaughlin wanted to know who would be responsible
in case the funds fall short, with Council Member Leja stating
she would be responsible.
Page 6
Beaumont City Council
June 24, 1991
Council Member Leja continued that at the time the fireworks was
discussed, and she volunteered to do the job, it was not an
official direction by the City Council, and she was not aware
that she would have to give full reports and financial reports.
She is, however, taking every precaution to protect everyone,
including the cities, and she gave it considerable thought when
she started looking for bands and performers to make this an
exceptional 4th of July rather than the average 4th of July,
knowing there would be a risk, and agreeing to take the risk
herself and not to burden the cities.
Mayor Connors wanted to know if the committee in Banning has been
told that the snack bars are in place, and who will be manning
them, and has been told how much has been raised, and the
information concerning the color guards and the bands.
Council Member Leja responded they have been given most of the
information, although the person she has been working with was
out of town this weekend and today when she attempted to contact
her to finalize the information, and asked if there was something
in particular that Mayor Connors wanted to know.
Mayor Connors said some of these questions apparently were
questions the committee in Banning had themselves, and there
seems to be some miscommunication somewhere, with Council Member
Leja replying they have her telephone number, and she does have a
meeting scheduled with the person she has been working with.
Mayor Connors continued that the reason this came up on the
agenda was she felt the Council would like to know exactly what
is happening, and, as is evident, a lot of information has been
given tonight that the Council was not aware of, and if there had
been a problem involving money, this is the last Council meeting
prior to the 4th of July.
Council Member Leja pointed out it was her understanding from
the City Manager that the only item which expenditures had been
authorized for were the fireworks, and she could certainly
emphasize to the sponsors that the monies they have promised
could be just for the concert, not for the fireworks, and let
that burden fall on the City, but she would prefer not to do
this, and she is trying to cover the expenses for the entire
event.
Council Member Parrott said he thought the Council should commend
Mrs. Leja for doing a good job.
At the conclusion of this discussion, Council Member Leja stated
she felt in the future there should be a volunteer group who
would handle the 4th of July celebration so the City can continue
to make this bigger and better each year. In that manner it
would be more directed, since this year we were caught short, and
all the direction was not in place. In that way one person would
not accept the financial risk. She pointed out that next year
was the 75th anniversary of the County of Riverside and the
following year is the 75th anniversary of the Cherry Festival, so
there is plenty of time to plan special celebrations.
10. Consideration of Council Member Appointee to the Committee to
Establish the Economic Development Council.
Mayor Connors called attention to Council Member L e j a I s
memorandum in the agenda packet, and called on Council Member
Leja for comments.
Council Member Leja reported that on June 17 she attended a
meeting of local businessmen and government officials, from
Banning and Beaumont, and representatives from the Riverside
Economic Development agency, to discuss the concept of a
committee to discuss the San Gorgonio Pass Economic Development
Council, which is a non - profit benefit corporation.
Page 7
Beaumont City Council
June 24, 1991
She reported further that at the.meeting the committee requested
there be a representative from the City of Beaumont City Council
to be part of the formation committee.
She explained that what an economic development corporation does
is work as a consolidated effort, supported by private industry
rather than government funds, to recruit industry and
manufacturing to an area.
Additionally, she advised that the organizers decided there would
be a greater benefit, and be more receptive to businesses outside
the area, if it were approached in a consolidated effort to
recruit business and jobs into the San Gorgonio Pass Area. There
was discussion to include other communities in this organization,
and one of the things the advisory committee would be doing is to
help establish ground rules, or at least have some type of input
regarding what will be affected with the private industry
council.
Mayor Connors stated she has established that it is a private
organization, and she spoke with some of the people who attended
the meeting. She was informed that the Council Member appointee
would be there for purposes of receiving information so the City
Council would know what was going on in that committee, rather
than being a voting type of position.
She continued that the meeting on Friday, June 28, is a meeting
to write by -laws, and draw a budget for that group. Her
feeling was that the appointment, if it is decided to appoint a
Council Member, should be made after they have completed their
by -laws and budget, and the Council has the opportunity to review
these by -laws and budget. Then the City could begin working with
them, so the City is not involved in the establishment of a
private group, as there could be a problem later on with having
helped to establish a budget for someone else.
She pointed out
the next meeting is
this Friday,
and the next
Council meeting
is only two weeks from
now, and she
would like to
see this item
continued to that
meeting, to
consider the
appointment at
that time, so the
Council can
see what the
committee's direction is going to be
before a decision is made.
Council Member Leja said it would be a non - voting member, so she
was confused on how the City would be charged in helping them set
up the budget and the by -laws. The City would simply be having
input, which she thinks would be vital, rather than two months
from now, after it is completed, then saying we don't like this
or that, and don't want to be a member. That would appear to be
cutting off our nose to spite our face.
Discussion followed concerning the two viewpoints, with Council
Member Leja asking the Assistant City Manager her feeling, since
she had also attended the meetino.
Ms. Overstreet stated she thought what the Banning
representatives were asking more than anything, was to open
communication as to what the City of Beaumont's feelings were
toward going together and marketing the approach. So far as the
specifics, if the Council's directive is that they would really
feel more comfortable waiting, that would be fine, as she thinks
the call right now is just to communicate between the groups, and
to see if the City of Beaumont is open to the idea.
She continued that the meeting on Friday was primarily for the
purpose of seeing if there was support from Beaumont to go
together to market the Pass area.
Mayor Connors said she would have no problem, if the City Manager
agrees, for a staff member to attend the meeting for
informational purposes, although she is sure there would be no
Page 8
11.
Beaumont City Council
June 24, 1991
problem in getting open communication with them regarding what
occurs at the meeting, and what the by -laws and budget will be.
She added that would keep the City from committing themselves
that thoroughly, and give the City a chance to find out more
about it before a decision is made.
Council Member Leja stated that at the time she clarified their
proposal they said it was simply for there to be a liaison
between the City and the group who were forming this
organization, in order to have the City's input at the very
beginning. At that time she told them she would certainly assume
that - and they shouldn't assume that she spoke for the Council -
that the City just simply needs to have input and an open
communication line and a liaison, and she does not see the City
compromising themselves.
Mayor Connors said she didn't see a problem there either, so long
as the City allowed them to form first and give the City some
idea what their thoughts are, so the City knows exactly where
they are heading.
Council Member McLaughlin agreed that he feels the same way,
providing that the City Manager has no objection, that the City's
representative is just there to observe and offer input, and he
feels the City should wait before an appointment is made by the
Council until the basic groundwork is completed and the City
Council knows more about what they have in mind, and where they
are headed. He emphasized he felt that would be the wisest way
to go, since the meeting of July 8 isn't that far away and will
not prolong the decision to any great degree.
The discussion continued, with Council Member Leja presenting
her argument substantiating her request to make the appointment
at this meeting, and Mayor Connors restating her opposition to
making the appointment at this Council meeting.
Mayor Connors asked if there was additional discussion, and when
there was none, asked if there was a consensus to continue this
item until July 8.
Motion by Council Member Parrot, second by Council Member
McLaughlin, to continue this agenda item until July 8, 1991.
AYES: Council Member McLaughlin, Parrott and Mayor Connors.
NOES: Council Member Leja.
ABSTAIN: Council Member MacNeilage.
ABSENT: None.
MOTION CARRIED.
Request from Council Member Leja for Consideration of Calling a
Special Meeting.
Council Member Leja presented her request, stating she is asking
the Council to call a special meeting similar to one held
previously, for the purpose of dealing with planning,
administrative procedures, fiscal planning, and establishing
goals. She thought it would be very important to also include
all department heads in this meeting, so if there are any
questions the Council can get an immediate answer that day, and
to allow the department heads to see the direction the Council is
going in certain areas, as there have been problems in the past
with the department heads knowing what the direction of the
Council is in order to pursue those directions.
She reiterated she thought a meeting of this type would be a good
way to discuss their goals for the City, as well as their fiscal
planning which should help the City Manager as he works toward
putting the department budgets together for this next year.
Mayor Connors asked for comments or questions from the Council,
with Council Member Parrott stating he saw nothing wrong with
Page 9
Beaumont City Council
June 24, 1991
the suggestion, and Council Member McLaughlin indicating it was
fine with him.
Mayor Connors then questioned when Council Member Leja said
planning and administrative procedures, did she mean the way the
City is functioned or set up.
Council Member Leja said it was basically to leave that open so
there is nothing excluded in case there are certain questions on
procedure, such as when citizens call them at home, are they to
call the City Manager, or do they call the department, as well as
any other administrative procedures. any other Council Member
might deem necessary to bring up.
Mayor Connors pointed out some of this procedure is covered in
the City Code, and asked if she was thinking of the possibility
of changing some of those codes.
Council Member Leja said that was always open for debate and is
the reason she thought it was important to bring this to a
special meeting so that it can be discussed openly and above the
table.
Mayor Connors asked what fiscal procedures were, with Council
Member Leja answering this would be fiscal planning for the City,
dealing with the budget.
Mayor Connors pointed out there were budget hearings normally
scheduled for this purpose, with Council Member Leja
acknowledging she knew that, but by that time the City Manager
had already done a lot of work towards presenting a budget
package, and in this manner by discussing goals and direction,
the Council can also discuss budget that could be needed for
those certain areas.
Mayor Connors continued to question how this would differ with
the normal budget hearings, with Council Member Leja indicating
when the agenda is drawn up for publication it will include the
necessary detail, and she feels by leaving it open it would allow
the Council to discuss goals for the City and the budget that is
required for those goals, the needs, and also realizing whether
there is affordability and where there is not, so it can be
discussed that day and not waste staff's time after this meeting
to prepare reports and delay the budget process.
Mayor Connors asked for clarification that Mrs. Leja wants
Council Members to submit items to be included on the agenda as
they did previously, and were these to be restricted to
administrative procedures, fiscal planning and goals, or could
they add anything in general.
Council Member Leja answered that it could just be left as a
special meeting and make a requirement that department heads be
present at this meeting for both information and input.
Council Member MacNeilage indicated that since he was the "new
kid on the block" it would help him a lot to understand the
budget, and to get to know the department heads and understand
where the City's money goes, and to come together with some
common goals with not only department heads, but including the
planning commission, and Mr. Dotson, the City Engineer.
Mayor Connors felt it was important for staff to know what type
of information the Council will be seeking, so they can be
prepared, with Council Member Leja saying that would be possible
by the submitting of ideas from the Council, and the department
heads should be able to furnish information that day, for
example, if they asked about a neighborhood watch program.
Council Member Leja continued, that to her, everything works
Page 10
Beaumont City Council
June 24, 1991
together, you have goals, you have direction, you have budget,
and you have to address all that together. What she is simply
trying to do is become better, more informed, Council Members, by
knowing the correct procedure and who to ask for information by
knowing who is responsible, or so they can explain something to
the Council since they are the department heads in their
particular fields.
The City Manager asked if Mrs. Leja was thinking in terms of
having a preliminary budget prior to the meeting, with Mrs. Leja
indicating shortly thereafter, stating further she was not
trying to rock the boat, she just wanted the Council to be better
informed so there is no question about the direction of Council,
and the goals that they have established for this City, and it
appears a special meeting such as this would help clarify those
areas.
After some discussion concerning the availability of everyone for
a date for this meeting, the date of Saturday, July 27, 1991, was
agreed upon. There was also discussion concerning exactly who
should attend this meeting in addition to the City Council.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Leja, to set the date of July 27, 1991, at 10:30 a.m., in the
City Council Chambers, for a special meeting of the City Council,
to include the Planning Commissioners, all Department Heads,
the City Attorney and the Assistant City Manager, with all
Council Members to submit their suggested agenda items to the
City Manager by July 15.
AYES: Council Member Leja,
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
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.
a. Acceptance of Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting
of May 21, 1991.
b. Approval of Warrants as Audited per Warrant List of June 24,
1991, in the amount of $530,697.11; and Payroll of June 6,
1991, in the amount of $70,354.68.
C. Report Concerning the Establishment, Implementation and
Maintenance of an Injury and Illness Prevention Program
as required by Cal -OSHA.
d. Report Concerning Installation of Stop Sign at Intersection
of First Street and Maple Avenue by CalTrans.
A request was received from Mr. Charles Ware that Item No. 12.e
be removed from the consent calendar for separate discussion.
There was no objection from the Council to remove Item No. 12.e
from the consent calendar.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
MacNeilage, to adopt the consent calendar with Item No. 12.e
removed.
AYES: Council Member Leja,
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
Page 11
Beaumont City Council
June 24, 1991
12.e. Report of Planning Commission Action at Meeting of June 18,
1991.
Mr. Charles Ware, of Aware Development, asked to address the
Council relative to Tract Map 25272, which was returned to the
Planning Commission on June 18, 1991, and continued by them to
August 20, 1991.
Mayor Connors advised Mr. Ware the Council could not discuss an
action of the Planning Commission simply by his asking to speak
on the report of the Planning Commission, as the only discussion
could be concerning the report itself. She then asked Mr. Ware
if he was talking about an appeal of the Planning Commission
action, and if so, he would have to file an appeal.
Mr. Ware advised he had asked for a form or terminology for
filing an appeal, and he was informed by Mr. Koules there was
none.
The City Attorney explained that Mr. Koules did discuss this item
with him, and the difficulty is there has been no action taken by
the Planning Commission. Procedurally, they have continued the
matter for additional consideration for sixty days, but they have
not acted - they have neither denied or approved, nor made any
kind of a recommendation to the City Council - on this item. All
they have done is continue the matter, so there is nothing to
appeal at this time.
Mr. Ware asked the Council to direct the Planning Commission tc
make a decision and not wait for sixty days, as it is creating a
financial burden on him. The map was previously approved in May,
and it was then sent back to the Planning Commission in June.
The City Attorney stated that procedurally, recognizing it is on
the agenda, it needs to be indicated that the reason why this was
forced to go back to the Planning Commission was because the City
became aware that the State mandated notice requirement had not
been met, because the applicant did not provide the proper
mailing labels, as approximately two - thirds of the individuals
which should have been noticed had not been noticed, so there was
not a valid action. As a result it is as if it has been started
over because there had been a void action for improper notice.
Mr. Ware called attention to the fact that at this second
hearing, when everyone had been notified, there was no opposition
to the project.
The City Attorney pointed out it was still within the prerogative
of the Planning Commission to continue an item for additional
information and consideration, and the item was before the
Planning Commission as if it was there for the first time, and
the Planning Commission has the authority, even if there is no
opposition from the citizens, to analyze and make a decision.
Not only do they have the authority, but they have the
responsibility to do that.
Mayor Connors read the action of the Planning Commission, as
shown in the report, which was to continue the item until August
20 to allow staff to study the issue of providing park and open
space areas in the general area from Cougar Way to Brookside,
asking if that was not correct, with Mr. Ware answering that was
correct.
Mayor Connors indicated the report is all which can be discussed
tonight because of the Brown Act, and if the report is correct
nothing else can be discussed.
The City Attorney stated, apparently, the issue is Mr. Ware's
desire to appeal, but there is nothing which can be appealed
since no action was taken.
Page 12
Beaumont City Council
June 24, 1991
Mr. Ware again asked if the City Council could direct the
Planning Commission to take an action on the item, with the City
Attorney stating that item is not on the agenda. The report is
the only item that is in front of the Council, and either
additional information could be requested, or a request that an
item regarding that subject be placed on a future agenda, but
nothing can be discussed tonight other than the report.
Mr. Ware requested the Council to bring his request up at the
next meeting.
After discussion relating to the time frames involved in placing
Mr. Ware's request on the next Council agenda, which would be
July 8, and then returning any recommendation to the Planning
Commission, who would then have to notice a hearing, it appeared
no time would be saved, therefore, it was the consensus of the
Council to allow the matter to proceed as continued by the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Ron Whittier, one of the partners on the Aware project,
addressed the Council, adding his request to have the matter
heard at an earlier date by the Planning Commission.
It was pointed out to Mr. Whittier that he was arguing the case
of the tract map, which was not acceptable since it is not on the
agenda.
Motion by Council Member MacNeilage, second by Mayor Connors, to
accept the report of Planning Commission action at the meeting of
June 18, 1991.
AYES: Council Member MacNeilage, McLaughlin and Mayor
Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: Council Member Leja and Parrott.
ABSENT: None.
Discussion returned to the time the special meeting will be held
since it has been determined that S.H.A.R.E. would be in the
building on July 27, with a consensus of the Council to change
the time from 9 :30 a.m. until 10 :30 a.m. Let the record show the
motion setting the date of this special meeting reflects this
change in time, as requested by Council Member McLaughlin, who
made the motion.
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 City of Beaumont vs Bowie, Case
No. 200647, Riverside Superior Court.
Let the record show the meeting was recessed for five minutes at
9:50 p.m., recessing to closed session at 9 :55 p.m.
The meeting was reconvened to regular session at 10:22 p.m.
Let the record show direction was given to the attorney regarding
the above - entitled case, City of Beaumont vs Bowie.
Date Set for Next Regular Council Meeting, Monday, July 8, 1991,
at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers.
There being no further business to come before the Council, the
meeting was adjourned at 10:23 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
City Clerk
Page 13
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
JUNE 10, 1991
The Beaumont City Council met in a regular meeting on Monday, June 10,
1991, at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor Connors
presiding.
On roll call the following Council Members were present: Leja,
MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott and Mayor Connors.
The invocation was given by Mayor Connors, who then led the Pledge
of Allegiance to the Flag.
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 called attention to the fact that Agenda Item
No. 6, which is shown as being withdrawn, had to be on the agenda
due to the fact that a notice was published, as well as mailed to
some of the property owners adjacent to the project. After this
notice had taken place, it was found that the developer's
engineering office had only furnished mailing labels for a
portion of the 300 foot radius of the property. As a result, the
Planning Commission notices had been mailed only to this partial
list.
In order for the Planning Commission to properly hear the project
it must be renoticed for hearing before the Commission and
forwarded to the Council after their hearing is completed. This
project has been renoticed for hearing before the Planning
Commission at their meeting scheduled for June 18, and will come
back to the Council at a later date.
3. ORAL COMMUNICATION:
There were no requests to speak under oral communication.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - 7:00 P.M.
4. INTENT TO ADOPT NEGATIVE DECLARATION 91 -ND -9 - Applicant:
Calvary Baptist Church. Location: 1252 Beaumont Avenue.
Proposed addition of temporary triple wide modular rooms for
recreational (multi - purpose) use (approx. 1,560 sq. ft. on two
acres) as an addition to an existing church complex. (91 -PUP-
1).
The staff report was presented by Stephen Koules, Director of
Community Development, with a recommendation for adoption of the
negative declaration from the Planning Commission. This report
is a matter of record in the Clerk's file.
The public hearing was opened at 7:05 P.M.
Mr. Max Buchanan, the engineer for the project: I am the
engineer for the project. Also with us tonight we have the
pastor and two church members. We have read the conditions of
approval and we agreed to comply with them. We are here to
answer any questions that anybody might have on the project.
Mayor Connors: Does anyone wish to ask a question. No. Thank
you. Is there anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Item No.
4. Anyone else wishing to speak in favor. Is there anyone
Page 1
wishing to speak in opposition to Item No.
speak in opposition. Anyone wishing to
wishing to speak at all on Item No. 4. We
hearing.
The public hearing was closed at 7:07 P.M.
_eaumont City Council
June 10, 1991
4. Anyone wishing to
speak at all. Anyone
will close the public
Mayor Connors asked Mr. Koules in what context are the buildings
considered temporary as she sees a review in five years, which is
a long time for something that is temporary. Mr. Koules
responded that the purpose was two -fold, one being the building
itself, but all conditional use permits and public use permits
should be reviewed periodically, as that is good practice, and
the City has been adhering to that. When the applicant came in
they first talked about a temporary building, but it is a
substantial investment, and the Planning Department felt five
years was a reasonable time.
Mayor Connors then asked if they were planning to remove it at
some point, or is it just the kind of building that is considered
temporary.
Mr. Koules replied that he thought the investment would make it
run for several years, but he did not know what their intention
is, as they did not balk at the requirement that the public use
permit be reviewed in five years.
Mr. Buchanan indicated the church is working with a very limited
budget, and they had the opportunity to get these two multi-
purpose buildings from HUD, giving them the opportunity to
provide an area to get their young people indoors and start some
more programs. The church would like to build a permanent
building, however, they need to get additional funds in the bank,
and then look at it again in the future. Although there will
probably be more work at this site, at this time they are just
looking at the two multi - purpose rooms to get them operational.
At Mayor Connors' request, Mr. Koules displayed the plot plan for
this project, explaining the details of the plan.
There was no other discussion or comments from the Council other
than to express they were in favor of the project.
a. Consideration of Adoption of Negative Declaration 91 -ND -9
based on the findings.
Motion by Council Member MacNeilage, second by Council Member
Parrott, to adopt Negative Declaration 91 -ND -9 based on the
findings.
AYES: Council Member Leja,
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
5. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 27045 (91- PM -1). Applicant: LNC Properties
Ltd, No. 27 /Premier Homes. Location: Bounded on the south and
west by 8th St. and I -10, on the north by Florence St and
Marshall Creek, and on the east by Elm Ave. The proposed
division of 176 acres into five (5) parcels (each greater than 20
acres).
Prior Tract Map, Specific Plan and EIR approvals have been
received on this project. This request will phase the project by
proposing a five parcel overlay on the prior approval of 89 -TM-
3.
Mr. Koules presented the staff report, a copy of which is a
matter of record in the Clerk's file. His staff report included
a recommendation from the Planning Commission for approval of
this tentative parcel map.
Page 2
eaumont City Council
June 10, 1991
The public hearing was opened at 7:17 P.M.
Curt Ensign, Premier Homes: Thank you Mayor and members of the
City Council. My name is Curt Ensign of Premier Homes, 1787 West
Pomona Road, Corona. Premier has had an opportunity to review
the conditions of approval and concurs with staff, and what I
would just like to do at this point is make myself available for
any questions.
Mayor Connors: Are there are questions of Mr. Ensign. Thank
you. Is there anyone else wishing to speak favor of Item No. 5.
Is there anyone wishing to speak in opposition to Item No. 5.
Anyone wishing to speak in opposition. Anyone wishing to speak
at all on Item No. 5. Anyone wishing to speak at all on Item No.
5. We will close the public hearing.
The public hearing was closed at 7:18 P.M.
Council Member Leja asked in the breakdown of phases were there
specific lot sizes that will be phased in - will it be
progressive as far as lot sizes, or how does the development
break down.
Mr. Koules indicated the tract map that received tentative tract
approval was for 600 lots with a minimum of 7,000 sq.ft. He
displayed the tract map, stating he had not drawn the five
parcels as an overlay on this map, then pointed out certain
details on the map. He advised what this parcel map does is
make it into five separate parcels, but nothing can be done until
the tract map records.
Council Member McLaughlin wondered if there was any choice as to
which parcel will be started with, with Mr. Koules replying the
phasing has not been identified as far as City staff is
concerned, continuing that the improvements are such that the
backbone would have to be built out, and as each recordation is
made (Mr. Koules is speaking away from the microphone, and his
voice is not carrying through at this point in the discussion).
Mr. McLaughlin then asked if each phase would be built completely
out, or would there be a partial build -out in one, and then a
partial build -out in another.
Mr. Ensign stated the intent is to start from the east and phase
the project towards the west, and intent of the parcels is not so
much the timing as it is the opportunity to bring in another
builder in addition to Premier Homes, that can diversify the
product. With 600 lots, and in this marketplace, they do not
think they can build 700 of the same type home and market them.
By parceling this, it will give them the opportunity to bring in
two or three additional builders, with Premier Homes being the
master builder, and set up the standards as a master planned
community, with Premier building certain of the parcels, and the
other parcels being built by other builders, giving a different
product and design. Premier would still be active as the lead
developer, and setting standards.
Mr. Ensign continued that at this time they have not had the
opportunity to show Mr. Koules some of the concepts of the master
plan, and the fact that this will be treated as a master planned
community and not just one sprawling subdivision. This is just
the first step in that process.
Mayor Connors asked for clarification regarding the 20 acre park,
with Mr. Koules explaining the 20 acre park is split between this
project and the adjacent property.
Council Member Leja asked at what time the park would be
developed, with Mr. Koules indicating he would have to look at
the conditions, but he thought it would be developed early when
the streets go in and the infrastructure goes in, but he would
Page 3
- eaumont City Council
June 10, 1991
need to look at the conditions to verify that. He did think the
City had that option before the tract map records, however the
City Attorney stated it did not appear to be dealt with in the
conditions of approval.
There was no other discussion from the Council.
a. Consideration of Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 27045.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Leja, to approve Tentative Parcel Map 27045.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
6. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25272 (90- TM -1); NEGATIVE DECLARATION 91-
MND-1; and Mitigation Monitoring /Reporting Program 91- MMP -4.
Applicant: Charles Ware. Location: North side of Cougar Way,
approx. 2,000 ft east of its intersection with Beaumont Avenue.
7.
NOTE: THIS AGENDA ITEM HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN.
The reason for withdrawal of this agenda item was explained under
Agenda Item No. 2, Adjustments to Agenda.
END PUBLIC HEARINGS
Request from Mr. York Batement to Use City Property for Model
Airplane Flying Site.
The City Manager presented his staff report, a copy of which is a
matter of record in the Clerk's file.
Mr. David Anziano addressed the Council as a representative of
the Model Airplane Flying Club, asking for approval of this
request.
There was lengthy discussion during which numerous questions were
asked of Mr. Anziano by the Council.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Parrott, to approve use of the City property for a model airplane
flying site.
AYES: Council Member Leja,
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
Following the motion, the terms of the lease were discussed in
depth, with the Council directing the City Attorney to prepare a
lease to include 1) a requirement for signage restricting the use
to AMA members at the entrance on 4th Street; 2) hours of use
being 8:00 a.m. until dusk; 3) waive the sign permit and fee; 4)
rental charge of $1.00 per year for one year with option to
renew; 5) youth under 18 must be accompanied by an adult; 6) a
thirty day cancellation clause for any reason; 7) prohibit
charging for use of land.
An insurance binder naming the City of Beaumont as an additional
insured is to be submitted to the City Attorney.
Consideration of Claim Filed Against City By Brian Jay Hershey,
Jr.
The City Manager presented a recommendation for rejection of the
claims based on the findings.
Page 4
a
Beaumont City Council
June 10, 1991
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Leja, to reject the claim based on the following findings:
1. That the documents and evidence reviewed thus far fails to
establish liability on the City of Beaumont.
2. It is impossible to adequately evaluate the claim without
extensive discovery.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
The meeting was recessed at 7:59, reconvening at 8:07 p.m.
a. Request from Council Member McLaughlin for Reconsideration
of Second Reading of Ordinance No. 701.
Mayor Connors opened Item No. 9.a by requesting Council Member
McLaughlin to address his request.
Council Member McLaughlin said he thought perhaps all members
should be in harmony with the decisions made, and since there was
controversy the matter should be brought back before the body and
discuss some of the things that needed clarification.
Mayor Connors asked if there was any objection to Mr.
McLaughlin's request, with Council Member Leja asking if a vote
would be taken and if the Council could get a statement from the
developers regarding what has occurred so far as the reason why
there was a delay, or why what they told the Council was
different from what actually occurred.
Mayor Connors felt it would be more appropriate to hear that at
the time the reconsideration is discussed, provided the request
to reconsider is granted-.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
MacNeilage, to grant the request to reconsider the second reading
of Ordinance No. 701.
Following the motion, Council Member Leja requested clarification
of the parliamentary procedure for what they are doing, asking if
they are voting to reconsider the second reading, with the City
Attorney responding they would be voting whether or not to
reconsider the second reading, explaining further that when an
item passes, Roberts Rules provides that someone voting in favor
of the motion can bring the request for reconsideration within
the day of the meeting, and this has always been interpreted to
mean a 24 hour time period. The request was brought the next
morning, and filed with the City Clerk.
Council Member Leja then asked if she was wrong that Roberts
Rules provides that debate then occurs on the motion for
reconsideration first before a vote is taken, with the City
Attorney agreeing there could be discussion concerning the motion
itself .
Mrs. Leja said in regard to the motion that is in front of the
Council, she would like a response from Mr. Carvelli, with Mayor
Connors pointing out that when there is a motion on the floor,
the discussion would come from the Council. The City Attorney
agreed it would be the Council who would be discussing the
motion, however, once again, if the Council agreed they wanted
some additional information before deciding whether or not to
reconsider, he didn't know if it was inappropriate, but the
discussion referred to does not include public testimony.
Page 5
Beaumont City Council
June 10, 1991
Mayor Connors stated she thought public testimony came during the
discussion if it is reconsidered, and if it is not reconsidered
there would be no public testimony.
The City Attorney indicated it appeared the question is whether
the testimony sought is germane as to whether or not you should
reconsider it, in other words, if what he might have to say
relates, then the Council may want to hear that, but if it is not
relevant to making the decision whether or not to reconsider,
then there is no need to hear the testimony, and he did not fully
understand what Mr. Carvelli would be saying.
Council Member Leja said she wanted a response from the developer
to the statements made in the request for reconsideration, and
her understanding of Roberts Rules is that is in order.
Mayor Connors clarified her understanding that what he would have
to address is whether or not the specific plan had been received
by the City at 11:00 a.m. on May 14, with Council Member Leja
replying she is asking if they have an excuse, and now would seem
to be the time to ask that question rather than after they might
decide to reconsider, because once they reconsider it that
opportunity is gone.
It was determined that the Mayor could ask for discussion on the
motion, with any Council Member requesting information if they so
desired.
Mayor Connors asked if there was any discussion, with Council
Member Leja again asking for information from the developer's
representative regarding their response to the statement made in
the request for reconsideration.
Diane E. Tiberend, 19800 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 600, Irvine,
speaking as counsel for Robertson Homes, stated their position is
if the motion for reconsideration is heard and denied then the
30 day effectivity period will continue to run and expire in the
next fifteen days. She stated further their position is if the
motion for reconsideration is heard and granted, then the 30 day
period will start anew. Speaking on behalf of Robertson Homes
she respectfully requests that the Council deny the motion for
reconsideration based on their understanding that it is untimely
pursuant to Roberts Rules of Order, Section 36.b., which section
specifically provides that in a hearing of matter which
transpires in one day or less, the motion for reconsideration is
to be filed the same day as the vote on the motion that
reconsideration is being requested of. As a result, it is their
position that the motion being filed the following day is
untimely under Roberts Rules of Order.
They also asked that the motion for reconsideration be denied
based on the potential economic damages to Robertson Homes given
the present economic climate. Robertson Homes is in the position
of discussing with lenders certain loans which may be lost, or
which may be jeopardized. . .
Mayor Connors interrupted the testimony at this point, stating
she felt they were into the part where the second reading is
being discussed rather than the reason reconsideration was
requested, which was because the specific plan had not been
turned in to the Planning Department.
Ms. Tiberend agreed this was correct, however, it could be read
both ways as Robertson Homes' position is that for the motion for
reconsideration to be granted would threaten its economic well-
being.
There were no questions from the Council of Ms. Tiberend.
The City Attorney stated that Ms. Tiberend's comments relative to
the negative vote on the reconsideration were correct, however,
Page 6
Beaumont City Council
June 10, 1991
the interpretation under Roberts Rules has been consistently
interpreted by this City to give 24 hours due to the late hour at
which the meetings are held, and he heard nothing in the
testimony which responded to Council Member Leja's request.
John Carvelli, 3501 Jamboree Road, Suite 606, representing the
Rolling Hills Ranch project, gave a direct response to Council
Member Leja's question that there was confusion and
miscommunication the night he addressed the Council and there
was discussion about whether or not there was a specific plan in
the hands of the Planning Department. What it came down to was
that he was told by the Planning Department they had everything
they requested from them for that second reading. He assumed
that included the specific plan, and he said he wasn't 100% sure,
but he assumed it did include that. He felt that is where the
confusion arose, and he understands Council Member McLaughlin's
question about that, and is happy to be present tonight to
respond to that question.
He continued that what did happen is that it was mailed out by
the Planning Center on Thursday prior to the meeting on Monday,
but it did not get to Mr. Bounds desk until 11:00 the following
Tuesday morning. It was mailed at the Planning Center's own
volition, they were not requested to do so, because they were not
asked to revise all the specific plans and have them all to the
City of Beaumont by that May 13 second reading. He feels that is
where the confusion came in, and that is his response to the
question.
He stated further that, at this point in time, everything has
been submitted with all proper changes, although there was a
discrepancy in the appendices of the specific plan, but they were
advised by Mr. Bounds that they did not have to reprint all the
books, they would simply be marked repealed by Mr. Koules for the
file, and that would be taken care of.
He then requested the Council withdraw the request for
reconsideration because it would start the clock all over again
on the 30 day appeal period, and since everything has now been
submitted there should be no more confusion, and they request the
request for reconsideration be withdrawn and enable everyone to
move on.
Mayor Connors stated her feeling was the reason they wanted the
specific plan was in order to look at it before they voted on the
second reading, and it was not there to look at. She called
attention to the fact that the specific plan at this time
contains errors, and she would like to be able to reconsider the
second reading of the ordinance.
Council Member MacNeilage remarked he would also like to
reconsider it because he has found discrepancies in the specific
plan also.
Council Member Leja asked if those were the discrepancies that
Mr. Carvelli mentioned that were supposed to be corrected, with
Mayor Connors indicating they had not been corrected totally.
Council Member McLaughlin wanted to know if the Planning
Department has found any discrepancies that the Council should be
aware of.
Stephen Koules said he thought he should explain his position in
this picture, stating that Mr. Carvelli did call him on the
Friday before the Monday meeting, and asked if the City needed
any submittals, and what he had received was an addendum that
clarified what they thought were the corrections made at the
public hearing, as well as the lotting tabulation charts. When
he attended the City Council meeting he didn't discern any
explicit or implicit direction to have the whole specific plan
report revised and brought back, so he did not request this of
the applicants.
Page 7
eaumont City Council
June 10, 1991
Mr. Koules stated further he felt their concerned request was to
have the addendums prepared, and he submitted them to the front
office several days before the May 13 meeting, and when he spoke
to Dave Dodson at the Planning Center he offered to revise the
whole specific plan, but he did not explicitly, at any point,
tell him that the City Council wanted the whole package done
because that was not his understanding.
Mayor Connors said her understanding was that the majority of the
Council had voted to have the specific plan corrected, and for
staff to approve it, but staff could not approve the specific
plan because they did not have the specific plan, because it has
to match.
Mr. Koules replied he did look at the minutes and he did not find
that direction, so he was laboring under the impression that the
addendum sheets that he had been working with the applicant's
consultant, would suffice as an attachment to the specific plan
document that had been reviewed earlier.
Council Member Leja called attention to a statement made by City
Attorney Ryskamp at the previous meeting that, legally, the
Council could hold the developer to anything that was corrected
and to any recommendation that the Council had because of the
meeting tape and the minutes.
The City Attorney agreed with this but added it was also his
understanding that they were expressing corrections that they had
presented in written form, and they were merely agreeing that
those corrections were included, and it would be binding. If
they were corrections that were not given in written form, and
were not included, they should be made in writing on the plan.
Council Member Leja stated they did make those in writing, with
Mayor Connors pointing out it had not been in writing that the
day care center was included on that addendum.
Council Member MacNeilage asked if there were changes in the
specific plan from February until now that were not brought
forward, would that change things, as he has found discrepancies
that are different from the original specific plan from this one,
that are not the same.
The City Attorney said that would depend on the materiality or
what kind of discrepancies were being discussed - typographical
errors, or changes in the content.
Mayor Connors pointed out it appears to her they are discussing
the matter as a reconsideration prior to voting on whether to
reconsider it, and it seems they are reconsidering it at this
time, and she didn't see the harm in reconsidering it since the
vote can be made to pass it, and that way they would have a
chance to find out . . .
The City Attorney stated the only difference between passing it
on reconsideration would be there would be a 30 day time period
running before it becomes valid, as opposed to approximately
fifteen days.
Council Member McLaughlin asked a question concerning some of the
documents he has been given in that in the first document there
is a statement which says "a zoning ordinance states specific
permitted use in building standards for individual planning areas
within the specified plan for the entire community ", and in the
later document presented this statement is not included, so he
does not know why it was omitted, and what value does this
statement have.
At this time Mayor Connors again stated this appeared to be part
of reconsidering the matter and asked if they could go forward in
this manner. The City Attorney said apparently the
Page 8
Beaumont City Council
June 10, 1991
reconsideration centers on whether or not everything is in the
specific plan, since if it is all there, and everybody is
satisfied with that, there is no reason to reconsider - if it
isn't, then there are problems with it, and a motion to
reconsider is in order.
Council Member McLaughlin asked that Mr. Carvelli answer his
question concerning why the statement is not in the last copy
given to him.
Mr. Carvelli reviewed the document in question, and pointed out
where the statement was still in the last revision, and asked
that it be clarified that he has not memorized every line and
every page in the specific plan, and he is not seeking to confuse
or misrepresent anything, but he does know this data is all
there, because if they look at their plan they will see the
access road there.
Council Member Leja stated that another thing Mr. Ryskamp said
was that all the things that were discussed and approved would
take precedence over any of the old data, with the City Attorney
clarifying that the specific plan as approved, the document which
they have with the written corrections, would.
Council Member Leja continued that since she has been on the
Council it seems like they have approved quite a few things
without asking for the amendments to be written into the proposal
and returned to them, with Mayor Connors emphasizing that in the
five years she has been on the Council they have never approved a
specific plan without having it in front of them, and have never
had staff go through it and okay it.
The City Attorney requested to address this issue, stating there
are items where they have been approved without the specific
changes being made, but there has never been a specific plan, or
anything approaching that seriousness - occasionally, there are
verbal changes made to resolutions, corrections, perhaps even on
the first reading of an ordinance, minor typographical
corrections, or small content changes, but they have never
approved anything like a specific plan without having it in front
of them, because it becomes the binding zoning ordinance for all
practical purposes with its adoption for that area. So it is
extremely important as they could get down to the same kind of
technicality of the meaning of the specific plan as they do,
frequently, on Title 17. When it comes to planning, the
developer and staff evaluating - or the courts - or this Council
- evaluating the application of the specific plan. You worry
about the language under these circumstances, so preciseness is
important.
Council Member Leja continued she was sure the statement was made
that the legality would hold true because of the tape and
minutes, with the City Attorney indicating that would bind them
to make the corrections proposed and which were submitted, and to
the extent they have submitted written corrections and they can
point to those and incorporate those.
Council Member MacNeilage stated that if he understood correctly,
the revisions which have been handed to them were amendments to
the specific plan which they had received previously - now they
have received a new plan, and there are revisions from the
original plan into the new plan and the Council has not even
looked at those revisions, and that is why they should take
another look at it. He reemphasized there are changes from the
revised copies which were handed in to the Council on April 23
and April 22, 1991, and the newest specific plan which they now
have which the Council has not approved, or even looked at.
Mayor Connors pointed out that on Page 1 -2, which reads "Intent
and Structure ", Section 3.0, the third paragraph down, at the
bottom of the page in book one, which states "the zoning
Page 9
eaumont City Council
June 10, 1991
ordinance states specific permitted uses of building standards
for individual planning areas within the specific plan, and for
the entire community ". Then it goes on to design guidelines.
Book three goes from Development Plan to Design Guidelines
without zoning ordinance.
Mr. Carvelli advised the zoning ordinance is on Page 4 -2 of the
latest revised copy.
Mayor Connors said what she would like is for the specific plan
to match all the way through, and some things that are up there,
which should have been changed because of things which they
requested previously, and it would have changed other things in
the book, and they don't match now.
Mr. Carvelli stated that on every development project that he has
ever heard of, the consultant works with the Planning Director to
make the changes that were agreed to, with Mayor Connors
emphasizing the Council approves them, and that is why she wants
to reconsider it in order to point out some of those inaccuracies
before it becomes legal.
Responding to a question from Council Member Leja, Mayor Connors
stated further they were addressing the fact that there can be
some argument, some discussion, later with another Council, with
another City Manager, and that developer, as to what the intent
was in this book - interpretation. And she cannot explain that
without reconsideration.
Mr. Carvelli replied it is very germane to the question as to
whether this should be reconsidered because the specific plans
weren't in. They are in, they are all changed --
Mayor Connors pointed out they were not in for them to read when
they voted on it, and they were told they had been there, but she
can't vote on it unless they reconsider it.
Mr. Carvelli protested that was not true, and asked if they would
ask staff if they are comfortable with this document.
Mayor Connors said she would like to bring up the information
that was in the specific plan that was not there when she needed
to look at it, and called for the question.
The City Attorney indicated it might be wrong, but he did not
feel it was appropriate for the Chair to call for the question.
Council Member McLaughlin stated he has decided to withdraw his
motion for reconsideration.
The City attorney questioned whether Mr. McLaughlin was
withdrawing his request for reconsideration or withdrawing his
motion.
Council Member McLaughlin clarified he was withdrawing his
motion and his request for reconsideration.
Mayor Connors asked if she could ask any questions whatsoever,
such as are they still at the point where staff okays the plan,
or can staff object to some things in the plan, like the lotting
tabulation adding up incorrectly for instance, and that parts in
one place would match parts in the other document, or just that
they include what they were asked to put in.
The City Attorney stated staff could definitely object and
require there be a consistency on those types of items, in
particular parts that have legal effect, and since the number of
lots would affect lot size and total the average lot size, they
could be significant.
He then asked if staff had received a list of those items, with
Page 10
Beaumont City Council
June 10, 1991
Mayor Connors inquiring whether he meant from the Council after
reading the document, or from the last meeting.
The City attorney confirmed he meant their concerns at this
point, and pointed out that Mr. Carvelli had indicated that there
would be any corrections of.that nature that needed to made, and
added, for their information, as the City Manager pointed out,
there is an inconsistency of six lots between two different
references to the number of lots.
Mayor Connors said there were also some things which they asked
for that are unclear to her in the plan, and if it is a case
where he should have a list of their concerns, here are three
pages of her concerns.
Mr. Carvelli stated they were more than willing, and always have
been, to address their concerns.
Mayor Connors continued that since it is up to staff to okay the
specific plan, she thinks staff should have the list of concerns,
because she saw errors coming through after they had already
discussed it before - the most glaring one being the day care
center, so she doesn't really think that it will matter if she
gives it to the developer, she is going to give it to staff, then
asked the City Attorney if he was sure it was legal for staff to
be okaying the specific plan at this point.
The City Attorney said it was his understanding that a vote of
the Council adopted the specific plan, with Mayor Connors asking
is that no matter what condition it may be in, where they may be
okaying a specific plan different from what the Council thought
it was.
The City Attorney made clear for the record, there has been a
vote approving it by the Council, with a statement made regarding
technical clarifications that. needed to be made, and he is
concerned about the obvious discrepancies that need to be
clarified on the number of lots - those types of things - but
that is not shifting to staff the authority to approve, it is
giving staff direction to correct any of those inconsistencies,
and to have the developer do so.
Mayor Connors then said staff will have to go through the
specific plan page by page and correct all of these different
things now, with the City Attorney stating he would assume staff
has already gone through it, and suggested perhaps staff should
speak to this.
Mr. Koules asked for clarification as he was under the impression
that the specific plan had been approved earlier, and the
ordinance being heard now is the zoning ordinance, with it being
clarified by the City Attorney the specific plan was approved by
adoption of a resolution prior to this ordinance being heard.
Mr. Koules then pointed out this is the second reading on the
zoning, which is required by state law, and that he had staff go
through the document that was received, which they will note has
two date stamps on it - May 21 and May 22. When received on May
21 it was screen checked and because of inaccuracies in the
document, the entire 14 copies were returned. They were redone
and resubmitted the following day, May 22, at which time they
were screen checked again. It was discussed with Mr. Bounds
several times, and he is under the impression that the document
is in compliance with the intent of the City Council.
If the request for reconsideration prevails, the Council would
then consider Item No. 9.b. If reconsideration does not prevail,
no further action is needed.
NOTE: Since the request for reconsideration was withdrawn, no
further action was required on this agenda item.
Page 11
- eaumont City Council
June 10, 1991
10. URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 702 - An Urgency Ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Beaumont, California, Establishing a
Utility Tax of Percent ( %) Upon Telephone, Electric, Gas
and Cable TV Utility Users.
The City Attorney advised that the ordinance has been prepared
based on the discussion at the last meeting. He pointed out
the Council must determine the percentage they wish to include in
this ordinance.
In addition, he called attention to the fact the references made
to maximum amounts which could be paid by a single user have been
eliminated in this ordinance, since there was only one user of
these services which exceed the limit and that user is no longer
present in the City.
He continued that other than the above, the other changes are
minor technical changes, and the provision to deal with the
question of the vote of the people has been added, and also the
possibility that the requirement that this local tax being placed
on the ballot may be declared unconstitutional as it is a
violation of the State Constitution, which has previously been
discussed.
Mayor Connors questioned certain language in the ordinance, with
the City Attorney explaining the intent of the language.
Council Member Leja brought forward discussion concerning when
the voters had the opportunity to let them know what percentage
tax they would agree with, with the City Attorney answering they
would have that opportunity tonight, and should there be a vote
required, they would then have the opportunity to vote yes or no
regarding what they, their representatives, have approved.
There was additional discussion regarding this issue, with both
the City Manager and City Attorney providing information.
Alma Vrzal, 720 California, spoke in opposition to the utility
user tax, because it would be adding to the tax burden being
required of citizens, especially senior citizens on pensions,
whose income does not increase. After discussion, she agreed
that the existing 3% was not too difficult to handle, and she
would agree to continuing that amount, so long as they did not
raise it.
Linda Moreno, 494 Laraine Drive, spoke at length concerning her
opposition to the utility user tax, specifically pointing out it
would create a hardship for people who have lost their jobs, or
who are now only working part time, in addition to senior
citizens. She felt very strongly that the taxpayer is paying
enough taxes now, and cannot absorb more taxes.
Mayor Connors discussed situations that are facing the City due
to legislation by the State, and the need for the revenue from
this tax to maintain current City services.
Council Member Leja asked if Mrs. Moreno would be in favor of
maintaining the tax at its current percentage, with Mrs. Moreno
indicating she still would not be in favor, because eventually it
would get higher and she feels there should be cuts so the
governments will have to learn how to budget and live within that
budget. She emphasized it was her personal opinion the City must
learn how to cut as they, the citizens, have to learn how to cut
expenses.
At this point the Council discussed percentages levied by other
cities, with a consensus of the Council that the City's utility
tax should remain at 3 %.
Council Member Leja brought up the topic of consultant fees,
asking for a full accounting of these fees at the time the budget
is considered.
Page 12
Beaumont City Council
June 10, 1991
Mayor Connors asked that since there is no sunset clause in this
ordinance, does the percentage remain at that percentage forever,
with the City Manager indicating it would unless it is increased
or decreased by adoption of an ordinance by the Council.
Motion to Read Ordinance No. 702 by title only.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Leja, to read Ordinance No. 702 by title only.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
The ordinance was read by title only by the Deputy City Clerk.
Motion to Adopt Ordinance No. 702 at its first reading.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
MacNeilage, to adopt Ordinance No. 702 at its first reading, with
the utility tax set at 3% in all categories.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
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 May 13,
1991.
b. Acceptance of Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting
of March 19, 1991.
C. Approval of Warrants as Audited per Warrant List of June 10,
1991, in the amount of $398,859.03; Payroll of May 9, 1991,
in the amount of $69,677.15 and Payroll of May 23, 1991, in
the amount of $73,470.11.
d. Approval of Statement of Investment Policy for Fiscal Year
1991 -92.
e. Report of Planning Commission Action at Meeting of May 21,
1991.
Mayor Connors requested the minutes of May 13 be corrected as
follows:
Page 15, eleventh paragraph, next to last word in first sentence,
- change "expending" to read "extending ".
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member
McLaughlin, to adopt the consent calendar with the minutes
corrected as requested.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Page 13
Beaumont City Council
June 10, 1991
12. Recess to Closed Session:
a. To Meet with Its Designated Representative Regarding Labor
Relations Matters Pursuant to Government Code Section
54957.6.
b. To Confer with its Attorney Regarding Pending Litigation
Which has been Initiated Formally and to which the City
is a Party Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a).
The title of the litigation is Beaumont- Cherry Valley
Water District vs City of Banning, City of Beaumont,
Yucaipa Valley Water District, Case No. 211456 Riverside
Superior Court.
The meeting was recessed to closed session at 9:32 P.M.
The meeting was reconvened to regular session at 11 :08 P.M.
Let the record show:
a. Direction was given to the City's designated
representative regarding labor relations matters; and
b. A report was received from Attorney Trager as to her
actions concerning litigation, and request from her
to retain the services of Groundwater Systems, Inc.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member Parrott
to adopt the recommendation of Attorney Trager and retain the
services of Groundwater Systems, Inc.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None:
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Date Set for Next Regular Council Meeting Monday, June 24, 1991,
at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers.
There being no further business to come before the Council, the
meeting was adjourned at 11:10 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
City Clerk
Page 14
CORRECTION TO MINUTES OF MAY 13, 1991
The Minutes of May 13, 1991 were corrected at the Council Meeting
of June 10, 1991, as follows:
Page 15, eleventh paragraph, next to last word in first
sentence - change "expending" to read "extending ".
Robert J. Erounds,
City Clerk
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
MAY 13, 1991
AS CORRECTED JUNE 10, 1991
The Beaumont City Council met in a regular meeting on Monday, May 13,
1991, at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor Connors
presiding.
On roll call the following Council Members were present: Leja,
MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott and Mayor Connors.
The invocation was given by City Attorney Ryskamp, who then led the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
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:
Mr. Michael Martin, Area Manager for Southern California Edison
Company, introduced himself to the Council, indicating he is
replacing Ray Gonzalez for this area, and stating he looked
forward to working with the City of Beaumont and meeting each
member of the Council individually.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - 7:00 P.M.
4. INTENTION TO ORDER ABANDONMENT OF 1) A PORTION OF MINNESOTA
AVENUE; 2) A PORTION OF ELM (IOWA) AVENUE; 3) A PORTION OF
"B" STREET: AND 4) INTENTION TO CHANGE THE STREET NAME OF THE
ENTIRE LENGTH OF MINNESOTA TO VEILE AVENUE. APPLICANT: CITY
OF BEAUMONT.
The staff report was presented by the City Manager, a copy of
which is a matter of record in the Clerk's file, with a
recommendation for adoption of the resolution.
The public hearing was opened at 7:08 P.M.
Mr. Bill Ehrlich, 6700 Stanton Avenue, Buena Park, California: I
am a property owner in and about this specific location. I am
here in support of the action you are about to take tonight. I
would like to call your attention to the fact that Veile is
spelled many different ways in town, both on the signs and on
various maps. The resolution is correct according to the City
Engineer, V- I- E -L -E, not as is shows on the action on the agenda.
So, perhaps to avoid any clarification we should confirm that.
But according to the town map of Beaumont, to which he looked, he
said that is where it started, and V- I -E -L -E was supposedly
correct. Thank you.
City Manager: If I could answer that. Veile is a family name,
and there is only one Veile left, and they don't whether they are
a member of that family or not, and V- E -I -L -E is the way they
spell their name.
There are more maps from San Bernardino County that have V E I L
than have V I E L, and Jim has found one that has the V- I- E -L -E.
The street signs have been V- E -I -L -E for years. I have talked to
former Mayors and Council Members and I can't do anything other -
Page 1
Beaumont City Council
May 13, 1991
- and
by the way the Library, they have
nothing
left of this
family
- but there is one family living
in Banning today, who
spells
their name Veile. And we are at a
loss - I
would prefer
that we
not be moving toward a map that we
found so
many mistakes
in San
Bernardino County about this City, to
try to
take up a map
there
that - like I say - has as many maps
that has
it the other
way.
I don't believe that there would be any legality involved, but
George can correct me. If we are trying to find something someway
to clear up something that no one has been able to come up with
any good rhyme or reason - and I would hate to see us have to
change all of the street signs that have been there for only a
short period of time.
City Attorney: It doesn't make - as long as we decide which way
it is going to be spelled in the resolution and that is what we
are following. Is that what I am hearing?
City Manager: That is what -- we are following what we found the
most of.
City Attorney: Which is V- E- I -L -E.
City Manager: V- E- I -L -E. And there is at least one map that Jim
found that has it V- I- E -L -E. And it is an 1800s map, but we also
have some other 1800 maps that have the V- E- I -L -E.
City Attorney: We all know my feeling about that 1800 map at the
moment.
City Manager: That is why I have a hard time with that map, and I
think the sooner we get away from that map the better off we will
be.
City Attorney: I believe that as long as we come up with a final
spelling as the spelling in this resolution, it doesn't matter
which one is adopted, and adopt the one - I think - would be the
one you have got the street signs, and the other is just --
legally it won't make a difference, but this will determine, in
effect, you are changing the entire length to the name of whatever
spelling you are adopting.
City Manager: I think the key to it was also, I was quite hopeful
to finding out that we had a fourth or fifth generation Veile, and
the woman says I have no idea. She said I just married him.
Mayor Connors: This - back then, I suppose, they just named
street by people in town. This wasn't an important person in our
history that we have any record of.
City Manager: There is no President of the United States. No
Governor. We have run down names like that and we are down to
probably a person that lived there. And we have some others that
are that way. Especially in that map.
Mayor Connors: I really would feel better if we had this name
spelled right. I have a thing about that. I don't see there is
anything else we can do, right? Is there anyone else that would
like to speak in favor of Item No. 4. Is there anyone else who
would like to speak in favor of Item No. 4. Is there anyone who
would like to speak in opposition to Item No. 4. Anyone wishing
to speak in opposition to Item 4. Anyone wishing to speak at all
on Item No. 4. Anyone wishing to speak at all on Item No. 4. We
will close the public hearing.
The public hearing was closed at 7:12 P.M.
a. RESOLUTION NO. 1991 -21 - Ordering the Abandonment and
Vacation of 1 A Portion of Minnesota Avenue; 2) a
Portion of Elm (Iowa) Avenue; and 3) a Portion of "B"
Street; and Further Ordering the Street Name for the
Entire Length of Minnesota be Changed to Veile Avenue.
Page 2
5.
Iffl,
7.
Beaumont City Council
May 13, 1991
There were no comments or discussion from the Council.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Leja, to adopt Resolution No. 1991 -21.
AYES: Council Member Leja,
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
END PUBLIC HEARINGS.
MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
Proposal for Cherry Festival Security.
The City Manager presented his report, a copy of which is a
matter of record in the Clerk's file, with a recommendation for
approval of the proposal for security for the Cherry Festival.
Mayor Connors questioned the last entry on the schedule which
shows two officers patrolling together and one officer in the beer
garden and the last one indicates four officers, with the City
Manager pointing out that on Saturday and Sunday there are some
staggered shifts, explaining how those would operate.
There were no other questions or comments from the Council.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
MacNeilage, to approve the proposal to assist the Cherry Festival
Association with the cost of security in the amount of $335.00, to
be charged to Account No. 1450 -4096.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Authorize City Manager to Reprogram Portions of the CDBG 17th
Program Year Funds.
The City Manager's report was presented, a copy of which is a
matter of record in the Clerk's file, with a recommendation to
reprogram a portion of the CDBG funds as shown in his report.
Council Member MacNeilage asked if more money could be programed
for the Senior Home Repair program, with the City Manager replying
the amount paid by the City is set on a "fair share" basis,
therefore, each City pays their fair share, and if the City put
more money into it what could happen is the additional money might
go to some other City.
There were no other questions or comments from the Council.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member
MacNeilage, to authorize the City Manager to request reprograming
of the City's 17th Year CDBG funds as follows:
1) Reprogram $8,950.00 from the D.A.R.E. program to the
multi - purpose room acoustical work; and
2) $4,046.00 to the Senior Home Repair Program.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Consideration of Request to File Late Claims for Raul Diaz, Anna
Abarca, Mario Ortiz, and Raul Jimenes.
Page 3
Beaumont City Council
May 13, 1991
The staff report was submitted by the City Manager with a
recommendation to reject the applications to file late claims.
A copy of this report is a matter of record in the Clerk's file.
There were no questions or comments from the Council.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Leja, to find that the claims of Raul Diaz, Anna Abarca, Mario
Ortiz and Raul Jimenez were filed late and reject the Applications
for Leave to File Late Claim under Government Code Section 911.8.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
8. ORDINANCE NO. 701 - SECOND READING - Rezoning 155 acres from
Pl anned Unit Development ( P U D ) to Specific Planning Area (SPA
4.1 dwelling units per acre) (90- RZ -9). Applicant: Robertson
Homes. Location: South side of Highway 60, across from Western
Knolls Road, and running southerly for a distance of approximately
2,000 ft. to a line approximately 2,500 ft. westerly of the west
end of 4th Street.
Motion to read Ordinance No. 701 by title only.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member
McLaughlin, to read Ordinance No. 701 by title only.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
The Ordinance was read by title only by the Deputy City Clerk.
Motion to Adopt Ordinance No. 701 at its second reading.
Council Member MacNeilage stated he was still not comfortable with
lot sizes under 6,000 sq.ft., and personally still did not want to
see this development go under these terms. He felt there was a
lot of confusion at the last meeting as to exactly what the
Council was adopting, and what is going to be implemented, and he
felt this should be continued until all Council Members understand
what was brought forward at the last meeting.
Council Member Leja indicated that, unlike Mr. MacNeilage, she
didn't have that much confusion about it, however, felt their
decision at the last meeting was confirmed by an organization that
she is not always in agreement with, but the Sierra Club has come
out with a study that they would rather have higher density
developments with more open space in the surrounding area.
Apparently that is the direction a lot of State organizations and
other environmentalists are starting to take as well.
She continued that with the amenities the City is being given in
parks, etc., she still is in agreement with the project.
Mayor Connors felt it would be a matter of favor to two of the
Council Members if it could be continued until they have seen what
they are actually voting on. The way it was passed last time
without the Council actually seeing the plan as it was completed, ,
puts the burden on the staff to make sure that the changes are
made, when it is the Council's responsibility to vote on the
completed item and make sure the changes are made.
She stated further that the City had previously made part of the
City's code lot sizes for the projects, and she would prefer that
be considered over the input of some other organization. Those
Page 4
Beaumont City Council
May 13, 1991
lot sizes were adopted in order to protect the aesthetic value of
the City. She then called attention to the fact that the
amenities the City were told they could have, was indicated as
also being with the 6,000 sq.ft. lots, and she thought that would
be a much better deal for the City.
She again asked that it be continued until the Council could
actually read the plan before voting on it, so staff would not be
responsible for insuring the changes are correct.
Council Member Leja wanted to know at what point does the Council
normally ask for these plans, or was there any indication of a
request for these completed plans before tonight's meeting.
The City Manager requested clarification as to whether she meant
the specific plan zoning, with Council Member Leja restating that
what they voted on at the last meeting, had that package been
submitted so they could see the complete plan the two Council
Members want to see -- was there a request made to see that prior
to tonight's meeting.
Mayor Connors said there were many, many changes made at the last
meeting and they never saw the plan with the changes, and they
asked at that meeting if they could have that.
Council Member Leja pointed out there have been three weeks since
that meeting to have that information brought to the Council, and
asked if that was the City's responsibility or the developer's
responsibility.
Mayor Connors continued that they voted on it without it - decided
to do it without it, with Council Member Leja saying she
understood that, and Mayor Connors is now requesting to see that
plan tonight in its completed form after that night's vote, so
what she is asking is - tonight they are requesting to see it
before they vote on the second hearing - and there have been three
weeks between that meeting and this meeting, and she wonders if
anyone had gone in and asked to see the completed plan. Has it
been completed so they can see it, or is this a request that is
made at the drop of a hat.
The City Manager advised that the information from the minutes of
the previous meeting were sent to the Planning Department sometime
last week, and nothing has been given back to his office as of
this date, so he assumes it is not completed. Normally, the
developer corrects the specific plan zoning portion, which is the
book, and he does not know if the Planning Director has
transmitted to them that information or not.
Council Member Leja again asked if there had been a request by any
of the Council Members to see the completed document in the past
three weeks, with the City Manager responding the Mayor had asked
and he had told her we did not have it yet.
Mayor Connors said she was confused because she thought she and
Mr. MacNeilage had asked for this at the last meeting, and they
were turned down, and there was a vote without seeing it. They
are now asking, for the second time, if this action can be delayed
until they see it.
Council Member Leja acknowledged she remembered their request at
the last meeting, but there has been a longer period of time,
three weeks, and she is confused - if there has been three weeks -
was the Planning Department aware that the Council wanted to
review it, per their request at the last meeting, before tonight.
Mayor Connors indicated no, because a majority of the Council had
decided they did not want to review it. They are again requesting
it tonight, not to be reviewed individually, but to be able to
discuss it in its final form so they know whether they all feel
everything has been changed properly, and has got what the City
wants in it. Otherwise, the Council will be putting it on staff
Page 5
Beaumont City Council
May 13, 1991
to go through it, and if there is a mistake in it, and it comes
back later, it would be blamed on staff, when it should be the
Council's responsibility.
John Carvelli, Inland Group, 3501 Jamboree Road, Newport Beach,
advised the Council he had been in contact with the Planning
Department, and as per the request at the last hearing, they were
directed to make the appropriate changes, which they have done and
which have been submitted back to the Planning Department, and
were, in turn, submitted to the City Manager's office four or five
days ago. He distributed additional copies of the changes to the
Council.
The City Manager indicated he had not seen the changes.
The Deputy City Clerk stated that Mr. Koules had given her a
couple of individual sheets, but nothing was said about them being
given to the City Council.
Mayor Connors said she wanted to see a complete plan with
everything incorporated into it. These sheets are like what they
were given at the last meeting - just pieces of paper, and she
would like to be able to look at this plan, which they should
have been able to do originally.
Mr. Carvelli pointed out it was not more pieces of paper, it is
one piece of paper with the changes that were requested.
Mayor Connors stated that in five years she had never voted on a
plan that wasn't complete and in front of her, and she really
would not like to start doing that.
Mr. Carvelli said they had done what they were asked to do, and
that is to submit the changes that the Council approved two weeks
ago, and those changes were given to Planning staff and then
given to Mrs. White, and there is nothing more they can do.
The City Manager disagreed with that, stating the Specific Plan is
a document, and the Council is being asked to approve the
document, and this is part of it. And if the City is to pay the
cost to redo that document, then he would like the City Council to
so direct staff, because it is going to come out of the City's
budget rather than theirs, and he did not feel it is the City's
responsibility to have the Specific Plan document done at taxpayer
expense. What is being submitted is like an addendum and he
didn't see how the Council could adopt that.
Mayor Connors brought out there should be a plan on file, complete
and ready to look at, which the Council could vote on, so that
later - there it is - and that is what was voted on, so there will
be no misunderstandings.
Mr. Carvelli asked to clarify again that the Planning Director,
Mr. Koules, asked them to submit a memo of the changes in a
concise summary, and they did that. The Specific Plans were
redrafted and they are supposed to be in the hands of the Planning
Department, and that is why he is saying that is all they can do.
It is on their nickel, not on the City's nickel, and it has been
done.
The City Manager again questioned that the Specific Plan document
has been changed, with Mr. Carvelli indicating it had been changed
and had been given to the Planning Department.
The City Manager then stated that Mr. Koules had not given this
document to him, nor made any mention that it had been received,
and he knew it was on the Council agenda tonight.
Mayor Connors asked once again if the complete document has been
changed and is in the hands of Mr. Koules, with Mr. Carvelli again
Page 6
Beaumont City Council
May 13, 1991
confirming this is the case, stating further that Mr. Koules has
it, and he had spoken to Mr. Koules on Friday, and Mr. Koules
indicated at that time that he submitted the summary page just for
clarification points to make it simple to Mrs. White for the
record.
Mrs. White, the Deputy City Clerk, stated that Mr. Koules had
given her two pieces of paper, which appear to be the same as Mr.
Carvelli is referring to, however, nothing was said indicating
they were to be given to the Council or were to be included with
the agenda packet for this meeting. It was indicated they were
for the record for the last meeting and nothing further was said.
Mr. Carvelli continued that he feels they had done everything they
were asked to do at the last Council hearing, made the changes,
put them in the documents, and given them to the City, and they
are dealing with the Planning Department because that is where the
project is.
Mayor Connors asked how many copies of the complete document were
submitted to the City, with Mr. Carvelli replying he did not know
the exact amount, but whatever was requested would have been
provided.
Council Member Leja wanted to know how changes such as this have
been handled in the past, with the City Manager responding we have
never had any changes such as this in the past as they have always
been complete by the time they were submitted to the Council.
Council Member McLaughlin inquired if the City Manager would be
more comfortable if the item was postponed, since he would be the
person who would ultimately be responsible if all the changes were
not made to the Specific Plan, with the City Manager stating he
did not believe in holding up someone for staff errors, and it
falls back to the position that if the staff has made an error,
and there are changes that were not requested, and the document is
adopted, it would be the City Manager's responsibility.
Mayor Connors asked what major problem would be caused if the item
were continued, with Mr. Bounds advising it would delay the
approval for one month if the Council does not meet the last
meeting of this month. Mr. Carvelli emphasized it would cause a
financial hardship, and a substantial, severe setback on the
developers if the project were to be delayed.
The City Manager questioned what if there were some other changes
that were not made in the Specific Plan, what would they propose
to do so far as the City is concerned if it were approved tonight.
Mr. Carvelli said they would meet the intent and the spirit of
whatever was agreed to at the prior hearing, as they are committed
to do that. The Planning Director has signed off on these
changes, and that is what was needed to be done in order to be
before the Council tonight, and if anything was omitted he will
guarantee they will meet the letter and the spirit of any of those
changes that may not have been included.
Mayor Connors asked when they gave Mr. Koules the complete text,
with Mr. Carvelli indicating he did not have the exact date
because it was handled directly by The Planning Center (their
project manager) to the Planning Department. However, in a
telephone conversation with Mr. Koules, he said these (referring
to the individual summary sheets) were given to Mrs. White about
four or five days ago, so Mr. Koules has had them since prior to
that time.
Mayor Connors pointed out she is referring to the complete,
revised Specific Plan, with Mr. Carvelli saying it was probably
submitted at the same time.
The City Manager said he knew the revised Specific Plan did not
Page 7
Beaumont City Council
May 13, 1991
come to his office, with the Deputy City Clerk adding that
although Mr. Koules submitted the two summary sheets to her
office, in typing the minutes nothing was stated about bringing
anything back to the City Council. The resolution adopting the
Specific Plan was adopted on a 3 -2 vote with nothing said about
bringing anything back to the City Council along with the
Ordinance at its second reading.
She continued that the discussion seems to be indicating that
staff erred in not insuring the revised Specific Plan was brought
to the Council for tonight's meeting, however, there was no
direction to do this at the last meeting. The Specific Plan was
adopted and, unless someone had requested a reconsideration, or
another resolution rescinding the previous resolution for
consideration on this agenda, that was a final action on the
Specific Plan itself. There was lengthy discussion concerning
whether the motion should contain language pertaining to the
changes to be made, with the City Attorney indicating there was no
need to include anything in the motion about the changes as
adoption of the resolution would be sufficient, and the changes
would automatically be made as discussed.
Although both Mayor Connors and Council Member MacNeilage stated
their preference that this be done, there was no motion made or
direction given to bring anything other than the second reading of
the ordinance back to the Council at this meeting, and she was not
aware the revised Specific Plan was required for review along with
the second reading of the ordinance.
The City Manager pointed out that the difference in the Specific
Plan zoning is that it is a zoning which has maneuverability
within it, both from the developer /owner side, the City side,
through even administration, to be able to move things within the
range that is set. He continued they will notice the ordinance
only says 4.1 density - it doesn't say smaller lots and so forth,
so with the Specific Plan zoning you must have a document that
goes with it, that carries with it some of the extra things that
the Council gives by virtue of allowing Specific Plan zoning. He
stated further that some of that is you can go lower in lot size,
or you can go higher in lot size, or you can go with a park plan
that is being fully developed, and so forth, so it is like an
agreement, and that is the only reason that he is quibbling.
He went on to say if the proponents agree that if there are
changes that were discussed at the Council meeting that have not
been made, can be made, then that would be up to the Council to
accept that, but he can tell them that if it is going to fall on
him, he will not make a recommendation to them to adopt anything
that he or they have never seen, and the two papers submitted
tonight do not tell him anything of what he wanted to see.
Mayor Connors questioned when Mr. Carvelli stated the continuance
would be a problem, she remembered the developer continued it
themselves once, and it was not the City's doing that changes were
made at that point, and all of those changes were given to them,
and now they are left up in the air not seeing the completed
document. She continued that she did not feel they should be told
it would create a problem for them, when they continued it
themselves once.
Mr. Carvelli said the question posed to them was would this be a
financial hardship after the City Council saw fit to give them
approval, the answer was most definitely yes, so they need to
understand that. The second thing is that he is not submitting
two new pieces of paper. This is the same piece of paper the
Council made them commit to the night of the hearing, in which the
City Council agreed to adopt for this project, and you cannot
become more specific than what they have submitted.
Mayor Connors pointed out her problem is these are only two pieces
of paper and not the complete text, and she doesn't like to vote
on a document that is not in front of her.
Page 8
Beaumont City Council
May 13, 1991
Council Member Leja asked who was to assume the responsibility for
bringing a completed Specific Plan to this meeting tonight.
The City Manager indicated that no one was told to that he is
aware of.
Mr. Carvelli said they were obviously here, and would have been
happy to bring everything they had which they had at the last
hearing.
Council Member Leja stated she did not think they were purposely
not supplying the Council with information, that apparently there
has been a communication problem along the way.
Mayor Connors said she didn't think they were purposely keeping
the Council from getting information either, she just felt they
should have it and they should not vote on information they do not
have, just as she felt at the last meeting. She stated further
she thought perhaps this time they might be able to convince the
rest of the Council to give them that opportunity, and was trying
one more time to ask that they vote on the document after they
have received the document.
Council Member MacNeilage commented that if the rest of the
Council would continue the item, he would suggest a meeting be
held during the last week of the month, whenever it is convenient
for everyone, for this particular item, therefore, it would not
have to go for a month, only two weeks.
The City Manager said if they were looking for continuation, they
could continue to a day later this week and he would then find the
document and personally go through it, check the minutes, check
the recording, and have it ready for the Council. He was sorry
the Planning Department did not get the document to him for
tonight, and if they wished to accept the developer's word, that
would be up to the Council.
Mr. Carvelli indicated their word represents a multi million
dollar project and they would not be holding back a hundred
dollars worth of printing to put themselves in this position
tonight. They are committed to any changes - tape or written or
whatever - that they have already made, and if they have missed
them they are still committed to them. He didn't feel he could
make it any clearer to the members of the Council.
Mayor Connors stated if the plan is in the City, she assumes it is
in several copies as that is how they are submitted, with Mr.
Carvelli agreeing that whatever was required of them was
submitted. She then continued that all they would need would be
the time to look them over.
The City Manager clarified that what is being said is the changes
shown on the two pieces of paper submitted tonight have been
included in the document, and the document has been resubmitted,
with Mr. Carvelli responding that according to the wishes of the
Planning Department, City of Beaumont, they have met those wishes.
He reiterated these are not two different pieces of paper, it is
the same piece of paper submitted to them the last time, and this
is merely a summary of the issues that were talked about that were
being changed - the improvements to the park, the amount of soils,
the removal of the crash gate and the minimum lot sizes.
Mayor Connors asked where the day care center was, with Mr.
Carvelli stating he thought it was mentioned in the summary.
Council Member Leja said she was still confused about something
else, getting back to who accepts the responsibility to insure
there is a Specific Plan for the Council since there were changes
made. Whose shoulders does that fall upon.
The City Manager responded that it has always been with the
Page 9
Beaumont City Council
May 13, 1991
developer who was turning in the plan, because they have it in
their computer making it very easy to change, and then resubmit
back to the City.
Mrs. Leja then asked that when the agenda packets were sent to the
Council for this meeting, did anyone happen to think that changes
were made to the Specific Plan, and wonder where the new Specific
Plan was.
Mr. Bounds said he knew nothing about it, with Mrs. Leja stating
they voted on that at the last meeting. The City Manager
continued that the new Specific Plan was not turned into his
office so he cannot answer for something that wasn't there.
Council Member Leja restated her question that there were changes
made, the Council voted on those changes, and obviously someone
should have said "shouldn't there have been a packet with their
agenda packet ".
Mr. Carvelli asked to answer Mrs. Leja's question in that the
question had already been answered to the effect there was no
request made of anybody to do that - and he feels the issue is
being confused.
Mayor Connors agreed they voted away their right to read the
document before they voted, and they are now asking for that right
back.
The City Attorney called attention to the fact the Council has a
right to do that as the reason for second readings on ordinances
is to give them a second chance to think about it.
Mr. McLaughlin felt a continuance of a few days would be
appropriate to allow the City Manager to gather the information
they needed, with Mr. Carvelli saying their situation is they have
done everything they have been asked to do at the last meeting,
and he does not know what there is to go back and review or read.
Mr. McLaughlin pointed out this would allow the Council to have a
chance to look at the revised Specific Plan, and three or four
days shouldn't have that much of an impact, with Mr. Carvelli
restating even three or four days would be a problem for them on
the financial side.
Mayor Connors referred to the two pieces of paper distributed by
Mr. Carvelli - and that she had asked where the day care center
was on that paper. After the plan has been checked to make sure
the changes are what were required, she would like to take her
responsibility to make her decision on that document rather than
push it off on the staff members - and that is why they wanted to
take the few days.
Mr. Carvelli replied that he understood, however, he is saying
what they would be doing is not what they did when they came
before them and the project was approved, as they are talking
about something different now, as they did what they were asked to
do and that is all they can do, and any delay on the part of the
entitlement process could be a financial burden on this project so
far as dealing with the bankers and financial people.
Mayor Connors said it still falls on the Council to do things
correctly, and she felt they had to do things the correct way
whenever they can, and a few days should not be as much of a
disaster as they indicate.
The City Manager asked for confirmation that the full plan had
been turned in, with Mr. Carvelli stating he did not see it happen
but he was told by Steve Koules that he had everything that was
needed from them.
Page 10
9.
Mr. Carvelli continued that he
the documents, so he cannot be
he had everything he required.
done everything they have been
days delay will be a problem for
There was no further discussion.
Beaumont City Council
May 13, 1991
did not observe the handing in of
100% certain, but Mr. Koules said
He felt the record shows they have
required to do, and a couple of
them.
Motion by Mayor Connors, second by Council Member MacNeilage,
that the item be continued with a date set to consider it when the
Council has had the opportunity to read the document, and a date
which would be possible for all Council Members.
AYES: Council Member MacNeilage and Mayor Connors.
NOES: Council Member Leja, McLaughlin and Parrott.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
MOTION FAILED.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member
McLaughlin, to adopt Ordinance No. 701 at it.s second reading.
AYES: Council Member Leja, McLaughlin and Parrott.
NOES: Council Member MacNeilage and Mayor Connors
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
MOTION CARRIED.
Discussion of Utility User Tax.
The City Attorney asked the Council to bear with him in order that
he might review the course of events over the last decade relative
to taxes, which should help them focus on what is happening right
now and the question that will be facing them regarding the
utility user tax. Mr. Ryskamp's comments are as follows:.
Back in 1978 the voters of the State of California adopted
Proposition 13 which limited the power of both the State and local
governments of taxation. In specifics, it took away the power of
local governments to adopt ad valorem taxes on real property or a
transaction or sales tax on the sale of real property. And I
think that is the part of it that most of us are the most
familiar, since we all are aware that our property tax bills
haven't gone up since that time unless we have sold or bought a
new piece of property.
There was also included in Proposition 13, as part of the
Constitutional Amendment, which became Article 13 -A of the
Constitution, a requirement that cities, counties and special
districts, by a 2/3 vote of qualified electors, impose special
taxes on the district. Now, it was probably the intention of the
drafters of Proposition 13 that this, in effect, makes all taxes
that you imposed - by cities or counties or special districts -
that all taxes would have to be approved by 2/3 vote of the
people. The language of Proposition 13 was very vaguely and badly
drafted - some questions as to what special districts were had to
be straightened out, and what were special taxes, since it was not
a word or phrase to be found anywhere in tax law.
The Supreme Court in 1982 determined that special taxes were those
that were levied, and only those that were levied, for a specific
purpose. Distinguished from those taxes which dropped money into
the General Fund. So now we had Proposition 13 limiting not all
taxes to a two- thirds vote, but only those taxes that were adopted
for a specific purpose, i.e., we are going to adopt taxes to build
a specific building, or take on a specific project. Those types
of taxes were going to require a two - thirds vote of the people.
General taxes which were going to fund our General Fund
Page 11
Beaumont City Council
May 13, 1991
obligations were not going to require such. The proponents of
Prop 13 felt that they had been cheated by the courts, and, of
course, not attributing it to bad drafting of the original
proposition, they then put forward in 1986 Proposition 62, which
mandated that General Taxes, responding directly to the language
and the problem in the Farrell case from the Supreme Court, were
only to be approved if by a two - thirds vote of all members of the
city legislative body, and then approved by a majority vote of the
electorate voting at an election on the tax.
However, Proposition 62 was different from 13 in that Proposition
62 was a statutory initiative - that is it modified the statutes
of the state. It added certain code sections to the Government
Code. It was not a Constitutional amendment.
That, then, is where we were -- Prop 62 actually dealt with two
types of general taxes. Those taxes adopted on or after August 1,
1985, were prior to its effective date, and those taxes adopted -
these general taxes adopted after the effective date. We fell
into that window period with our utility user tax, and we were
forced to go ahead and put it to a vote of the people to establish
the validity of our tax following Proposition 62, and we did so,
and, as adopted, it was approved.
Well, the question was not over in the fact that the State
Constitution provides that it is unconstitutional for a referendum
to be had concerning local taxation. Recognizing the need of the
municipal powers in the state to regulate their affairs -- cities,
counties, districts. In recognizing the difficulty of managing
affairs with the problems of referendums, changing and attempting
by vote to directly handle fiscal management, the Constitution
provides that limitation. That referenda are not to be had
concerning tax matters. This was established by a whole series of
cases running back into the 1930s, practically to the adoption of
the initiative and referendum state.
Well, Prop 62 isn't quite an initiative in the vote that it
proposes. It differs in which is an initiative, and it differs
from what is a referendum. It is sort of a hybrid of the two. So
the question then is - is Proposition 62 legal. Is it
constitutional - not legal - but is it constitutional because it
proposes what looks like a referendum on local taxes. That is
unconstitutional. Now remember, it is a statute. It is a
statutory initiative. So you can have it unconstitutional. If it
violates the Constitution, unlike Prop 13, which amended it, the
statute falls because the Constitution is the key language. It is
the - our guide. So if it does violate the provision in the
Constitution concerning no referendum on local taxes, it is out.
It is unconstitutional.
In 1988 the City of Westminster had adopted, during the window
period, a tax on - a transient occupancy tax, similar to the one
we have. And that tax, having been adopted in that period, they
chose not to go to a vote of the people. It was challenged in
court, and the Court of Appeal which heard the case, declared the
provisions of Prop 62 relating to window period taxes and
referendum - first it declared, call it what you like, initiative
or referendum, this looks enough like a referendum that it is
unconstitutional to have them on local taxes, and they declared
Prop 62 relating to window period taxes out - unconstitutional.
Now, when you lose at the appellant court level, at the appeals
court level rather, you can request the Supreme Court to hear the
case. The Supreme Court can do three things with the case. It
can deny the review - in effect say that is the law, we are not
going to touch it. It can - or at least we are not going to touch
it for now, which means that the appellant court ruling - the
appeals court ruling stands. It can grant the review, which stops
any significance of the appellant court decision, and gives the
Supreme Court the opportunity to review it and make a
determination, particularly on a constitutional issue, that can be
Page 12
Beaumont City Council
May 13, 1991
significant. Or third, it can not touch the case, but decertify
the opinion. Leave the opinion as it stands relative to those
facts and those people, but decertify it so it is not governing
law.
Now why am I giving you a lecture on the Supreme Court, because
the Supreme Court has thus far done all three with the three cases
on Prop 62. The City of Westminster case, they denied review,
which in effect says, yes, the window period taxes were
unconstitutional the way they were handled -- that is, the other
way around -- Prop 62 was unconstitutional as applied to window
period taxes. The Shuflin vs Doyle case challenged the
constitutionality of 62 in its entirety - actually it dealt though
with the window period tax. The court ruled 62 is
unconstitutional. The Supreme Court looked at this broad ruling.
There was a protest from a number of organizations filing briefs
requesting the court to either hear this case or to decertify it.
The Supreme Court chose to decertify the case without giving any
reasons. Which means that the ruling, that Proposition 62 was
unconstitutional, was taken off the books without any further
comment. So, we can speculate the reason was this was a bad set
of facts, this was not a good case to look at in terms of the
constitutionality of Prop 62 in its broadest extent because it
dealt with window period taxes. But that is merely the guess of
legal scholars, it is not the court's opinion.
All right, we then have a Riverside - or actually a County of San
Diego case that was heard by your former Deputy City Attorney, my
former partner, Judge Burkhart. The appellant court then -
interestingly I note - with three former DAs who had no civil
experience when they were in practice as attorneys - ruled that
Proposition 62 was unconstitutional in the case of Ryder vs the
County of San Diego, heard in September of last year.
This time the facts were right and the Supreme Court has taken the
case up to it, and hearings have been scheduled but have not yet
been heard, so, is Proposition 62 unconstitutional or not - and
the bottom line to the question - we don't know.
Council Member Leja: Do we have a coin.
City Attorney: Well, I wish it were that easy, I could flip a
coin and we could make the decision.
I, as the City Attorney, am very strongly persuaded by the
reasoning of the court in all of the cases. That this is, in
fact, a statutory initiative that violates a constitutional
principle, that local referendum on taxes are not acceptable, and
are not allowed under the California Constitution. But, we don't
have a clear cut decision. I have purposely held off the request
to come to you until after the League of Cities meeting in hopes
that having the presence of those who I recognize both in
experience and years are wiser than I am, we could get their
input. I wasn't able to go to the League City Attorney's meeting,
but Don went in my place, and spent considerable time while he was
there talking with a variety of City Attorneys, and everybody came
up with the same answer. We don't know.
Most are trying hard to avoid having to take a position until a
determination is made. Unfortunately, our time schedule does not
allow us that luxury.
What is the penalty for being wrong. If we proceed, we have two
ways to proceed. There is no question about the constitutionality
of the requirement for a two - thirds vote. That is not being
challenged, all that is being challenged is the requirement for a
referendum, that is, putting it to a vote of the people.
If the utility users tax is presented to you, and if you decide
that it is going to be declared unconstitutional as to the
requirement for the referenda, and you move forward, you can adopt
Page 13
Beaumont City Council
May 13, 1991
it and proceed, implement the tax on July 1, 1991. Otherwise it
will sunset.
Your second alternative is you can take a conservative approach
that will cost the City several thousand dollars for an election,
and put it to a vote of the people. Also with the possibility
that it may not be approved, and handle it in that way, in which
case we don't need to worry. Of course, it may be by the time -
soon after we have our election the Supreme Court will rule it
unconstitutional and it will be a needless act.
If you choose the former course, that is, if you adopt an
ordinance and determine that, based upon your City Attorney's
recommendation, that it appears to be unconstitutional from the
rulings of the court thus far, then, you run the risk that if the
ordinance is challenged, especially if the Supreme Court
determines 62 is constitutional, that every dollar you have
collected on the taxes will then be subtracted from your general
property tax revenue from the State. That is the penalty - for
every dollar you gain on a tax that violates Proposition 62, you
lose one dollar in real property taxes. Of course you lose the
same dollar if you don't adopt the tax.
Mayor Connors: What would be the deadline for deciding to put it
on the ballot if we wanted it on there this November. If we were
going to submit it to the people.
City Attorney: I don't know - Bob, what would the deadline be for
November.
City Manager: I think it would be in August near the petition
date for Council. So it would probably be the latter part of
August.
City Attorney: It would be the same as the election, I just don't
know. Is that enough of an answer.
Mayor Connors: Yes.
City Attorney: I wish I had a definite, clear -cut answer for you,
and, as I said, I have been putting off coming to you for this
reason, that I was hoping we would have an answer. We were all
hoping that perhaps the court was going to, in effect, ratify this
by denying review, as they did with the Westminster case.
City Manager: This case - has the court set a date for hearing.
City Attorney: No they have not yet. They have just set it for
review, they have not set dates for hearing, at least not that I
am aware of - I haven't checked since the City Attorney's meeting
two weeks ago to see if they have. I haven't called. But chances
are, knowing the way the Supreme Court moves, and especially
recognizing that summer is coming and they take their recess, I
seriously doubt that we will see an opinion before late fall, or
early next year, if that early.
I haven't put this all into writing for you. I wasn't certain
what we were going to put into the written record in terms of how
you - you know - a recommendation - but we are needing some
direction since, depending on the direction we receive, depends on
the ordinance we write for you.
City Manager: Do you see a problem, George, with writing an
ordinance and the Council adopting the ordinance, and waiting
until - and then, in its proper timing, the Council putting it on
the agenda. Is what you are saying, if the ordinance is approved,
and it goes for a referendum, that the tax cannot be collected
until the referendum is completed.
City Attorney: No. No. I am saying that you can adopt it. The
tax can be collected. At some point, if and when it is
Page 14
Beaumont City Council
May 13, 1991
challenged, then the punishment the penalty of the City is going
to be loss of general property tax revenues, equal to the amount
that you have collected. The ordinance is - the language,
rather, of the statute as adopted is quite specific in the
penalty. And it does - let me try to find the specific language.
It does relate to losing those funds.
Mayor Connors: But if we put it to a vote of the people, and it
passes, we have protected ourselves from that problem.
City Attorney: Correct, except to the extent - well, if you chose
to let it die with the sunset clause June 30, and not resurrect
until after the election, that is the most conservative approach.
That is going to cost. If you adopt an ordinance providing that
the tax continue and be put to a vote of the people, and it is
approved, you have lost nothing. The other way you have lost
nothing either, except that you had whatever is collected in the
interim collected, and . . .
Mayor Connors: Can you put it to a vote of the people to ratify
the ordinance so that it will cover the gap.
City Manager: That is basically, I think, what has been said.
That is the reason I asked the question the way I did.
City Attorney: I believe so . . .
City Manager: If you adopted an ordinance that went into effect
on 1 July, and you started collecting on that ordinance, and you
have established the intention that providing - unless the Supreme
Court finds differently - that you are going to put it on the
ballot in November, 1991, and I think what George is saying, and I
have thought myself, that that is proper to do that.
Mayor Connors: But does the ordinance cover it from that July
date until the thing - and then you can't put on there shall the
City of Beaumont extend the users tax from July to . .
City Attorney: All it says is no tax subject to the vote
requirement prescribed by 53723 shall be presented in an election
unless the -- okay, that requires the two - thirds. No local
government or district, whether or not authorized to levy a
property tax may impose any general tax unless and until such
general tax is submitted to the electorate of the local government
or district. That would seem to indicate that you have to submit
it before you impose the tax.
But when it talks about the penalties to be imposed, they clearly
indicate that the penalty is a return of the tax dollars.
Mayor Connors: And this is imposing a tax and not extending an
existing tax.
City Attorney: Correct. . .
Mayor Connors: We can't get away with that.
City Manager: So, your vote of the people is, in a sense, a
ratification. Do you agree.
City Attorney: That is what we would be asking - would be a
ratification of the action taken. And I don't have a definite
answer.
Mayor Connors: And if we ask them to ratify it to that date,
and they vote no, and we have collected the money, then we lose
it.
City Manager: You would put that in a trust fund anyway.
City Attorney: True. You could just hold those funds so that if
they were lost you hadn't counted on them in the budget.
Page 15
Beaumont City Council
May 13, 1991
City Manager: That is going to be interesting, that we get into
this situation because when we extended the utility user tax and
took it to a vote of the people, that year Prop 96, or 2001 or
some number, while we were already committed to the ballot, and
the ballot was being printed, it was ruled it was not necessary
to send it to the people, and we had already done so. Too late.
Everybody else got home free. So we did that. Now we turn around
- we get down to the wire to go ahead and do something again, and
now we have got the threat of. . .
City Attorney: Yes. The Westminster case came down - came down
while we were going to ballot - well that was in September of 88
and we were in the ballot. And we couldn't do anything about
that. We knew it was out there . . . and we are running that much
ahead on this one too.
Council Member McLaughlin: When you say there is a sunset on this
thing, in other words - how long does that last before we are in
the same problem again.
City Manager: There is no more tax effective June 30 right now.
Mayor Connors: How long is the tax for - do we do it for three
years or four or . . .
City Manager: We normally do five.
Council Member McLaughlin: Five years. That is what I am getting
to -- in other words it was five years ago that we did what we
did, and now - so then if we do what we - now, theoretically, it
will run another five years unless some of these things that you
have spoken of . . .
City Attorney: We adopted it right after the window period for
Prop 62. That was November of 1985 and we adopted it in early 86.
City Manager: Our problem is, now, is it the feeling of the
Council that you would like for us to prepare an ordinance for the
beginning of a new utility user tax time period of five years, or
whatever years you tell us, and shall it stay 3% or whatever you
want it. So that we can prepare that for action while we are
disseminating the rest of the material as to whether or not that
ordinance, if it was finally adopted, would go into effect 1 July,
or would it go into effect 1 December, or . . .
City Attorney: We can go as liberal as you want to take the
chance. I mean I can also provide copies of this if anybody would
like to read the court opinions. But, I mean, we could also take
an approach that it is going to come out unconstitutional and pass
the ordinance with a clause that if the Supreme Court rules it is
constitutional, it then goes to an election for ratification. The
further out on that limb we go, the greater the danger is that we
are not going to be approved. It is unfortunate, it is going to
cost the City money, even in a November election isn't it.
City Manager: A November election is going to cost us five
months.
City Attorney: What is it going to cost us for the election
itself.
City Manager: It won't cost us much, probably $1500.00. We
already have an election.
Mayor Connors: If it went to a vote of the people, and they
turned it down, and then the decision was made that it was legal
for the City to do it by ordinance.
City Manager: You wouldn't want to, that is political
abandonment.
Page 16
Beaumont City Council
May 13, 1991
City Attorney: I was going to say, that is political suicide.
City Manager: I probably would have to buy those ropes out of my
own pocket.
Council Member Leja: Its kind of like when people approve
propositions, and then the State legislature takes them to court.
City Attorney: This is an excellent example, though, of the real
problems we have in the State with the initiative and referendum
process in the fact that we don't - you know - it is bad enough
when the legislature drafts things and we have to deal with
ambiguities and vagueness. What we get through the ballot box is
so much worse, that it is fodder for court fights for decades.
General discussion continued concerning the problems with the
system as it exists today, and as it applies to the situation at
hand.
Mayor Connors stated she felt the best thing to do was to pass the
ordinance, hold on to the money, put it to a vote of the people in
November, and then go from there. Just hold on to what has been
collected. between July and November, and see what the outcome is
of the election.
For clarification the City Manager restated that wording could be
placed in the ordinance, unless there is a ruling otherwise by the
Supreme Court in regards to this, that it would be put to a vote
of the people in the November election.
The City Attorney agreed, basically, with the additional comment
that in the event that Proposition 62 is declared unconstitutional
any amendments could be made by two - thirds vote in accordance with
those sections.
Responding to a question from Council Member MacNeilage, the City
Attorney indicated that if Proposition 62 is found to be
constitutional there will have to be an election every five years
on the tax, while on the other hand if Proposition 62 is found to
be unconstitutional, an election would not be needed.
Council Member Leja asked what impact it would have on the City if
it failed, with the City Manager stating it would mean about
$230,000 less in the budget.
Direction was given to staff to prepare an emergency ordinance for
presentation to the Council on June 10, to contain language
stipulating the contingencies discussed, as follows:
1. To be effective on 1 July 1991.
2. That it will be placed on the ballot in November, unless
there is a ruling by the Supreme Court that Proposition
62 is unconstitutional, and if so this ruling will in -
validate only that portion of the ordinance affected.
3. The money to be held in a trust fund until the outcome
of the election in November is determined.
10. 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 April 22,
1991.
b. Approval of Warrants and Payroll.
Page 17
11.
12.
Beaumont City Council
May 13, 1991
c. Request from City Manager to Carry Over Vacation Time.
d. RESOLUTION NO. 1991 -19 - Accepting Offer of Dedication for
Right -of -Way Along Fourth Street in Block 107, an Ordering
Recordation Thereof with the County Recorder.
( McIntyre /Green - Fourth /Minnesota).
e. RESOLUTION NO. 1991 -20 - Requesting the Local Agency Formation
Commission to Take Proceedings for the Annexation of
Uninhabited Territory Pursuant to the Local Government
Reorganization Act of 1985. (Annexation 90- ANX -4 -46 - City
of Beaumont).
f. RESOLUTION NO. 1991 -22 - Consenting to Transfer and Assignment
of Franchise and Hypothecation of Assets by Palmer
CableVision.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member
MacNeilage, to adopt the consent calendar as presented.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Consideration of Cancellation of Regular Meeting of Monday, May
27, 1991 due to Memorial Day Holiday.
The City Manager reminded the Council that in canceling the
regular meeting, if any important business were to come up that
couldn't wait, a special meeting could be called for that purpose.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Leja, to cancel the regular meeting of Monday, May 27, 1991 due to
the Memorial Day holiday.
AYES: Council Member Leja,
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
Recess to Closed Session to Meet with Its Designated
Representative Regarding Labor Relations Matters Pursuant to
Government Code Section 54957.6.
The meeting was recessed to closed session at 8:38 P.M.
The meeting was reconvened to regular session at 9:33 P.M.
Let the record show no action was taken in closed session.
Date Set for Next Regular Meeting, Monday, June 10, 1991, at 7:00
P.M., in the City Council Chambers.
There being no further business to come before the Council, the
meeting was adjourned at 9:34 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
City Clerk
Page 18
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
APRIL 22, 1991
The Beaumont City Council met in a regular meeting on Monday, April 22,
1991, at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor Connors
presiding.
On roll call the following Council Members were present: Leja,
MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott and Mayor Connors.
The invocation was given by Council Member Leja, who then led the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
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. Request from Council Member Leja for Reconsideration of
Negative Declaration 91 -ND -7. Applicant: Aware Development
Location: North side of 6th Street between Illinois and American
Avenues, immediately east of the Rusty Lantern Restaurant.
Proposed 441 mini - storage units with manager's residence.
(91- PP -2).
Council Member Leja advised she had spoken with the applicant the
day after the previous meeting, and he indicated that he was
unable to attend that meeting to answer any questions the Council
might have had, and in light of the information he gave to her she
felt it would be fair to request a reconsideration of this
negative declaration.
Joliene Weiss, representing Aware Development, presented a
complete overview of the proposed project, including the
mitigation measures which have been taken to overcome the two
negative impacts, which were defined as visual impact and the
security of the project. She also called out the fact the project
is being required by the City to construct major street
improvements.
Council Member Leja asked, since there is a question concerning
the number of units on the property, whether some of the closed
storage could be converted to RV storage, with Ms. Weiss
indicating they would prefer not to have RV storage because they
felt the open visibility would have more of a negative visual
impact.
Mrs. Leja also questioned whether there was a marketing study
indicating a need for this number of storage units in the area.
Ms. Weiss answered that a marketing study had been conducted
which revealed the existing mini - storage company has a waiting
list of two and a half to three months, and their marketing study
indicated a need for additional storage units in the area.
Council Member MacNeilage asked what the height of the lighting
would be and whether it would carry over the exterior wall, with
Ms. Weiss replying the lighting would be wall mounted placed
throughout the area.
Page 1
Beaumont City Council
April 22, 1991
Mayor Connors requested clarification regarding the proposed
commercial use, the corridor to be utilized past the commercial
to the mini - storage area, placement of the block wall and their
capability to have federal agencies check individuals proposing to
use the storage units.
Council Member MacNeilage confirmed his understanding that each
unit would have a security system installed.
Mayor Connors then expressed her concerns relative to the number
of units on the property, pointing to the original application by
Jasper Stone Development for 57,015 sq.ft. of building on the same
piece of land, with the Planning Department stating at that time
they felt the site was overbuilt, and the impact would have to be
mitigated. They are now being presented with this request for
75,005 sq.ft. with talk about mitigation again - but if it was
overbuilt at 57,015 sq.ft., how can they put 75,000 sq.ft. of
building on the same site. She did not understand how planning
could recommend approval when they originally found it overbuilt
at 57,015 sq.ft.
Stephen Koules, Director of Community Development, indicated he
did not have the previous staff report, however, felt the current
staff report expresses staff's concerns, but because of the
history of the project, approval was recommended. Responding to
Mayor Connor's continuing questions regarding at what point staff
would consider denial of a project which appeared to be overbuilt,
Mr. Koules stated that, in this case, staff felt the City was
getting a great deal of improvements, and the conditions of
approval addressed the impact concerns and, as a result, the
impacts were being minimized.
David Sumner, Sanborn & Webb Engineering, presented a summary of
the history of the project for the information of the Council.
Mayor Connors continued to question the fact the original project
appeared to have the same conditions of approval with less units,
and the RV Storage had been deleted at that time, so she still
couldn't understand how approval could be recommended with the
addition of more units, with Mr. Koules and Mr. Sumner answering
her questions
This discussion continued with Mayor Connors again pointing out
the original project had the same conditions of approval with less
units being proposed, and the RV storage had been deleted at that
time.
Mr. Koules answered that staff felt justified in recommending
approval with the conditions which were being imposed.
There were no additional comments from the Council other than
Mayor Connors again pointing out she felt the project was
overbuilt in the original proposal and is overbuilt this time as
well, and the things which the City is supposed to be
accomplishing by allowing this additional square footage, had
already been obtained.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Parrott, to adopt Negative Declaration 91 -ND -7, based on the
findings.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin and
Parrott.
NOES: Mayor Connors.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
5. PROPOSED CHANGE OF ZONE 90 -RZ -9 AND SPECIFIC PLAN SP -90 -3.
Applicant: Robertson Homes. Location: South side of
Highway 60, across from Western Knolls Road, and running
southerly for a distance of approximately 2,000 ft. to a line
approximately 21500 ft. westerly of the west end of 4th
Street. (Continued from April 8, 1991).
Page 2
Beaumont City Council
April 22, 1991
A proposed zone change on 155 acres from Planned Unit Development
(PUD) to Specific Planning Area (SPA 4.1 dwelling units per acre)
(90- RZ -9) .
The proposed adoption of a Specific Plan on 155 acres to include
single family detached units with 62 -5,200 sq.ft. lots on 12 acres
(proposed as a school site) with an average lot size of 5,600
sq.ft., 353 -5,500 sq.ft. lots on 67 acres with an average lot size
of 6,300 sq.ft., 101 -6,000 sq.ft. lots on 22 acres with an average
lot size of 7,800 sq.ft., 116 -7,000 sq.ft. lots on 28 acres with
an average lot size of 8,000 sq.ft., with a density of 4.1
dwelling units per acre, for a maximum of 632 single family units;
11 acres of open space and parks; 13 acres of major roads; 12
acres within the residential area as a potential elementary school
site; and a 2 acre neighborhood retail /commercial center.
(SP- 90 -3).
a. ORDINANCE NO. 701 - FIRST READING - Rezoning 155 acres from
Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Specific Planning Area (SPA
4.1 dwelling units per acre) (90- RZ -9).
Motion to read Ordinance No. 701 by title only.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member Parrott,
to read Ordinance No. 701 by title only.
AYES: Council Member Leja,
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
The ordinance was read by title only by the Deputy City Clerk.
Mr. John Carvelli, Inland Group, Inc., presented information to
the Council concerning the project they propose at this time,
which takes into consideration the comments made by the City
Council at the previous meeting. He advised that a detailed
lotting study of the project had been done which removed the
5,000 sq.ft. lots from the project. Additionally, they are
proposing an improved park and a day care center. They have also
met with the school district and the adjacent property owners, Mr.
Dowling and Mr. Coussoulis to address their concerns.
Mr. Carvelli then went to several artists renderings of the
project to demonstrate what they are proposing. He also
distributed a number of handouts to the Council, including the
lotting tabulations.
Dr. Cary Lowe, Director of Land Development for Coussoulis
Development, an adjacent property owner to Rolling Hills, spoke in
favor of this project, indicating they felt the project would be
an outstanding neighbor to their own project, and they feel what
has been proposed would be very compatible and a quality project
which they look forward to having next to their project. They
also look forward to working with them to achieve a workable
access to State Route 60, which has been a matter of some
complexity in design and engineering, and they have managed to
work out what appears to be a very successful arrangement with
CalTrans to provide temporary access to the freeway at their
mutual property line.
The meeting was recessed at 7:40 p.m. to allow the Council time to
review the handouts distributed by Mr. Carvelli, reconvening at
7:56 p.m.
Mr. Francis Dowling, 433 Minnesota, an adjacent property owner to
the Rolling Hills project, read a letter into the record which
indicated the concern he had expressed at the last meeting
regarding the access road had been addressed satisfactorily.and he
has no opposition to the roadway's current location. He did
Page 3
Beaumont City Council
April 22, 1991
state,' however, there are other points that must be considered as
plans for the future develop, and he would expect Robertson Homes
to include him in the negotiations for development of access
plans.
This letter is a matter of record in the Clerk's file.
Council Member MacNeilage requested clarification concerning the
number of 6,000 sq.ft. lots, as it appeared they had been reduced
by 12 acres. Mr. Carvelli said this was not correct, and
explained exactly what is being proposed, with the lotting
tabulations giving a detailed lot by lot count of what will be
included in this project rather than by acreage as was previously
shown.
Council Member MacNeilage then asked if the alternatives which
were discussed at the last meeting were going to be brought
forward tonight.
Mr. Koules explained that CEQA requires that you offer
alternatives on the project, but he wanted to remind the Council
the EIR was certified at the last meeting.
Council Member MacNeilage brought up the question of the earth
being moved shown as being 2.4 million feet, and it appears there
has now been a revision, since it now shows 1.2 million.
Mr. Carvelli explained that the additional study which has been
done now shows there will be 700,000 cu.yds of cut and fill, with
1.2 million being shown as the maximum. He also pointed out this
would be moving the dirt from one location to another on the site.
Discussion continued concerning this question, with Mr. Steve
Stapleton of L. D. King Engineers providing information that for
155 acres, 15,000 yards per lot is generally acceptable in the
engineering trade.
Mayor Connors requested to know where in the park area there would
be room for the children to play, since most of the area appeared
to be used for tennis courts, volley ball courts and a par course.
She also wanted to know if it was all usable area, or were there
sloping sides.
Dave Dodson, of the Planning Center, explained what is being
proposed for the park area, which essentially will be a level
area, with some undulation. He explained further they are
providing four tennis courts, two of which could be used for
basketball as well. He did feel sufficient area was being
provided for field play, such as baseball, etc. as well.
Mayor Connors asked if the park would be fully improved, with Mr.
Carvelli indicating it would be. She then asked if they were
serious about providing the day care center, even if the Council
did not approve the project at less than 6,000 sq.ft. lots.
Mr. Dave Fisher, owner of Robertson Homes, responded to Mayor
Connor's questions, in that they could put all 6,000 sq.ft. lots
there, but chose to try to have a variance in their neighborhoods,
with both bigger homes and more affordable homes. They can
provide all 6,000 sq.ft. lots, but they would prefer not to do
that because the alternative gives a more varied neighborhood.
But they will have the day care one way or the other.
Lengthy discussion continued for more than an hour, with many
questions being asked by the Council addressing all aspects of the
project, including the riparian area, the school site, the park
area, and the access to Highway 60 among others. This discussion
is a matter of record on the tape of this meeting, and is
available upon request.
Let the record show Mr. Koules called attention to the following
changes to the Specific Plan:
Page 4
Beaumont City Council
April 22, 1991
The original specific plan did not show the access going along the
northwest quarter of the property. The packet given to the
Council tonight includes the recommended alignment.
The statement in the Specific Plan at II, page 2, which indicates
the "site access to be obtained via two community roads connected
to an improved 4th Street. A future interchange is planned on
State Route 60 approximately one -half mile from the project site
which will eventually provide a westerly connection to 4th Street.
Internal circulation will be by residential streets to and from
the internal loop road" should be deleted or corrected to show
there is the road going to the northwest corner of the site.
Also, the categories shown in the specific plan are overlapping,
which causes confusion. There is a lot range from 5,200 to 7,800
sq.ft. and from 5,500 to 15,000, from 6,000 to 16,000 and from
7,000 to 18,000. It should be indicated that the Rolling Hills
Ranch lotting tabulation is incorporated into the Specific Plan,
as the number of lots on the lotting tabulations on the blue
line originally presented is different from the lotting
tabulations on the summary sheet.
Mr. Koules then asked the Council to be aware whatever is approved
in the Specific Plan so far as zoning, setbacks, etc., are what
will govern when the tract map is reviewed. The zoning ordinance,
Title 17, will not apply.
Mr. Carvelli indicated they are fully in agreement with the
changes and corrections mentioned by Mr. Koules, as well as
participating in a landscaping /lighting district which was brought
up by the City Manager.
It was summarized that the Specific Plan, as it now stands, is
subject to the deletions that were discussed regarding the
secondary access and the crash gate, and the lot ranges should be
changed because they are confusing, which should be clarified by
the lotting tabulation sheet. Staff is to work with the developer
to make certain all changes are made in the Specific Plan.
Comments from the Council were as follows:
Council Member MacNeilage stated he still was not in favor of less
than 6,000 sq.ft. lots. and the setbacks proposed on the larger
lots.
Council Member McLaughlin stated he was is favor of the project,
as they have made considerable improvements to the project in
their presentation tonight, and did not feel a precedent was being
set.
Council Member Parrott felt it was a good design and he was in
favor of the project.
Council Member Leja said she had been strongly opposed to 5,000
sq.ft. lots, but a lot of changes have been made and she feels
affordable housing is very important to have. With the park which
is planned and the day care center and variances in lots sizes,
this will be a very good project.
Mayor Connors agreed completely with Mr. MacNeilage in opposing
anything less than 6,000 sq.ft. lots. She also felt the Council
should be provided with a new specific plan with all the changes
and deletions included for review before a decision is made. The
fact that all Council Members may not agree to all of the changes
was also brought forward, such as whether they were to list the
improvements to the park and the size of the day care center.
Chris Mechalas of KiddieCorp. addressed the Council indicating the
state sets the standards for the day care center, depending on the
number of children they plan to serve. A 50 -100 child center is
the average.
Page 5
Beaumont City Council
April 22, 1991
The discussion returned to the issue of lotting tabulations, with
the City Manager pointing out that the lots, as shown in the
Specific Plan, are confusing with the overlapping situation, and
the lotting tabulation sheet. given to the Council tonight takes
away the duplication and the overlapping, so the sheet given to
them tonight should be incorporated into the Specific Plan
wherever shown in the Specific Plan.
The price range of the homes, depending on lot size, and their
affordability and ability to qualify for VA and Cal -Vet loans, was
brought up, with Mayor Connors indicating the 6,000 sq.ft. minimum
was set for the aesthetics value, and Council Members Leja and
McLaughlin stating the City has to be aware of the need by young
families for affordability, and must meet those needs as well.
Motion to approve Ordinance No. 701 at its first reading.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Leja, to approve Ordinance No. 701 at its first reading.
AYES: Council Member Leja, McLaughlin and Parrott.
NOES: Council Member MacNeilage and Mayor Connors.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
MOTION CARRIED.
b. RESOLUTION NO. 1991 -14 - Adopting Rolling Hills Specific Plan
SP -90 -3. Applicant: Robertson Homes.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Parrott, to adopt Resolution No. 1991 -14.
AYES: Council Member Leja, McLaughlin and Parrott.
NOES: Council Member MacNeilage and Mayor Connors.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
c. Consider the Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring Program for
the Rolling Hills Ranch Specific Plan and Environmental Impact
Report.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Parrott, to adopt the mitigation monitoring program for the
Rolling Hills Ranch Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report.
AYES: Council Member Leja,
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
The meeting was recessed at 9:39 p.m., reconvening at 9:50 p.m.
6. Request from Mr. Larry Perrault for Discussion Regarding Proposed
Closure of Twin Pines Ranch by County of Riverside, and
Consideration of Adoption of Resolution or Letter in Support of
Twin Pines Ranch.
Mayor Connors called attention to the information contained in
their packet, and commented that she had the opportunity to tour
the ranch about a year ago and was very impressed with the
environment of the ranch and the programs provided to the boys who
were there. She stated further it was a very positive experience,
and she is very much in favor of Twin Pines.
Council Member McLaughlin stated he has also been to the ranch,
and it is a real asset to the area and gets a lot of kids back on
the right track.
Page 6
7.
9.
Beaumont City Council
April 22, 1991
RESOLUTION No. 1991 -18 - In Support of Twin Pines Ranch.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member McLaughlin
to adopt Resolution No. 1991 -18.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Consideration of Applications Received for Appointment to
Fill Vacancy on Planning Commission.
There was brief discussion of the two applications received for
appointment to the Planning Commission.
Motion by Council Member MacNeilage, second by Council Member
Leja, to fill the vacancy on the Planning Commission with Mr.
Michael Burch for the unexpired term of Roger Berg, which term
expires on December 31, 1992.
AYES: Council Member Leja,
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
Report Concerning Cherry Festival Security.
The City Manager requested this agenda item be continued to the
next regular meeting as he had been unable to meet with the Cherry
Festival Association representatives. There were no objections
from the Council to continue this item to May 13, 1991.
Report Regarding Bids Received, and Consideration of Award of Bid,
for Traffic Signal Installations at Sixth Street and Pennsylvania
and at Fourteenth Street and Beaumont Avenue.
The City Manager presented his report concerning the bids
received, a copy of which is a matter of record in the Clerk's
file.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Parrott, to award the bid for traffic signals at Fourteenth Street
and Beaumont Avenue, and Sixth Street and Pennsylvania Avenue to
Sierra Pacific Electrical Construction, in the amount of
$244,240.48, with $184,240.48 charged to Account No. 9050 -6020 and
$60,000.00 charged to Account No. 9080 -6020, and authorize the
Mayor to execute all documents required to complete this project.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
10. Consideration of Proposal from Kleinfelder, Inc. to Develop a
Source Reduction and Recycling Element and Household Hazardous
Waste Element, and Authorization for Mayor to Sign Agreement for
Same.
A report was presented by the City Manager, a copy of which is a
matter of record in the Clerk's file.
There were no questions or comments from the Council.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member
MacNeilage, to approve Kleinfelder, Inc.'s proposal to develop a
Source Reduction and Recycling Element and Household Hazardous
Waste Element for the City of Beaumont in an amount not -to-
exceed $46,860.00, and authorize the Mayor to execute the
agreement covering same.
Page 7
Beaumont City Council
April 22, 1991
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
11. ORDINANCE NO. 699 - SECOND READING - Rezoning Certain Property
From R -A Residential Agriculture) to C -G (Commercial
General). (90- RZ -7).
Motion to read Ordinance No. 699 by title only.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Leja, to read Ordinance No. 699 by title only.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
The ordinance was read by title only by the Deputy City Clerk.
Motion to Adopt Ordinance No. 699 at its second reading.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Leja, to adopt Ordinance No. 699 at its second reading.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
12. ORDINANCE NO. 700 - SECOND READING - Prezoning 6.15 acres from
County R- Residential Single Family) to City RSF
(Residential Single Family). (91- RZ -2).
Motion to read Ordinance No. 700 by title only.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member
McLaughlin, to read Ordinance No. 700 by title only.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
The ordinance was read by title only by the Deputy City Clerk.
Motion to Adopt Ordinance No. 700 at its second reading.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member
McLaughlin, to adopt Ordinance No. 700 at its second reading.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
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.
a. Approval of Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of April 8,
1991.
Page 8
Beaumont City Council
April 22, 1991
b. Approval of Warrants as Audited per Warrant List of April 22,
1991, in the amount of $178,205.27; and Payroll of April 11,
1991, in the amount of $68,984.80.
c. RESOLUTION No. 1991 -17 - Accepting Grants of Easement- Roadway
to Accommodate InstaTTations of Traffic Signals.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member
MacNeilage, to adopt the consent calendar as presented.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Date Set for Next Regular Council Meeting, Monday, May 13, 1991,
at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers.
There being no further business to come before the Council, the
meeting was adjourned at 10:13 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
City Clerk
Page 9
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
APRIL 8, 1991
The Beaumont City Council met in a Regular Meeting on Monday, April
8, 1991, at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor Connors
presiding.
On roll cal l the following Council Members were present: Leja,
MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott and Mayor Connors.
The invocation was given by City Manager Bounds, who then led the
Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
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 - 7 :00 P.M.
4. INTENT TO ADOPT NEGATIVE DECLARATION 91 -ND -6. Applicant: Western
Coating, Inc. Location: South Side of "B" Street between Viele
Ave. and Elm Street. Proposed Construction of a 22,000 sq.ft.
Metal Commercial Building (Including Office Space) on 4.2 acres.
(91- PP -1).
The staff report was presented by Douglas Fazekas, Assistant
Planner, a copy of which is a matter of record in the clerk's
file. The recommendation from the Planning Commission was for
adoption of Negative Declaration 91 -ND -6.
There were no questions from the Council.
The public hearing was opened at 7:05 P.M.
There was no one requesting to speak during this public hearing.
The public hearing was closed at 7:06 P.M.
Council Member Leja pointed out that in the Conditions of Approval
there is a typographical error in No. 9, the word "an" should be
on
She then questioned whether or not the landscaping, as shown in
Item No. 14 of the conditions, would be drought resistant
landscaping, with Mr. Fazekas replying in the affirmative.
There were no other comments or discussion from the Council.
a. Consideration of Adoption of Negative Declaration 91 -ND -6
based on the findings.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Parrott, to adopt Negative Declaration 91 -ND -6, based on the
findings.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
Page 1
Beaumont City Council
April 8, 1991
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
5. INTENT TO ADOPT NEGATIVE DECLARATION 91 -ND -7. Applicant: Aware
Development (formerly Jasper Stone Development, 87- PP -11).
Location: North side of 6th Street between Illinois and American
Avenues, immediately east of_, the Rusty Lantern Restaurant.
Proposed 441 mini - storage units with manager's residence.
(91- PP -2).
Mr. Fazekas presented the staff report, in which the Planning
Commission recommended adoption of the negative declaration. A
copy of this staff report is a matter of record in the Clerk's
file. It should be noted there is a statement contained in the
report that although the use of some 75,005 sq.ft. of building on
3.53 acres is of concern to staff in terms of the site being
overbuilt, it is intended that the conditions of approval will
mitigate the impact of the project and insure the construction of
a high quality project.
Mayor Connors asked what the Planning Commission vote was in
approving this project, with Mr. Fazekas responding that the vote
was 4 -0 in favor.
The public hearing was opened at 7 :10 P.M.
Mr. Dave Sumner: Madame Mayor and Members of the Council, my name
is Dave Sumner, representing Sanborn and Webb Engineers, who is
the engineer for the project, Aware Developers. Obviously we are
a proponent but I don't have anything in detail unless you have
some questions. I would be happy to answer anything you have.
I believe it is fairly detailed from the staff report. And unless
you have some questions I don't know what I could add to it.
Council Member Parrott: Have you made a study. Have you made a
study of the area and is there enough need - call for that extra
space.
Mr. Sumner: Like a market study?
Council Member Parrott: A market study.
Mr. Sumner: No, we have done no market studies for them. We have
done just engineering and technical. We have done no marketing
for them. We are not in that business for them. But apparently
they have, as did Jasper Stone prior, and Aware Developers
apparently thought there was a good market. There is one right
across the street too.
Council Member Parrott: I know that, that is why I asked you
that.
Mr. Sumner: But I don't know. Somebody else in town, another
firm out on Xenia or the next one over, also is planning on
another mini - warehouse. So maybe there is a big market for it out
there with what is happening. I don't know. I really don't know
that question.
Mayor Connors: Are there any other questions. No. Is there
anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Item No. 5. Is there
anyone wishing to speak in opposition to Item No. 5. Anyone else
wishing to speak at all on Item No. 5. We will close the public
hearing.
The public hearing was closed at 7 :12 P.M.
Mayor Connors stated her feeling is that this is too much on that
one piece of property, as she thought there are entirely too many
units being proposed for that piece of property.
Page 2
Beaumont City Council
April 8, 1991
a. Consideration of Adoption of Negative Declaration 91 -ND -7,
based on the findings.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Mayor Connors, not to
adopt Negative Declaration 91 -ND -7 on the finding of the
crowding of the lot.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage and Mayor Connors.
NOES: Council Member McLaughlin and Parrott.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
The negative declaration was not adopted on a vote of 3 -2.
6. PROPOSED CHANGE OF ZONE 90 -RZ -7; GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -GP-
1; and NEGATIVE DECLARATION 91 -ND -4. Applicant: The Beaumont
Partners /Beaumont Land Fund X. Location: Southeast Corner of 1st
Street and Beaumont Avenue.
A proposed zone change on 11.82 acres from R -A (Residential
Agriculture) to C -G (Commercial General) (90- RZ -7); a proposed
general plan amendment from Rural- Residential to Commercial
General (91- GP -1); and adoption of Negative Declaration 91 -ND -4
finding that the proposed zone change and general plan amendment
will not have a significant impact on the environment.
The staff report was presented by Douglas Fazekas, with a
recommendation from the Planning Commission for approval. A copy
of this report is a matter of record in the Clerk's file.
Mayor Connors asked if the two buildings in the surrounding land
uses were inhabited or uninhabited, with Mr. Fazekas advising they
are vacant.
The public Hearing was opened at 7:17 P.M.
Mr. John Carvelli: Mayor Connors and Members of the Council, my
name is John Carvelli of Inland Group in Newport Beach. I thank
you in advance for your consideration. I have nothing to add to
the staff report except that I am here to answer any questions.
Thank you again.
Mayor Connors: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to speak
in favor of Item No. 6.
Dave Sumner: Members of the Council, again, Dave Sumner with
Sanborn and Webb Engineers, 795 E. 6th Street, Suite K in
Beaumont. Again, we are the engineers on the project. If you
have any technical questions regarding this we will be happy to
answer them. It seems like it is a good project, I think, for the
development of what you are trying to do on First Street. If you
have anything technical I will be happy to come back to the
microphone. I'll stand here for a minute.
Mayor Connors: Thank you. Do you have any questions for Mr.
Sumner. Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to speak in
favor of Item No. 6. Is there anyone wishing to spe,ak in
opposition of Item No. 6. Anyone wishing to speak in opposition
to Item 6. Anyone wishing to speak at all on Item No. 6. We will
close the public hearing.
The public hearing was closed at 7:18 P.M.
There were no comments or questions from the Council.
a. Consideration of Adoption of Negative Declaration 91 -ND -4,
based on the findings.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Parrott, to adopt Negative Declaration 91 -ND -4, based on the
findings.
Page 3
Beaumont City Council
April 8, 1991
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
b. ORDINANCE NO. 699 - FIRST READING - Rezoning Certain Property
From R -A Residential Agriculture) to C -G (Commercial
General). (90- RZ -7).
Motion to read Ordinance No. 699 by title only.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member
McLaughlin, to read Ordinance No. 699 by title only.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
The ordinance was read by title only by the Deputy City Clerk.
Motion by Approve Ordinance No. 699 at its first reading.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member
McLaughlin, to approve Ordinance No. 699 at its first reading.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
c. RESOLUTION NO. 1991 -13 - Amending the General Plan to Change
Zoning from Rural Residential to Commercial General. (91-
GP-1).
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member Parrott,
to adopt Resolution No. 1991 -13.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
7. PROPOSED PRE - ANNEXATION CHANGE OF ZONE 91 -RZ -2 AND INTENT TO ADOPT
NEGATIVE DECLARATION 91 -ND -5. Applicant: Allied Group and Helou
Saab, Inc. Location: Southeast corner of Brookside Avenue and
Orchard Heights. A proposed pre- annexation change of zone on
6.15 acres from Riverside County R -1 (Residential Single Family)
to City RSF (Residential Single Family). (91- ANX- 3 -51).
Mr. Fazekas presented the staff report, with a recommendation for
approval by the Planning Commission. A copy of this report is a
matter of record in the Clerk's file.
There were no questions from the Council.
The public hearing was opened at 7:24 P.M.
Mayor Connors: Is there anyone wishing to speak in favor of Item
No. 7. Is there anyone wishing to speak in favor of Item No. 7.
Is there anyone wishing to speak in favor of Item No. 7. Is there
anyone wishing to speak in opposition to Item No. 7. Would you
please give your name and address.
Mr. Clyde King, speaking in opposition: We were in front of the
Planning Commission three weeks ago and we had a room full. The
Page 4
Beaumont City Council
April 8, 1991
reason we don't tonight is because you people look at us like we
are a bunch of dummies and voted in favor anyway. My name is
Clyde King and my property borders this property. I live on
Maureen Drive. My neighbors and I protest the annexation of said
property. This property borders many residents of Cherry Valley
and I personally don't want the possibility of high density
housing. .
This property is also in the sphere of Cherry Valley and we are
trying to incorporate, and we would like to keep it that way. I
have talked to most of my neighbors and they all protest
annexation of said property. We are a community now, and we want
to keep it that way. We don't need the chance of increased
vandalism, increased traffic, or the possibility of lower property
values. I moved to Cherry Valley to get out of crowded
communities. Please let us keep it that way. Thank you.
Mayor Connors: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like
to speak in opposition to this item at the microphone. Is there
anyone else that would like to speak in opposition to Item No. 7.
Is there anyone wishing to speak at all on Item No. 7. We will
close the public hearing.
The public hearing was closed at 7:26 P.M.
Council Member Leja asked isn't it true that this is not a
specific plan for this development.
Mr. Fazekas confirmed this was not a specific plan, but an
annexation.
Council Member Leja continued that it is her understanding all the
Council is doing tonight is considering the request of the
property owner to become part of the City of Beaumont.
Mr. Fazekas again confirmed this is correct, and that this
property could annex to the City of Beaumont only when the Deutsch
property was approved for annexation.
The City Manager pointed out this does carry a pre- annexation
zoning of single family only.
Mrs. Leja then stated that, in light of the fact it is the
property owner' s ri ght to sel ect i n whi ch area they prefer to be
part of at this time, it would appear they prefer to be part of
the City of Beaumont, which is their choice, and they know of the
current procedures that are underway by the residents of Cherry
Valley to become a City. So this property owner has made a choice
based on what they feel is in their best interests.
Council Member Parrott stated that property owners do have a right
to do the best they can with their property, taking into
consideration their adjacent neighbors, and he has no objection to
this application.
Council Member McLaughlin said the only comment he could make at
this time, that hasn't already been stated, is that he knows the
land there and it is adjacent to what is going to be.built. With
the improvements which will be taking place over the next thirty
years, he does not believe that - as the man stated - that this
will decrease the value of his property. On the contrary, it is
his feeling it will increase the value by a considerable amount.
Being familiar with Maureen Drive, they are a single family
residential area, so he cannot see exactly what Mr. King's
objection is.
Council Member MacNeilage had a question for staff in that this is
his first time in seeing an annexation contingent upon another
annexation, and wondered if this is something that is common.
Page 5
Beaumont City Council
April 8, 1991
The City Manager answered it is a normal thing that is done,
especially since the Deutsch annexation is considerably ahead of
this one, but if this one reached LAFCO prior to the Deutsch
annexation all they would do would be hold it until the Deutsch
annexation is complete, or hear it the same day if it were ready
at that time.
There were no other comments or questions from the Council.
a. Consideration of Adoption of Negative Declaration 91 -ND -5,
based on the findings.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Leja, to adopt Negative Declaration 91 -ND -5, based on the
findings.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
b. ORDINANCE NO. 700 - FIRST READING - Prezoning 6.15 acres from
County R- Residential Single Family) to City RSF
(Residential Single Family). (91- RZ -2).
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member
MacNeilage, to read Ordinance No. 700 by title only.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
The ordinance was read by title only by the Deputy City Clerk.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member
MacNeilage, to approve Ordinance No. 700 at its first reading.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
c. RESOLUTION NO. 1991 -15 - Requesting the Local Agency Formation
Commission to Take Proceedings for the Annexation of
Uninhabited Territory Pursuant to the Local Government
Reorganization Act of 1985.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member
MacNeilage, to adopt Resolution No. 1991 -15.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
8. PROPOSED CHANGE OF ZONE 90 -RZ -9; SPECIFIC PLAN SP -90 -3; and
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR -90 -3. Applicant: Robertson
Homes. Location: South side of Highway 60, across from Western
Knolls Road, and running southerly for a distance of approximately
2,000 ft. to a line approximately 2,500 ft. westerly of the west
end of 4th Street.
A proposed zone change on 155 acres from. Planned Unit Development
(PUD) to Specific Planning Area (SPA 4.1 dwelling units per acre)
(90- RZ -9).
Page 6
Beaumont City Council
April 8, 1991
The proposed adoption of a Specific Plan on 155 acres to include
single family detached units on min. 5000, 6000 and 7000 sq.ft.
lots with a density of 4.1 dwelling units per acre, for a maximum
of 632 single family units 11 acres of open space and parks; 13
acres of major roads, 10 acres within the residential area as a
potential elementary school site; and a 2 acre neighborhood
retail /commercial center. (SP- 90 -3).
Certification that the final environmental impact report has been
completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and consideration of findings that mitigation measures
have been taken regarding any significant environmental impacts
identified. (EIR- 90 -3).
The staff report was received from Douglas Fazekas, with a
recommendation for approval by the Planning Commission. A copy of
this report is a matter of record in the Clerk's file.
There were no questions from the Council relating to this staff
report and recommendation.
The public hearing was opened at 7:38 P.M.
Dave Dodson: Good evening Honorable Mayor Connors and City
Council Members. My name is Dave Dodson and I am with the
Planning Center. I am the planner, as well as the representative
for the Rolling Hills Ranch project. What I would like to do, if
it is acceptable by you, is give a brief presentation as to some
of the issues surrounding the project as it stands.
Mayor Connors: All right.
Mr. Dodson: (Speaking away from the microphone). With me this
evening are several other consultants that are on board for the
project. The developer, Joe DiCristina, of Robertson Homes.
Next to him is John Carvelli with the Inland Group, a partner.
Adjacent to him is Tom Ryan, who is doing the environmental
studies for the Chambers Group. Other members are Steve
Stapleton, civil engineer with L. D. King. Providing market
research is Bob McFarland with Market Profiles. And doing soils
engineering is Ted Johnson and Doug Cooper, with Leighton and
Associates.
I would like to also thank the Planning Director, Steve Koules,
who is not here this' evening, and Doug Fazekas for their
professionalism and support throughout the course of the project.
We worked quite a while with them in working. things out, and we
feel real good about the project where it stands.
I would also like to commend the Council for their vision as to
the future where the City of Beaumont is going. Especially the
parks., open space and City beautification program and concept. I
think that is real strong in creating some identity for the City,
and it is very refreshing to see.
We feel that Beaumont does not want to be just another sprawling
City within LA's megalopolis, and actually seeks to find their own
identity. I think we have come a long way from John Thomas's 3500
lot size, high density proposal. That was quite some time ago.
In synopsis, the Rolling Hills Ranch consists of 155 acres at the
western end of the City, just south of Highway 60. There are
mixed use land uses. At the north is State Route 60. At the
northeast corner there is a fruit stand. Next to that there is an
inactive landfill. In the southeast corner there is the
wastewater treatment facility. South of this is a farm building.
On the left side, as Doug mentioned, is the proposed Willow
Springs project. In the northwest corner is the future overpass
interchange proposal on State Route 60.
Page 7
Beaumont City Council
April 8, 1991
Primary access to the project will be along 4th Street. We have
developed a loop road system called Silverado Trail in order to
provide access throughout the project for the residents. In
developing this plan our goal was to create a sense of community
for a broad range of residents. Homes on 5,000 sq.ft. lots are
for seniors, young families and first time home buyers. These
folks can purchase their first homes in the community and begin
their roots here. This project also provides move -up
opportunities to 6 and 7,000 sq.ft. lots so these folks can move
while still remaining in the same community.
Besides the residential uses there is a support commercial center,
two acres, that has been located to provide support services
throughout the community. We have also located a centralized
park. Adjacent to that is a proposed school site of ten acres.
Both the school site and the park will be linked by a trails
network that runs throughout the community and will tie into the
Cooper's Creek regional trail network down here along Cooper's
Creek. The park will remain in its natural condition due to the
sensitive riparian habitat that exists there.
Because we feel this project will be the western gateway to the
City, we have also provided - we have taken several steps to
insure that. The first step was to create an entry sequence to
the City that was aesthesti cal ly pleasing. To achieve this we
created a twenty -five foot landscape beautification area that runs
along the north side of the project. This will consist of berm,
landscape planting and a textured wall that will undulate as one
passes along State Route 60 in order to provide visual interest.
Secondly we designed this project so as to create neighborhoods.
In doing so most streets in the project are cul -du -sacs. They
splay off the road system as so. This will soften and break up
the row house effect along the freeway. One of the big concerns
is if you have a frontage road here, have homes lined up along
there, from State Route 60 you just see a row of homes. What
happens, in fact - if you look in the project booklet that was
provided to you - you will see not only the project entry on the
cover, along 4th Street, but also you will see in there a typical
cul -du -sac and these pie shaped lots that would have homes
oriented in such a way that it would undulate along the freeway
here.
We feel that a community that prides itself on quality will tend
to attract quality builders. Robertson Homes has nation -wide
experience, and prides themselves on very high standards, and a
reputation for building quality communities.
I would like to thank the Council for your time and consideration
this evening. That concludes our presentation. Myself as well as
the other consultants are available to answer any questions that
you might have.
Mayor Connors: Does anyone have any questions of Mr. Dodson.
Council Member Parrott: I would like to make a statement, Mayor.
Mayor Connors: Excuse me. Did you have a question of staff.
Council Member Leja: Of his staff, his consultants.
Mayor Connors: Oh, okay. Mrs. Leja was a little bit ahead of you
Mr. Parrott.
City Manager: You should hold the comments until after the public
hearing.
Mayor Connors: Until after the public hearing. Okay. Is there
anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Item No. 8. Is there
anyone wishing to speak in opposition to Item No. 8. Okay, would
Page 8
Beaumont City Council
April 8, 1991
you give your name and address for the record please.
Roger Berg: My name is Roger Berg, 1164 Euclid, Beaumont. I have
got a couple of questions. Maybe I didn't quite hear Mr. Fazekas
correctly. You said 45 foot minimum frontage on those lots.
Mr. Fazekas: No. The 45 foot was the cul -du -sac frontage
requested by Jim Dotson. And Mr. Koules now asks that it be
deferred until tentative tract map stage.
Mr. Berg: What are your minimum frontages on the lots that you
are proposing.
Mr. Fazekas: For cul -du -sacs we are using Mr. Dotson's request of
45 feet.
Mr. Berg: Okay, that is my question. I started looking at this.
5,000 sq.ft. lot - I think, correct me if I am wrong - the minimum
lot size in the city, normally, is 7,000 sq.ft. Is that the
minimum usually - in the ordinance.
City Manager: 6,000.
Mr. Berg: It has went down to six - okay.
City Manager: No, it has never been above six.
Mr. Berg: It was at one time - it was 7,000. Maybe it was many
years ago before you were here Mr. Bounds. One time they had a 70
foot minimum frontage. Okay. The question I got here is I
understand now the minimum frontage is 60 feet. Is that correct,
in the ordinance.
Mr. Fazekas: In the ordinance - it is correct to say so.
Mr. Berg: Okay, we have a 60 foot minimum frontage. With a 45
foot frontage on there, and a 5,000 sq.ft. lot, you are not going
to get very much building room. At 5,000 square feet you are
going to have a back yard that is very small, and you are going to
have a front yard that is practically nothing. You are going to
have cars that are going to be parked in the driveway. What is
your minimum frontage setback they are proposing here.
Mr. Fazekas: It is 20 feet.
Mr. Berg: Normally it is 25
Mr. Fazekas: Well 25 - excuse me - 25 on the 6,000 and 7,000. It
is 20 feet for the 5,000.
Mr. Berg: What you are going to have. I don't know if you are
familiar with Peacock Valley in Banning. Those were developed for
seniors, and when Peacock II went in a lot of people with families
and everything else moved into those homes and crowded in there.
And you have cars parked all over the street - you have got
people crowded in and there isn't enough room to move. And, my
personal opinion is that a 5,000 sq.ft. lot is not big enough.
What you are going to have out there is a gateway coming into
your community - they might be nice homes - but you are going to
have them so clustered in some areas there, if you don't raise
that minimum square footage up, you know, it is kind of ironic
when you have got here in the community in Beaumont itself proper,
which is the nucleus of the community, a minimum of 60 foot
minimum, and we can't seem to split some of these parcels in town
that are maybe unique, and here we are going to go and bend over
backwards to get them a 45 foot minimum -- I don't think, if you
are going to do justice here -- then maybe the City should look at
other parcels in town that maybe people have been trying to get
done and they haven't had an opportunity, and if we are going to
Page 9
Beaumont City Council
April 8, 1991
give it in here, which is the gateway, which is spreading out to
the more open space, you are not giving the benefit to the
residents that are here. And I am not sure if that is what they
want. That is going to be kind of crowded in there, and I, for
one, wouldn't want to see homes on that small lots.
I personally believe 7,000 feet should be the minimum size,
because you build a home on 5,000 sq.ft. lot, the most you are
going to get on there is about 1600 sq.ft. maximum, and you are
just going to have all land. That is all I wanted to say.
Mayor Connors: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like
to speak in opposition to Item No. 8. Anyone else that would like
to speak in opposition. We have someone that would like to speak
neutral on Item No. 8. Francis Dowling. Would you please give
your name and address for the record.
Francis M. Dowling: Francis Dowling, 433 Minnesota, Beaumont.
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council. I would like to make
some of these comments here. Dear Beaumont City Council Members.
The City of Beaumont General Plan elements on circulation and
streets shows a frontage road for future plans along the south
side of Highway 60, which would be along the north boundary of
Robertson Homes Rolling Hills Ranch. This future frontage road
and access points to Highway 60 are further discussed in F. Jarold
Walsh's letter of January 24, 1991 to Mr. Joe DiCristina of
Robertson Homes and Mr. John J. Carvelli of Inland Group, Inc.
What future plans do you expect for this frontage road and what
will be its relation to the Rolling Hills Ranch specific plan?
Elaine Hill of Best, Best and Krieger represented me and responded
to the Rolling Hills Ranch EIR on December 26, 1990. As explained
in her letter, the EIR text is legally incorrect regarding the
unnamed emergency road near the northeast portion of their
property which would have connected to my access driveway in order
to make access to Highway 60. I was never contacted by any person
or entity regarding this road even though it is accessed to
Highway 60 through my property. When we tried to get information
regarding this emergency road we were referred from one agency to
another, but no individual or entity claimed to know anything
about who planned this emergency access road.
We are not opposing the Rolling Hills Ranch development. We want
their development to be successful. We will be glad to meet with
Rolling Hills Ranch to work out access to Highway 60. This was
discussed in the February 1, 1991 letter from P. Jarold Walsh to
M. Joe DiCristina of Robertson Homes and Mr. John J. Carvelli of
Inland Group, Inc.
My main concern would be that whatever plans for access to Highway
60 are made would be mutually beneficial and are legally
acceptable to all parties concerned.
Mayor Connors: Thank you. Does anyone have any questions of Mr.
Dowling. Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to speak on
this item. Would you like to explain some of the things that Mr.
Dowling has just said. Whether these things-are correct or not.
And address as well what you wanted to address with Mr. Berg.
Joe DiCristina: Good evening, Mayor Connors, Members of the City
Council. My name is Joe DiCristina. I am Vice - President,
Planning, for Robertson Homes, the builder of the proposed Rolling
Hills Ranch. The issue with Mr. Dowling is, I believe, an issue
of confusion. When we got involved in the project - there is
an access point on our project in the north west corner where
trucks enter the property, and they park and people purchase fruit
at his fruit stand. And we thought at one time that was the
circulation element and that we had access to the freeway at that
point.
Since that time we have realized and learned, through both the use
Page 10
Beaumont City Council
April 8, 1991
of our attorneys and also working with Jim Dotson, the City
Engineer, that that is not available as a.n access point. That is
why we proposed on the northwest corner the access point. At the
present time we are not contemplating any access to Mr. Dowling's
property on that corner.
What we propose is just a basic block wall condition right there
without any kind of future access. In the event we could work out
some kind of an arrangement with him to provide access, we would
be amenable to that, but at the present time we are not proposing
that due to the issues of limited access to the freeway.
Mayor Connors: So the way you have it now there is no affect on
Mr. Dowling.
Mr. DiCristina: No there is not. It is just - I think it is
confusion because we got our attorneys involved and they were
discussing it, and the last letter we received from our attorney
was in February, which stated that we had cleared up the issue and
it was no longer a concern of our group. When we get into the
tentative map stage, we are willing to work with Mr. Dowling and
the City Engineer to see if there can be a solution worked out to
benefit him, if he would like us to try to get on to the freeway
at his property. But at the present time our project is not
proposing any access to his land.
Mayor Connors: Is it clear then, at this point, to Mr. Dowling
who he should be in contact with. Because he said he has had some
problems knowing who he should be talking to here. So is it
possible for you to get together to see if you can iron out your
problems, if you have one.
Mr. DiCristina: Yes. Where we have an opportunity, we can work
out'an opportunity.
Mayor Connors: Okay. You did want to say something in response
to Mr. Berg.
Mr. DiCristina: Yes ma'am. Thanks for giving me the opportunity
to discuss the 5,000 sq.ft.- lot issue. Many other professionals
in your city that we have worked with have asked about the lots.
Our vision for the Rolling Hills Ranch community is to create a
balanced community. Our idea is to provide housing for different
types of residents for the community. Both 5,000, 6,000, 7,000
sq.ft. lots. We envision a community which would provide housing
for young families, price sensitive seniors, first time home
buyers. Also young families with children. These individuals
need to buy a smaller home in the project, and as their needs
change they can move up to a larger home within the community.
The idea is they can set down roots in Beaumont. They can begin
to send their children to the school site. They can begin to
establish themselves in Beaumont. And what we are trying to do is
provide them an opportunity to move up within the project without
having to leave the area where they may be setting up
relationships with friends, family, whatever.
The group I work with, Robertson Homes, is a
received a unanimous vote of approval by your
What I would like to do is talk to you about
prepared called the Rolling Hills Ranch. Wit
prototype that we are proposing for the 5,000
can see these are quality homes.
quality builder. We
Planning Commission.
this booklet that we
hin it is some of the
sq.ft. lots. As you
Mayor Connors: That is the same one that is in the agenda, isn't
it.
Mr. DiCristina: Yes ma'am, it is. I just wanted to call your
attention to it because we are building this in northern
California. We are having a tremendous response right now for
Page 11
Beaumont City Council
April 8, 1991
this prototype.
We had some unique issues that came up when started looking at the
property. If I can go to the map I can show you why we propose
the 5,000 sq.ft. lots in the area we propose them in. When we
purchased the property we began to look at the adjacent area. We
have Highway 60 to the north, which impacts the project with noise
and air issues. We have along the eastern side of the property an
inactive landfill site. The Riverside County landfill that was
closed about twenty years ago. We also have the wastewater
facility which is going through a major expansion. A farm
building down here to the south. And then, as Mr. Dodson
explained earlier, we have the Willow Springs project to the west.
Our idea for the 5,000 sq.ft. lots was to place them along these
areas that are not particularly areas that would be amenable to
higher end housing. We thought we would have a buffer area for
first time home buyers. Individuals who are purchasing their
first homes. Price sensitive seniors. Where we could protect the
values of the interior of the project. The 6,000 and 7,000 - by
creating a buffer zone around the area. That i s• not to say the
5,000 sq.ft. project is not a quality project. We are still
providing a school site within here in order to have homes around
the site, and integrate that with the young families who would be
living in those units.
The other issues that came up when we began looking at the project
was the market issues. I would like Bob McFarland to discuss this
this evening.
Mayor Connors: Your name and address for the record.
Bob McFarland: My name is Bob McFarland. I am with the firm
cal l ed Market Prof i l es i n Costa Mesa, Cal i fornia, at 3188 Ai rway
Avenue. Honorable Mayor, Council Members. We have conducted a
number of market studies over the last fifteen months on behalf of
the applicant. And what we have found in the Pass region is that
over 85% of the new homes that have been offered for sale have
been sited on 5,000 sq.ft. lots or smaller. We have also found
that the sale or absorption of new homes on 5,000 sq.ft. lots has
been significantly higher than for new homes on larger lots. We
have also found that about 70% of new home sales in recent months
have been in the price range of a hundred to a hundred and thirty
thousand. It is economically feasible to offer homes in that
price range on 5,000 sq.ft. lots.
We have also done about - we have completed about 24 market
studies on master planned communities, or specific plans, within
the Inland Empire in the last, say, fifteen to eighteen months,
and the rule of thumb for those communities throughout the Inland
Empire is to offer a variety of lot sizes for two basic market
reasons. One, is you appeal to a broader prospective of home
buyers, and number two, you actually create an incubator of demand
within the community where people can move up in price range and
the size of home.
So I just wanted to call that to your attention, and those factors
are cited on the last page of the literature we passed out. There
are some other factors there too. I am available for any
questions.
Mayor Connors: Does anyone have any questions. Mrs. Leja has a
question.
Council Member Leja: Mr. McFarland. I have been kind of
conducting my own market study of the area. I think that - I was
curious you included the Beaumont- Banning area in your study. If
you just took out Banning, what would be left in Beaumont as far
as the percentages.
Page 12
Beaumont City Council
April 8, 1991
Mr. McFarland: Well, as far as the percentage, I couldn't tell
you off the top of my head, but the reason we include those two
cities together is because they cater to a mutual home buyer. A
more price sensitive senior, and a young family homebuyer is
attracted to both those areas within this region, and that is why
we addressed it together from a marketing standpoint.
As far as within the City of Beaumont there is one project by WDS
Development that is a minimum lot size, I believe, is 5,500 sq.ft.
And that is one project within your City that I am aware of.
Council Member Leja: I am curious to know that when you were
doing your study, where did you get your figures. Where did you
get your information from.
Mr. McFarland: We are one of two firms in Southern California
that serve every new home project over ten units throughout
Southern California and every County other than central Los
Angeles. We do that every twelve weeks, and have for about
fifteen years. We probably have the most extensive data base of
new homes in the industry. I would be happy to share . . .
Council Member Leja: Why didn't you show up with the Beaumont
figures.
Mr. McFarland: Well I just kind of toplined those here. This is
the bottom line so to speak.
Council Member Leja: So, would you consider the Board of
Realtors, or realty offices, a good source for this information
for the average citizen.
Mr. McFarland: Not for new homes. For resales, yes, absolutely.
But for new home sales it is a different ballgame. Most new home
sales, and most of the new home mainstream in Southern California,
are not reported or recorded through MLS.
Council Member Leja: So when we have resales by these first time
homebuyers that are in the 5,000 sq.ft. lots, and I would
anticipate they are not going to stay in those homes very long,
especially if they have families - because I am one of those
demographics that you have been discussing - and - how are they
going to sell their house to move up. You know. From what I
understand - I have been talking to realty offices - the Board of
Realtors - and they looked at this - they said, sure, if you
include Banning, because you include Sun Lakes and a lot of
retirement communities, which, right now, are having problems
selling their homes because the lot sizes are too small. The
homes are too small. The price is too high. First time
homebuyers - I can't see paying - if they have any sense
whatsoever so far as spending their money, they are not going to
buy - unless, of course, they are moving here from Germany where
they can't get land, I can't see where they are going to be able
to put money into a lot size that is that small.
And when you are looking at that many homes, and you are looking
at families, you say what - how many - I think the average is each
family is what - 2.3 children - in each family.
Mr. McFarland: Somewhere between two and three, right.
Council Member Leja: Okay. Some fraction - I have questions
about the park availability for these children because obviously
there is not going to be a big enough yard for them to play in.
Mr. McFarland: Well, in most new home projects in Southern
California, there is a 20 foot rear yard setback requirement -
whether it is a 6,000, 7,000, 10,000 . . .
Council Member Leja: But we are not most Southern California
Page 13
Beaumont City Council
April 8, 1991
cities. And what we have anticipated, I think we have addressed
the first time homebuyer in this city very well. And if you look
at resales, there are a lot of first time homebuyers that have
already bought the small lots. The small homes, and we are
waiting to go up to the larger houses. Larger lots, because we do
have families, and unfortunately, as the quality of developer as
Robertson Homes, I am afraid that some of the information that you
have been given that has been misdirected to them, because I
frankly don't see the market there. The realtors that I have
spoken with, and there have been several offices, have looked at
this and they don't see the market for it. And they don't see how
it is even feasible for you to have that quality of a home on that
size of a lot. And I have a lot a problems with that small of a
size of lot.
Like I said, I think we have been - worked with some other
developers that it would be an insult to their project for us to
look at a 5,000 sq.ft. lot at this point. And I am speaking as
one of the demographics - one of those people that you are hoping
would buy one of those homes. Or buy one of the six or seven
thousand - I am not going to buy a home in an area that is 5,000
sq.ft. lots around me.
Mr. McFarland: Council Member, I am not here to debate you. I
appreciate your opinion. I can just relate to you the facts that
we have found, and I think they are reliable. I wouldn't debate
with a local realtor, if that is their opinion, but what we have
found throughout the Inland Empire is what I have shared with you.
Council Member Leja: Yes. I also think that people who live in
the area - that do business in the area - like the local realtors,
tend to know the market a lot better than when you compare with
the Inland Empire, because, like I said, we are a unique city, and
we have a different vision from what the other cities in the area
have.
Mr. McFarland: Does anyone else have any questions. Let me make
one more comment on Presley's development. It has been one of the
most successful projects ever done for retirement households. I
don't know if someone gave you an erroneous opinion, but they have
not had any - their sales have not suffered because they have
smaller lots. That is a misconception, in terms of sales.
Mayor Connors: Mr. Parrott, do you have anything.
Council Member Parrott: Not of Mr. McFarland, but I do have one
statement I would like to make. And this would probably be
directed to the Robertson Homes or the Inland Group. Having
reviewed many environmental impact statements, including the space
shuttle, I would like to commend the Chambers Group on their
study, which included most all items. That is all I have to say.
Mayor Connors: Mr. Mclaughlin, do you have anything.
Council Member McLaughlin: I don't have any - what I would like
to add since Jan brought up the 5,000 sq.ft. area - what would it
take away from that area in, say, in number of dwellings if you
went to 6,000 and had six and seven thousand. What are we talking
about. Has that been estimated or figured out.
Mr. Dodson: I would be glad to answer that question. We actually
have not taken a look at that in terms of numbers and where we are
at. Where we would be. So, unfortunately, I don't have those
numbers right off the top at this time.
I would like to mention though, if you will look at this graphic
over here, it does show we are looking at - the minimum street
frontage would occur typically on the cul -du -sac condition, in
which case you have your forty -five foot radius here. When you do
that on a pie shaped lot, your lot size increases dramatically.
Page 14
Beaumont City Council
April 8, 1991
And the gentleman who spoke earlier, who was concerned about
whether or not you could build on it - in fact you have much more
- much larger building pad then you would if you were to build on,
say, a 5,000 sq.ft. lot that would be typical along a regular
street. So, your 5,000 sq.ft. lots along cul -du -sacs get
considerably larger - from ten to twelve thousand square feet -
in order to build that. And, of course, like I said, along the
freeway, when these homes are oriented in such a way, it doesn't
create a monotonous row of houses.
Again, getting back to the 5,000 sq.ft. lot issue. Our biggest
concern were surrounding land uses, and you can't build,
necessarily, a high end product adjacent to a sewer treatment
facility or adjacent to a freeway. So that was one of the reasons
where we came in with 5,000 sq.ft. lots, as well as their
marketability. In our consideration for price sensitive seniors
and, again, young families looking for a home.
Again, you know, we feel there is a market out there for this
product . . .
Mayor Connors: I think you have adequately answered the question
of 5,000 sq.ft. lots. Mr. MacNeilage, do you have any questions.
Council Member MacNeilage: Yes, I have a question. Before you
sit down Mr. Dodson. On.the parks that you proposed for the area.
Were there any talks with the Willow Springs project to link the
park with them also.
Mr. Dodson: Yes, in fact, if you will look at the City's overall
regional trail system and parks network. What we have done - you
will see there is a drainage that runs throughout the project.
What we have done, we have tried to mimic and follow that drainage
pattern. And that surface drainage actually runs and then flows
out into the riparian area along Cooper's Creek. A trail network
will, of course, tie into the regional trails network which will
run through the Willow Springs project and be part of an
equestrian area in that.
In terms of other linkages, adjacent - we are not really sure what
the land uses are going to be there. It could possibly be
residential - it could possibly be a commercial center, in which
case there might be some conflicts in providing that type of
access - so we thought that because of the regional trail that
will be located along Cooper's Creek, the ideal location to tie a
trails network together, and put it into the project, would be
that location at this point in time.
Council Member MacNeilage: Thank you. I have another question
for staff, if I may at this time. Mr. Fazekas, the earth being
moved on this project. Does this seem like an awful lot of dirt
to be moved for this particular project - the size of the project.
Mr. Fazekas: Yes. Due to Mr. Jim Dotson's concerns, he did raise
as an issue for the Planning Department to keep in mind that 2.4
million cubic yards of soil to be moved is a high amount of soil
to be removed in the City of Beaumont. It is the largest removal
of soil at any time in this city, or would be.
Council Member MacNeilage: If the lot sizes were larger would as
much earth need to be moved for this project to be as well
planned.
Mr. Fazekas: I am not a City Engineer so I really couldn't answer
that question.
Council Member MacNeilage: That was kind of an unfair question, I
guess.
Mayor Connors: Is there anyone else wishing to speak on Item No.
8. Please give your name and address for the record.
Page 15
Beaumont City Council
April 8, 1991
Evelyn Coulson: I am Evelyn Coulson, 36523 West Highway 60, in
Beaumont. I haven't heard anyone address or comment on the fact
that Mr. Dowling, who has been a fruit orchardist here for forty
years, anyone concerned about his access in and out of his
property. I do not believe his property touches on 4th Street.
Nobody has commented on this.
I am also aware that the State of California has given the people,
all the people's property on 60, the right to have access to the
freeway - it is so written in our deeds - to the highway once the
freeway is in. An.d I do not see any allowing for that. I know
your current General Plan shows this in this map. I understand
you are working on a new General Plan, but to implement that
wouldn't you have to have it approved first. I would appreciate
some comment on this. I do think if you look at this you can see
the impact you are putting on Mr. Dowling's ranch at this time.
Thank you.
Mayor Connors: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to speak
on Item No. 8. We will close the public hearing.
The public hearing was closed at 8:12 P.M.
Mayor Connors asked if was possible to hold discussion in a
general way before the action items were considered, with an
affirmative answer from the City Manager.
Council Member MacNeilage stated he believed it was Mr. Dodson who
made the comment about the marketability of the 5,000 sq.ft. lot,
and he personally felt a 6,000 or 7,000 sq.ft. lot has just as
good a marketability as a 5,000 sq.ft. He then said he would like
to know more about a secondary or alternative plan mentioned
somewhere in the specific plan.
Mr. Fazekas responded that more than likely he is referring to the
alternative under CEQA for the project site.
Mayor Connors added that it was an alternative, but it did not
make clear what lot sizes it meant, or what would happen if you
made it 6,000 instead of five, with Mr. Fazekas agreeing that was
correct, but that information was not submitted to staff and,
apparently, they would need to do further research on that due to
the fact they were proposing 5,000 and were going to go with
5,000.
Council Member Leja indicated she agreed with Mr. MacNeilage that
she would like to see the alternative. It states in their agenda
packet that Robertson Homes proposed the alternative where they
reduced from 632 dwelling units to 390 dwelling units - and they
suggested that as an alternative. Mr. Fazekas again agreed this
was included, but they didn't elaborate any further on that
information.
Council Member Leja asked how the Council could get more
elaboration on this alternative, with the City Manager replying
they could continue the item and ask for additional information on
this alternative.
Council Member Parrott stated he would like to see larger areas
also as it appeared 6,000 sq.ft. would probably be good for that
area, although he can understand why they are making it less
square footage property along the freeway and across from the
sewage plant. But he did feel 6,000 would be better, and he
thought they would be able to sell them too.
Mayor Connors asked when this came up at the Planning Department,
she presumed they were told our code specifically stated 6,000
sq.ft. lots, and yet this project has come in at 5,000 sq.ft.
The City Manager clarified that the 5,000 sq.ft. lot can only be
placed on property that is zoned high density as a buffer or
Page 16
Beaumont City Council
-April 8, 1991
allowance for extra size of lots, and that is in the zoning
ordinance. He continued if this were just RSF property, then the
5,000 sq.ft. would not be allowable. However, he believes it was
about three years ago, that due to the large number of acres that
were high density, this was allowable, so they are allowed to
bring it in, and that is as far as staff can go with that.
Mayor Connors pointed out she was hearing a lot of euphemisms here
about the 5,000 sq.ft. lots and the kind of housing you can build
on it, and the high end housing and protecting the six and seven
thousand square lots, and all of that type of thing.
She continued that the aesthetics of the City are also important,
and she did not think the City wanted everything crowded in, or
that the City wants 5,000 sq.ft. lots, and Mr. Berg was completely
right in what he had to say, as were the Council Members.
She also asked that the issues which Mrs. Coulson and Mr. Dowling
have brought up on the access be clarified, as the explanations
don't seem to have completely satisfied them, and she would like
to be sure there is nothing wrong with that particular end of it
so the City would not have a problem for them.
She concluded that as it stands, she would not be prepared to vote
for 5,000 sq.ft. lots.
Council Member McLaughlin asked about the trucks that are parking
on the west side where it would enter into Francis Dowling's fruit
stand, and whether that property belongs to Highway 60, or to
Rolling Hills, and if so, have they been using this property just
because it is vacant and accessible to them.
Mr. DiCristina replied that the land is owned by CalTrans as it is
part of the right -of -way for the freeway.
Mayor Connors brought forward the fact she was also impressed with
the EIR as it seemed to be much more thorough and informative, as
well as containing very concise mitigation measures, especially in
the riparian portion and protection of the plants and animals.
Responding to a question from Mayor Connors regarding the
statement made by Mr. Dowling that the EIR text was legally
incorrect, with the discussion appearing to point to the fact they
felt it had been, but they were correcting it, Mr. Dodson stated
that at one point in time they were under the assumption that Mr.
Dowling's road that accessed the fruit stand was, in fact, a
public road, and they could provide secondary emergency access
that tied into that road. It was a mistake on their part to
assume that it was a public road when, in fact, it was a private
road, and this has now been corrected in the specific plan and the
EIR, which have been revised to reflect that change.
a. Consideration of Certification that the Final Environmental
Impact Report has been completed in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Leja, to certify that the Final Environmental Impact Report EIR -
90-3 has been completed in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
b. Consider Adopting Findings that changes or alterations have
been required in and incorporated into the project which
mitigate or lessen the significant environmental effects as
identified in the environmental impact report. (EIR -90 -3)
Page 17
9.
10.
Beaumont City Council
April 8, 1991
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Leja, to adopt findings that changes or alternatives have been
required in and incorporated into the project which mitigate or
lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in
environmental impact report EIR -90 -3.
AYES:. Council Member Leja,
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
c. ORDINANCE NO. 701 - FIRST READING - Rezoning 155 acres from
Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Specific Planning Area (SPA
4.1 dwelling units per acre) (90- RZ -9).
d. RESOLUTION NO. 1991 -14 - Adopting Rolling Hills Specific Plan
SP -90 -3. Applicant: Robertson Homes.
e. Consider the Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring Program for
the Rolling Hills Ranch Specific Plan and Environmental Impact
Report.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member MacNeilage
to continue the remainder of the items under Agenda No. 8 to the
next regular meeting of April 22, 1991.
AYES: Council Member Leja,
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
The meeting was recessed at 8:26 p.m., reconvening at 8:37 p.m.
A Presentation of Pros and Cons of Redevelopment by M. F. "Mike"
Whipple.
Mr. Whipple presented his report on the pros and cons of
redevelopment to the Council, with a question and answer period
following the presentation.
Request from Mr. Gregory D. Barker for Discussion of a Smoking
Policy for the City of Beaumont.
Mr. Gregory D. Barker presented his request to the City Council
stating he was not trying to cause a fight or any animosity
towards anyone personally or otherwise, but just wanted to express
his viewpoint on this issue. He went on to state smokers do have
a right to smoke, however he did not think they have the right to
deprive anyone from breathing clean air. He continued that he
does not believe the general public and taxpayers should be paying
for any employee's bad habit or addiction.
Additionally, he stated that Beaumont is a beautiful community
with a healthy atmosphere. The general public and employees
should have the right to a clean and healthy environment within
the public buildings of the community. He then asked if there
were any questions, with no questions being asked by the Council.
Mr. Barker asked if there would be a smoking policy considered at
this time, with Mayor Connors indicating that is what they will be
discussing.
Mayor Connors asked for a show of hands, for the general knowledge
of the Council, indicating how many people were present with an
interest in this item, with approximately 10 -15 people indicating
their interest.
She then asked how many here tonight were non - smoking employees of
of the City - how many were smoking employees of the City - how
Page 18
Beaumont City Council
April 8, 1991
many were against smoking restrictions and how many were for
smoking restrictions.
At this point, Mr. Barker, speaking from the audience, interrupted
Mayor Connors asking what this has to do with the smoking
restriction policy, with Mayor Connors stating she is trying to
find out exactly where they stand on this, and that she does have
the floor at this time.
She then asked if there was anyone else in the general public who
wishes a voice in the matter.
Mr. Roger Berg, 1164 Euclid, said the reason he asked to speak
tonight is that he went through this recently at Norton Air Force
Base where the union had to negotiate a smoking policy, and
basically it came down from the Surgeon General that smoking is
a hazard to your health and the military were told they couldn't
smoke anymore. He went on to say what it boiled down to was they
realized it was almost impossible to accommodate the smokers
smoking in the workplace, and they had to make areas outside as
well as a few areas set aside inside for people to smoke where
there was adequate ventilation. Basically, in buildings of this
size, they had to shut smoking down completely because there
wasn't an adequate lounge area, or separate facilities available
to allow for smoking.
He felt they have benefited from the policy in decreasing cost of
utilities, down sizing air conditioning equipment, and less
maintenance required, etc. He acknowledged that he knows it is a
very hard habit to quit, and it is a very controversial issue, but
if they come up with a policy he hoped they would take into
consideration that they try to accommodate people as they can, but
the fact of the matter is that smokers have rights, but the non-
smokers have the right not to have to breathe it, and he felt his
health improved dramatically because he was affected by second-
hand smoke. His recommendation was for the City to come up with
some kind of a policy.
Mayor Connors asked if anyone else wished to say anything, with
Mr. Barker saying he would like to ask the Council - as it seems
there is an attitude in the City Hall that is fighting this issue
more than trying to get information as to whether or not there
should be a non - smoking policy enacted or not.
Mayor Connors pointed out that since he had not heard any
discussion yet, she was not sure where he is getting that feeling
from, with Mr. Barker interrupting Mayor Connors once again to
state he was getting that attitude directly from her. Mayor
Connors responded she thought that would be cleared up this
evening. She then asked for comments from the Council.
Council Member MacNeilage said he would first like to say that he
is not a smoker, and he has been in the City offices and has never
been offended by smoke nor has he found it to be a problem for
himself.
The matter that concerned him the most is if a non - smoking policy
were to be adopted they would have to make special smoking areas,
and the City would lose some valuable employee time, and they
would definitely have to look into that to see what facilities are
available and how they could be utilized.
Council Member Leja indicated she is a non - smoker as well, even to
the point of asking the Governor of Tennessee to put out his
cigarette when she was sixteen - but she does not like the fact
that Mr. Barker feels they are oblivious to a smoking issue. She
does feel, however, the issue is being clouded by some other
actions. At this point she is interrupted by a comment from the
audience, and stated she did not appreciate the disrespect that
has been shown in the audience throughout the meeting.
Page 19
Beaumont City Council
April 8, 1991
She then continued that she thought it would be wise to do as some
of the other cities in the area and throughout the State are
doing, and that is wait to see what the State Legislature will do
with the bills that are being presented to them this year relating
to the smoking issues and public buildings. This would probably
be in the best interest of the City, and not cause a situation
that could pull the City apart. At this point it would be a good
idea to see what the State mandates, rather than adopt an
ordinance and then probably have to go back and redo it anyway.
For instance, the City of Riverside recently tabled their smoking
ordinance to wait to see what the State Legislature mandates.
She went on to say she is probably one of the most anti - smoking
people around, however, she had never heard any complaints until
this one particular incident came up. She thought it was very
unfair that one particular office was named in the newspaper
because this particular office puts out more work, in fact it is
unbelievable how much work is put out in this office. She was
pregnant and not on the City Council at the time, and coming into
the office to have plans approved and was never offended by the
cigarette smoke in that particular office. She feels great pains
have been taken to make it not offensive to the public. In
defense of that particular office she thinks the whole issue has
been clouded.
Mr. Barker interrupted asking to make the comment that his whole
point was not that particular office, he had just met the cloud
that is being referred to tonight, with Mrs. Leja saying she is
responding to all the newspaper articles, and she has been
receiving phone calls with very bad remarks about this person when
they don't know what type of work is being done - they are just
hearing that this person doesn't do good work because she smokes -
and that is the reason why she is trying to clarify it right now,
and her personal feeling about that office. But she does feel it
would be wiser to see what the State legislature is going to
mandate, and then take it from there.
Council Member Parrott stated he quit smoking about twenty years
ago, but he believes the City should wait and see what the State
is going to mandate on this problem, and then do something about
it. There are too many issues here with smokers and non - smokers,
and he thinks the City should go along with what the State finally
decides they are going to do in all public buildings.
Council Member McLaughlin said he is a non - smoker, but really does
not have a problem in the sense of being in the same area with
somebody smoking, but he thinks the City is going to have to see
what the State is going to do. But he also felt that in a small
area such as the City has in this building, some of the employees
are in certain jobs that if the smoke, and they couldn't smoke,
they would have to get somebody to replace them, which would be
almost impossible, and the City does not have the personnel to
relieve some of these people in their positions to take care of
the job. Until some of these problems can be solved, he can
see that several things have been done to keep the area as free
as possible of smoke. He is aware some people are more sensitive
than others to smoke, but he feels we have tried and things have
been done. He is sure there are people in the audience who are
smokers, and have refrained from smoking during this meeting, and
he has found that a lot of times smokers are more courteous than
some of the non - smokers, and he finds that in some of the
non - smokers who have been smokers - once they quit they become the
most critical people you can imagine over what is now being
discussed, and they don't see there has to be two sides to this
question.
The City is mandated by the State, and a lot of things the City
gets raked over the coals for, the City actually has no choice
because the State has mandated that we have to do it. He doesn't
know whether or not these statistics are right or wrong. He has
Page 20
Beaumont City Council
April 8, 1991
seen statistics that coffee is bad for you, and then seen that
coffee was good for you. They have now said you can have four
eggs a week instead of three eggs - he simply doesn't know whether
all you hear is correct or not correct - and certainly doesn't
want cancer, or wish cancer on anyone - but he also doesn't know
whether some of the people would have had it regardless, so these
are the things that he, as a layperson, can't understand or make a
good decision. But there are other people involved - the State is
involved at this time - and he is hopeful that sooner or later it
will hit some kind of plateau so everyone can get away from what
is happening tonight. He appreciates their opinion, and does not
want to lose their friendship because his opinion may be different
from their opinion, but he hopes they will be able to come up with
a policy that will be good for all people.
Mayor Connors stated if the City waits they can be absolutely
positive the State will get into it because they get into
everything and they will tell the City what to do eventually.
For the record, following is the sequence of events as Mayor
Connors attempted to address the meeting regarding this issue:
Mayor Connors: I think the central issue here is we don't have
the problem. Now Mr. Barker admits to having . . .
Mr. Barker, speaking from the audience: What problem do you think
I have.
Mayor Connors: Excuse me. Do you have the floor or do I have the
floor. .
Mr. Barker: Well let's not start getting personal here, Ann, if
you want to then we'll. . .
Mayor Connors: I would like to speak.
Mr. Barker: You did.
Mayor Connors: You may leave if you cannot be quiet while I am
speaking. He admitted to saying to the newspaper that the
environment in City Hall was so badly clouded with smoke - it was
such a pathetic environment - that he could not do business here
and had to take his business to Banning. I know, as Mayor, that
that is not true. I come into this building very nearly every
single day. There is no smoke in the hallway. Why anyone would
want to try to tell me that, when I know better, is offensive to
my intelligence.
I feel that what we had, the situation as I see it, is that we had
a disgruntled employee, who then wanted to cause problems. That
employee did not call us. That employee went to a newspaper
because that employee wanted to embarrass the City.
Mr. Barker, speaking from the audience: What does that have to do
with me.
Mayor Connors: Excuse me.
Mr. Barker: No! - what does that have to do with me.
Mayor Connors: Excuse me. I am speaking.
Mr. Barker: But you are speaking the wrong things - what did
that have to do with me.
Mayor Connors: Do you want to leave.
Mr. Barker: No, but I don't want you lying about things.
Mayor Connors: Be quiet, now.
Page 21
Beaumont City Council
April 8, 1991
Mr. Barker, (shouting): No! You are not my mother - listen, I
never read that article -
Mayor Connors; Please. . .
Mr. Barker: I am gone. . .
Mayor Connors: Fine . . .
Mr. Barker: . . .because what you are doing is telling lies. .
Mayor Connors: Go, go.
Mr. Barker: This is ridiculous!
Mr. Barker then noisily left the meeting accompanied by those who
were with his group.
Mayor Connors continued with her statement - "I then received a
letter from David Horowich, of "Fight Back ", which led me to
further believe that the entire situation was to embarrass the
City. There has been no proof of any kind that we already have
this problem, and I don't think that we can pass any kind of
legislation to solve a problem that we can't show that we have."
She concluded with the statement that is what she has been trying
to say and she doesn't think this is what the real problem is, nor
does she think they can solve the problem of smoke if they don't
have the smoke. She doesn't smoke - has never smoked - and goes
into this office every day and has not been bothered by smoke, and
she doesn't think the Council can pass legislation based on that.
Mayor Connors asked for any further comment or a motion on Item
No. 10. There being no response, Agenda Item No. 11 was
introduced.
11. Request from Munawar Ahmad Chaudhry for Business License to
Operate Sahara Market at 985 Beaumont Avenue. (Continued from
March 11, 1991).
The City Manager reported he has not had any comments at all from
Mr. Chaudhry, but has been talking to Mr. Tabell, who was the
original gentleman who came to the Council for a business license,
then after entering escrow found he no longer had an escrow and
filed suit. Since that time there has been a Court action, or
possibly settled outside out of Court, and Mr. Tabell now has in
his possession a lease for this property and a release from Mr.
Chaudhry to show that he no longer has any interest in the
business.
One form needed by ABC was signed today for him to transfer an
existing license, so within a month Mr. Tabell will probably have
his business license to operate at this address.
In light of the above, there appeared to be no further need for
this item to remain on the agenda as no action is required.
2. Request from Henry Barnes d /b /a Pass Taxi Cab Company for a Rate
Increase Effective Immediately.
The City Manager presented his report, a copy of which is matter
of record in the Clerk's file, with a recommendation for approval
of Mr. Barnes' request.
There were comments and questions from the Council.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Parrott, to approve Pass Taxi Cab Company's rate increase to $3.00
for first mi 1 e and $1.50 for each additional mile, 25� a minute
waiting time and 25t for each large shopping bag over two.
Page 22
Beaumont City Council
April 8, 1991
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
13. RESOLUTION NO. 1991 -16 - Prescribing Intersection Stops Signs at
6th Street and Ca I i f o r n i a Avenue, and at 1st Street and
California Avenue, To Expedite Traffic Flow and Traffic Safety.
A report was received from the City Manager with a recommendation
for adoption of this resolution. A copy of this report is a
matter of record in the Clerk's file. Questions from the Council
were answered, with additional information provided by Chief
White.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member MacNeilage
to adopt Resolution No. 1991 -16.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
14. Request from Cherry Festival Association for Permission to use
City Property and City Facilities during 1991 Cherry Festival,
June 12 -16, and No Fee Permits for Cherry Festival Activities.
The City Manager submitted his report, a copy of which is a matter
of record in the Clerk's file. He then reviewed the letter from
the Cherry Festival item by item. When he reached Paragraph D of
the letter he advised the Council that no one from the Cherry
Festival Association has contacted the Police Department regarding
security, so their statement that the Association has been unable
to negotiate support of the Beaumont Police reserves is
misleading since there has been no discussion.
Mayor Connors stated that it seems as though the City is
contributing quite a bit to the Cherry Festival, which is of major
help to the Association. Also, a lot of the parade work, getting
cars and getting people in them, etc., and arranging for the
luncheon, is being done by the City Manager's office, which isn't
clear in the letter.
She then addressed the security issue, saying she thought
Paragraph D was standard as it always says that whether they have
talked with the Police Reserves or not. Her personal feeling was
that the Cherry Festival Association should be required to use
police officers because they do have policing powers and powers
to arrest, as it seemed the private security was walking around,
but when they had problems they called the police. However, in
trying to document the overtime and the times the police were
called, and what exactly it was for, she found sufficient
documentation was not available.
Responding to a comment by the City Manager, Mayor Connors agreed
that once something gets out of hand it take more time, and is
also more dangerous to respond to, once it has already begun.
She then indicated she didn't know how the Council felt about this
situation, and whether they would want to require that police
reserves be used this year based on the information provided
tonight, or if they would want this year documented very closely
to be used next year in making a decision. She did point out
however that the Cherry Festival has become quite large and she
felt it had outgrown the use of unarmed security guards just
walking around and calling the police when there is a problem.
Discussion followed with comments and questions from the Council
Members.
Page 23
Beaumont City Council
April 8, 1991
The City Manager was directed to meet with the President of the
Cherry Festival Association to discuss the security issue, with
the understanding that staff will be requiring the Association
to use police officers at some hour and in some numbers.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Leja, to approve the letter from the Cherry Festival Association
with Paragraph D removed.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
5. 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 Meetings of March 11,
1991 and March 25, 1991.
b. Approval of Warrants as Audited per Warrant List of April 8,
1991, in the amount of $348,599.38; and Payroll of March 28,
1991, in the amount of $68,931.29.
c. RESOLUTION NO. 1991 -11 - Providing for Advancing of Maturity
of Improvement Bonds for Assessment District No. 1983 -1
(Cougar- Brookside Property Owners' Association).
d. RESOLUTION NO. 1991 -12 - Accepting Grants of Easement - Roadway
to Accommodate Installations of Traffic Signals.
e. Approval of Proposal from Kenneth I. Mullen, Consulting
Engineers, Inc. for Aerial Photogrammetry and Surveying
Required to Complete Design of Phase I Water Facilities, and
Authorization for Mayor to Execute the Agreement in the Amount
of $98,900.00, to be Charged to 4250 - 4060 -5053.
f. Approval of Proposal from Culbertson, Adams & Associates for
Preparation of Supplemental EIR to Address the Phase 1 Water
Facilities, and Authorization for Mayor to Execute the
Agreement in the amount of $33,848.00, to be Charged to
4250 =4060 -5066.
g. Adoption of Notice of Exemption for Deutsch Development
Agreement, as Provided by Government Code Section 65864-
65869.5.
Mayor Connors requested clarification regarding the Notice of
Exemption for the Deutsch Development Agreement, with the City
Manager explaining the need and justification for the exemption.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member Parrott,
to adopt the Consent Calendar as presented.
AYES: Council Member Leja,
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
Date Set for Next Regular Council Meeting, Monday, April 22, 1991
at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers.
There being no further business to come before the Council, the
meeting was adjourned at 10:40 P.M.
Re tfully submitted,
C y Clerk
Dnno 7a
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
MARCH 25, 1991
The Beaumont City Council met in a Regular Meeting on Monday, March
25, 1991, at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor
Connors presiding.
On roll call the following Council Members were present: Leja,
MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott and Mayor Connors.
The invocation was given by Council Member Parrott, who then led the
Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
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 that the Chaundhry Business License item
was not placed on this agenda, and in talking with Mr. Chaundhry
he stated there were no new developments in this matter. It will
be placed on the agenda for April 8.
There were no adjustments to the agenda.
3. ORAL COMMUNICATION:
Mr. Greg Barker, 1099 Pennsylvania, addressed the Council,
indicating he assumed the Council had seen the newspaper articles,
and stating the only thing he wanted to come to the Council was to
ask the Council Members to provide an environment in the City's
public buildings that is clean and safe for everyone. He then
handed out American Cancer Society forms.
Mayor Connors asked Mr. Barker to verify that he made the
statement which appeared in the newspaper to the effect he will
not do business in Beaumont because of the pathetic environment
and smoke in City Hall, with Mr. Barker verifying he made the
statement.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - 7:00 P.M.
4. ORDINANCE 696 - SECOND READING - Prezoning 5.44 acres from
Riverside County RA -1 Residential Agriculture) to City RSF
(Residential Single Family). (91- RZ -1). Applicant: Yung Tai
Development and Management Co. Location: 11345 Sunnyslope
Avenue. (91- ANX- 1 -49).
Motion to read Ordinance No. 696 by title only.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member
McLaughlin, to read Ordinance No. 696 by title only.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
The Ordinance was read by title only by the Deputy City Clerk.
Page 1
Beaumont City Council
March 25, 1991
Motion to Adopt Ordinance No. 696 at its second reading.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member
McLaughlin, to adopt Ordinance No. 696 at its second reading.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
5. ORDINANCE NO. 697 - SECOND READING - Prezoning Sixteen (16)
acres from Riverside County C -P -S (Scenic Highway Commercial)
to City C -HS (Commercial Highway Service). Applicant: L.
Olinger and KSE Development Co. Location: Southeast corner
of 14th Street and Interstate 10. (91- ANX- 2 -50).
Motion to read Ordinance No. 697 by title only.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member
MacNeilage, to read Ordinance No. 697 by title only.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
The ordinance was read by title only by the Deputy City Clerk.
Motion to Adopt Ordinance No. 697 at its second reading.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member
MacNeilage, to adopt Ordinance No. 697 at its second reading.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
6. ORDINANCE NO. 698 - SECOND READING - Approving the Development
Agreement Between the City of Beaumont and the Deutsch
Corporation (Pursuant to Government Code Section
65864- 65869.5).
Motion to read Ordinance No. 698 by title only.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member Parrott,
to read Ordinance No. 698 by title only.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
The Ordinance was read by title only by the Deputy City Clerk.
Motion to Adopt Ordinance No. 698 at its second reading.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council member Parrott,
to adopt Ordinance No. 698 at its second reading.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Page 2
ueaumont City Council
March 25, 1991
7. Consider Extending the Terms of- the Senior Center Advisory
Commissioners to June 30, 1991.
The City Manager presented his report, a copy of which is a matter
of record in the Clerk's file.
There was no discussion or questions from the Council.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
MacNeilage, to extend the terms of office for Grace Begley, Evelyn
Fenton and Helen Manley, and leave the vacant seat open, until
June 30, 1991.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
8. Consider Authorizing Beaumont American Legion Baseball to Use the
Stewart Park Ballfield to Practice and Play Home Games.
The City Manager advised of his meeting with Mr. William
Wintersteen, the team representative and business manager for the
American Legion baseball team, during which the discussion
concerned their using the 9th Street and Orange Avenue ballfield
for practice and games, calling attention to his memorandum to the
Council contained in their packet. This memorandum is a matter of
record in the Clerk's file, as well as an extensive proposal from
the American Legion Baseball team.
His recommendation was for approval of this request with a formal
agreement to be negotiated.
All Council Members spoke in favor of this activity.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member
MacNeilage, to authorize Beaumont American Legion Baseball to work
with staff to make changes to the Stewart Park Field, at no cost
to the City, and schedule day or night practice as an exclusive
use of the field, not to exceed three nights a week without prior
approval. A formal agreement must be negotiated by March 1, 1993.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
9. A Presentation on Pros and Cons of Redevelopment by M. F. "Mike"
Whipple of M. F. Whipple and Co., Inc.
It was noted by the City Manager that Mr. Whipple had not yet
arrived, therefore it was suggested the Council go on to the
consent calendar, returning to Agenda Item No. 9 after action has
been taken on the consent calendar.
10. 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. Acceptance of Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting
of February 19, 1991.
b. Approval of Warrants as Audited per Warrant List of March
25, 1991, in the amount of $365,872.12; and Payroll of
March 14, 1991, in the amount of $69,147.25.
Page 3
Beaumont City Council
March 25, 1991
c. Request from City Attorney to Attend Annual League of
California Cities City Attorney Department Meeting.
d. Report of Action at Regular Planning Commission Meeting of
March 19, 1991.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member
McLaughlin, to adopt the consent calendar as presented.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
The meeting was recessed at 7 :25 p.m., awaiting the arrival of Mr.
Whipple, reconvening at 7:55 p.m.
9. A Presentation on Pros and Cons of Redevelopment by M. F. "Mike"
Whipple of M. F. Whipple and Co., Inc.
The Mayor apologized for Mr. Whipple's absence, stating that
apparently he will not be here this evening. As a result, she
requested the agenda item be continued to the next meeting on
April 8, 1991. There were no objections from the Council.
Date Set for Next Regular Meeting Monday, April 8, 1991 at 7:00
P. M. in the City Council Chambers.
There being no further business to come before the Council, the
meeting was adjourned at 7:56 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
City Clerk
Page 4
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
MARCH 11, 1991
The Beaumont City Council met in a Regular Meeting on Monday, March
11, 1991, at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor
Connors presiding.
On roll call the following Council Members were present: Leja,
MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott and Mayor Connors.
The invocation was given by Council Member McLaughlin, who then
led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
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 under, oral communication.
4. Presentation by Mr. Robert J. Fitch, Advisory Board Chairman and
Coordinator for Riverside County Centennial.
Mr. Fitch indicated he was here to remind the Council that
Riverside County will be 100 years old on May 9, 1993, and
that he has been appointed to chair a county -wide advisory
board to plan the various celebrations and activities to
honor the fact that Riverside County will be holding its
centennial.
He pointed out that two of the advisory board members are
from the Pass Area, Mr. George Barker and Mr. Alvino Siva.
Mr. Barker is the son of then - Assemblyman Barker, who
introduced the legislation in Sacramento to establish
Riverside County from territories from San Diego and San
Bernardino Counties.
The major celebration will be on May 8, 1993, since May 9 is
a Sunday. It will be a gala parade and banquet in Riverside
to which they would be invited to attend, but they are
encouraging activities throughout the County for the
centennial year, which will begin in the fall of 1992.
Although it seems rather early, he feels they need this much
time to really plan an outstanding celebration, and they
would welcome any suggestions collectively and individually.
He will be working with the Chamber of Commerce to make sure
the Cherry Festival in 1993 will highlight the centennial,
and he would welcome their suggestions now or at any time in
the future.
Council Member Leja asked if any dates had been targeted at
this time for special celebrations throughout the County,
with Mr. Fitch indicating only May 8, 1993 in Riverside had
been established at this time. One of the other activities,
for which no date has been set, would be a caravan or perhaps
a ride on horseback from the Colorado River to the Santa Ana
River bringing a vial of water as a token, and have each
community along the way be responsible for taking this water
from one community to another. There have only been two
Page 1
meetings of the advisory board,
organizational stage at this time.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - 7:00 P.M.
Beaumont City Council
March 1 1 , 1991
and they are still in the
5. INTENTION TO ADOPT NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90- ND -12. Applicant:
Bill Ehrlich. Location: Vie le and B Streets. Project
Description: Proposed Construction of an Industrial Park Complex
Consisting of Thirteen (13) Parcels on 12.45 Acres.
Mr. Stephen Koules presented the staff report with a
recommendation from the Planning Commission for adoption of the
negative declaration, a copy of which is a matter of record in the
Clerk's file.
The public hearing was opened at 7:08 P.M.
Mr. Bill Ehrlich, 6700 Stanton Avenue, Buena Park, California:
Good evening, I am Bill Ehrlich. This is the plot plan phase of
your review. There are thirteen buildings ranging in size from
9,000 to approximately 36,000 sq.ft. They are fire - sprinkled,
concrete tilt -up structures, and the reason for processing the
entire plot plan at this early date, basically concurrently with
the parcel map, is so that when we go out into the community and
solicit buyers or users, we can shorten the time span for their
decision process by knowing the size of building that can be
placed on a lot, the parking and the specific uses.
If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them.
Mayor Connors: Okay, does anyone have any questions for Mr.
Ehrlich. Anyone.
Council Member Parrott: I have a question. There was something
put in here about no ladders on the buildings. Don't they do that
anymore.
Mr. Ehrlich: I don't recall the ladders. I know the planning
staff was sensitive that we should screen mechanical equipment,
and it would be in a well on top of the roof and screened from
public streets. I don't recall the specific ladder requirement
though.
Council Member Parrott: It is one of the - it is in part of the
paperwork.
Mr. Ehrlich: It was an attempt at eliminating unsightly
mechanical equipment.
Council Member Parrott: That sounds good.
Mayor Connors: Any other questions? Is there anyone else wishing
to speak in favor of Item No. 5. Anyone else wishing to speak in
favor of Item No. 5. Anyone wishing to speak in opposition to
Item No. 5. Is there anyone wishing to speak in opposition to
Item 5. Anyone wishing to speak at all on Item 5. Anyone
wishing to speak at all on Item No. 5. We will close the public
hearing.
The public hearing was closed at 7:10 P.M.
There was no discussion or questions from the Council.
a. Consideration of Adoption of Negative Declaration 90- ND -12,
Based on the Findings.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
MacNeilage, to adopt Negative Declaration 90- ND -12, based on the
findings.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Page 2
Beaumont City Council
March 11, 1991
6. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 26229 (90 -PM -1) AND INTENT TO ADOPT NEGATIVE
DECLARATION 91-ND-2. Applicant: Allied Group /Nick Saab.
Location: Northwest Corner of 14th Street and Beaumont Avenue.
Project Description: Proposed Division of 17.68 Acres into Two
(2) Parcels.
The staff report was presented by Stephen Koules, Director of
Community Development, with a recommendation for approval by the
Planning Commission. This report is a matter of record in the
Clerk's file.
Council Member Parrott asked what would happen to Beaumont Avenue,
where we may vacate some of the right -of -way but may possibly use
it later, wondering if we had really looked at the future
possibility.
Mr. Koules replied that when the applicant files a development
proposal, the City would be in a better position to ask for off -
site improvements, dedications, as well as the on -site
improvements.
The public hearing was opened at 7:15 P.M.
Mayor Connors: Is there anyone wishing to speak in favor of Item
No. 6. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of Item No. 6. Is there
anyone wishing to speak in opposition to Item No. 6. Is there
anyone wishing to speak at all on Item No. 6.
Herman Goad, 211 E. 14th Street: (Let the record show Mr. Goad
did not fill out a request to speak form, as a result the spelling
of his name may be incorrect). You mentioned leaving room on
Beaumont Avenue to be used later. How about 14th Street? Will
that all come up when you submit the plans?
Council Member Parrott: It should.
Mr. Goad: Along with fixing that wash and everything through
there?
City Manager: It will be a part of the conditions of approval.
Mr. Goad: Will they take into consideration all the water that
runs down 14th Street from the housing project up on 14th and
Palm.
City Manager: We will take under consideration all the.water that
is leaving the project going into the wash that is across the
street from this, plus all the water that is coming down.
Mr. Goad: Well I'll tell you, I live right almost at the wash,
and when it rains that water is curb to curb, and it is coming
from on 14th up there.
City Manager: Well, they will be taking care of their half of
14th. They are not required to take care of all of 14th. So this
is going to require, since we have a washover, there is going to
probably be some underground pipes in there because of the amount
of water that comes through it. And, also, the width of 14th will
be provided for a four -lane road with the proper appurtenances
that go with that kind of requirement.
Mr. Goad: Will there be a hearing on that one too, when it comes
up.
City Manager: Oh yes. Oh yes. All property owners 300 feet of
the property will all be notified. Both Planning Commission and
Council.
Mayor Connors: Is there anyone else wishing to speak on Item No.
6. Anyone at all. We will close the public hearing.
Page 3
Beaumont City Council
March 11, 1991
The public hearing was closed at 7:18 P.M.
A question was raised by Mayor Connors concerning the fact this
was being presented tonight in order to allow the applicant to
develop either parcel - split it so they could develop either
parcel, with Mr. Koules responding this was correct so that if
they wished to pursue one of the halves, they could do that.
Mayor Connors continued that she remembered when the Council was
discussing the zoning of this corner, and they were talking about
whether they should put multiple family on it, and she remembers
the vote being 4 -1, with the four now being gone, and it has
multiple family on one of those parcels, and she just wanted to
point that out.
Council Member Leja asked for clarification that it was said they
could develop one of the parcels, did this also mean they could
develop both parcels as long as they were separate.
Mr. Koules answered yes, this was certainly possible after filing
a plot plan on each of the parcels, and they could pursue either
one or both at the same time if they chose to.
The City Manager clarified further that, since they are not the
same, they will be dealing with different lenders, as some lenders
will not do commercial, while some will not do residential, so if
you don't have it split, many times that causes a great many
problems, and you have to go back and have it split later. So
this is the purpose of splitting the parcels.
a. Consideration of Adoption of Negative Declaration 91 -ND-
2, Based on the Findings.
Motion by Council Member MacNeilage, second by Council Member
Parrott, to adopt Negative Declaration 91 -ND -2, based on the
findings.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin and
Parrott.
NOES: Mayor Connors.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
b. Consideration of Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 26229,
subject to the Conditions of Approval as Presented or
Modified.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
MacNeilage, to approve Tentative Parcel Map 26229, subject to the
conditions of approval as presented.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, and
Parrott.
NOES: Mayor Connors.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
7. PROPOSED PRE - ANNEXATION CHANGE OF ZONE 91 -RZ -1 AND INTENT TO ADOPT
NEGATIVE DECLARATION 9-V--ND -1. Applicant: Yung Tai Development
and Management Co. Location: 11345 Sunnyslope Avenue. Project
Description: A proposed pre- annexation change of zone on 5.44
acres from Riverside County RA -1 (Residential - Agriculture) to City
RSF (Residential Single Family). (91- ANX- 1 -49).
Stephen Koules presented the staff report, a copy of which is a
matter of record in the Clerk's file, with a recommendation from
the Planning Commission for approval of the change of zone and
adoption of the Negative Declaration.
There were no questions from the Council.
Page 4
Beaumont City Council
March 11, 1991
The public hearing was opened at 7:24 P.M.
Mr. Barry Steele, 11168 Sunnyslope, Cherry Valley, indicating he
is neutral: I live on the street as is pretty obvious, and this
project that you are talking about is not compatible with our area
at all. We have a very rural area, as you drive up the street you
will see there is exactly twenty existing driveways exiting out on
to Sunnyslope now, which is a usable nineteen foot wide street is
all it is. The pavement may go a little further with the dirt and
all, it is actually nineteen feet wide if you want to take a tape
measure. I mean we are rubbing mirrors on it now with the traffic
we have, and you are talking about doubling the population on our
street. As you just previously mentioned, there is another
project right south of that, but I am assuming it would exit out
on to Cougar Way, which wouldn't have that much bearing on us.
But as you come further up Sunnyslope you are putting a very big
bearing on us, in a very rural area, that are very nice, well
maintained homes, that aren't going to change in the near future.
And you are not going to have any control over the width of the
street, because the rest of us are going to belong to the County,
and we all want to stay in the County. We don't want you coming
up and taking us anyway. We are very happy where we are at.
This is not compatible at all, and you are also surrounding your
high school down there with a lot of high density, and maybe this
isn't so much high density, but a lot of high density, low income
housing, and you are creating a very bad environment for the
children in your community. I don't know if anybody has looked
ahead or not to see that, but that is exactly what is going on
down there with what you have done at Cougar Way and Beaumont
Avenue, and if this is an example of what we have coming our way
with discarded shopping carts and mattresses, and people standing
on the corner drinking beer, this isn't what we want in our area.
And this is our area, and we want to maintain what we have. The
street is not wide enough and it is not compatible for the area at
all, what you are planning. And there is no other way out, and
there is no way you can guarantee me every car that pulls out of
there is going to turn south. They will turn north to go up to
Brookside to get over to Highland, to get to the freeway, or
whatever, and we are going to have that traffic which is going to
endanger my grandchildren and my little dogs, and my lifestyle
over there.
I think you had better take another look at it, and if anything is
done, and if we are going to have annexation, if we can't stop
this, then I would believe that something compatible to the area
would be something like half acre parcels or something, and those
peach trees, which would still make something very nice. And I am
sure the developer could still make his money, and we could have a
very nice area there with a nice middle class housing. Nearly
every parcel, as you drive up there now, is acre - I would say
two - thirds of them are acre or better parcels. And these are very
fine homes that some redevelopment project is not going to come up
there and tear down in ten years. This is what we are going to
live with, what we have. Thank you.
Mayor Connors: We have a request to speak that is not marked in
favor or opposition or neutral, from Arnie Finley.
Mr. Arnie Finley, 11211 Sunnyslope Avenue, Cherry Valley: My name
is Arnie Finley. I live at 11211 Sunnyslope. I am in opposition
to this, so if you have somebody in favor that you would rather
have speak first, I can wait. If not, yes Sunnyslope is in
Beaumont's sphere of influence just like Kuwait was in Iraq's
sphere of influence. That is the way most of us up there feel.
First of all, environmental impact. I don't know if any studies
have been done on the Marshall Creek drainage, which runs right
behind my property, in fact it is part of my property. Twenty
homes on that is going to have a definite impact on that drainage.
Second, as Mr. Steele said, traffic. You are going to have to
Page 5
Beaumont City Council
March 11, 1991
widen that street. Thirdly, education. What are you going to do
for the schools. Another point is when was the last time the
Beaumont Police Department was expanded. Right now, we have got
kids coming up and down that street during school hours anywhere
between 60 and 100 miles an hour, and I haven't seen any speeding
tickets handed out yet in the time that I have lived there.
So, doubling the population on that street just on a five acre
parcel doesn't make sense at all - environmentally, economically,
or from a law enforcement standpoint. Thank you.
Mayor Connors: Patsy Reeley. Speaking in opposition.
Patsy Reeley, 11105 Sunnyslope: My neighbors have voiced my
objection to this property development. As you can see by those
photos that I gave you the first two is property that was
previously annexed to Beaumont, and it has been sitting there for
two or three years, and you can see the condition it is in. It
has danger posted on it by the County. It is a drug hangout. It
has graffiti, broken windows, not the kind of element that we
want on our street.
As for negative declaration, I can cite several negatives. As
they said, the street is nineteen foot wide. We have Marshall
Creek which is like a grand canyon. Somebody is going to have to
do something about the drainage. The more development that you
put down there, the worse that canyon is going to get. It is
about thirty foot deep in places.
We never had any crime on Sunnyslope until the development on
Cougar and Beaumont. We didn't have any graffiti on our fences.
We didn't have any shopping carts in the streets. We didn't have
any mattresses dumped on the edge of the road, which has been
there for five or six weeks and the City hasn't picked it up yet.
That kind of thing never happened before, and we don't want it to
happen now.
And, of course, you know there is a water shortage. And the more
you cover and develop the land, the less you are going to have to
eat, and I can see some day you are going to either choke to death
or starve to death if you are going to get rid of all the
orchards.
People on our street have small animals. They have horses and we
have a number of orchards on that street. All the lots run from
half an acre up to seven acres, and like Arnie said, we are in the
sphere of Beaumont, but we really want to stay in the County. Our
street is also in the proposed boundaries of the proposed city of
Cherry Valley. I would like to see this annexation postponed at
least until Cherry Valley has a chance to either make its
boundaries or decline as the city, I am not sure which will happen
yet. We really don't want five houses per acre in that area. If
the man wants to put a house per acre, or maybe even possibly a
house per half acre, we would welcome him with open arms. We
don't want high density. Not on that forty acres, not on that ten
acres, or not on that five acres. Thank you very much.
Mayor Connors: Is there anyone else wishing to speak on Item No.
7. Is there anyone else wishing to speak on Item No. 7. We will
close the public hearing.
The public hearing was closed at 7:32 P.M.
Council Member McLaughlin stated he did not have any questions per
se, however in looking at the pictures submitted by Mrs. Reeley
and what he sees has been there for many years with no
improvements, and he guesses that is County improvements that you
usually receive when you are in the County. He continued that it
appears to him if this property is upgraded in the way the City
will require it be done, it would be an upgrade rather than
causing the hardship these people think they will be receiving.
To him any kind of an improvement would be an improvement over
Page 6
Beaumont City Council
March 11, 1991
the pictures he just saw, and he
doesn't understand why they
feel
like that by putting
new homes in
there these people will be
the
type of people
who will bring in
drugs, etc. In actuality,
they
would probably
curtail that type
of activity, because nobody likes
drugs or to
graffiti or that type of thing. They
are
,see
apparently not
looking at it in a
broader sense. He felt the
City
would handle
it and do a very
good job, and it will be an
improvement.
Council Member Leja called attention to the statements which had
been made earlier about the projects on Cougar Way and Beaumont
Avenue, assuming they are talking about the housing development
there, she wanted them to know she lives in that housing
development, and she does not dump mattresses on the road, or
shopping carts on the road, and she sympathizes with the kids
that go through the neighborhood speeding because they come
through her neighborhood speeding in order to get to Cherry
Valley. Recently, she was almost hit head on by a young man who
lives right off Sunnyslope the other day, but it was not in the
City so it was out of the jurisdiction of the Beaumont police.
She emphasized she takes offense when it is generalized that those
people that live there in that housing project are doing all these
bad things, as there are a lot of good people who live there as
well, just as there are good people who live outside the city,
there are also bad people who do destructive things to property
who live in both areas.
She continued that the other point she would like to make is she
is not objecting to any type of development in that particular
area, however, she would be more favorable to it if there were
fewer houses per acreage.
Council Member Parrott indicated he feels the same way as Mrs.
Leja, but pointed out every property owner desires to get the best
use out of his property. If this area were in the city we could
use our police to police that area, but it appears it is outside
the city now.
He stated further the City will see that good units are built as
it will upgrade the area. Although these people would like to see
one house per acre or per half acre, the City can't always do
that, but he would support reducing the number of dwelling units
per acre.
a. Consideration of Adoption of Negative Declaration 91 -ND -1,
Based on the Findings.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Parrott to adopt Negative Declaration 91 -ND -1, based on the
findings.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
b. ORDINANCE NO. 696 - FIRST READING - Prezoning 5.44 acres from
Riverside County RA -1 (Residential Agriculture) to City RSF
(Residential Single Family). (91- RZ -1). Applicant: Yung Tai
Development and Management Co. Location: 11345 Sunnyslope
Avenue. (91- ANX- 1 -49).
Motion to read Ordinance No. 696 by title only.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member
McLaughlin, to approve Ordinance No. 696 at its first reading.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
Page 7
Beaumont City Council
March 11, 1991
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
The ordinance was read by title only by the Deputy City Clerk.
There were no.comments from the Council concerning Ordinance No.
696.
Motion to Approve Ordinance No. 696 at its first reading.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Leja, to approve Ordinance No. 696 at its first reading.
AYES: Council Member Leja,
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
c. RESOLUTION NO. 1991 -08 - A Resolution of Application by the
City of Beaumont Requesting the Local Agency Formation
Commission to Take Proceedings for the Annexation of
Uninhabited Territory, Pursuant to the Local Government
Reorganization Act of 1985. (Beaumont 91- ANX- 1 -49).
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member Parrott,
to adopt Resolution No. 1991 -08.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
8. PROPOSED PRE - ANNEXATION CHANGE OF ZONE 90 -RZ -6 AND INTENT TO ADOPT
NEGATIVE DECLARATION 91 -ND -3. Applicant: L. Olinger and KSE
Development Co. Location: Southeast corner of 14th Street and
Interstate 10. Project Description: A proposed pre- annexation
change of zone on sixteen (16) acres from Riverside County C -P -S
(Scenic Highway Commercial) to City C -HS (Commercial Highway
Service). (91- ANX- 2 -50).
The staff report was presented by Stephen Koules, Director of
Community Development, with a recommendation for approval by the
Planning Commission. Mr. K o u 1 e s pointed out that the County
zoning was less restrictive than the City's zoning. The report is
a matter of record in the Clerk's file.
The public hearing was opened at 7:46 P.M.
Mayor Connors: Is there anyone wishing to speak in favor of Item
No. 8.
Mr. Kirk Evans, representing the applicants: Madame Mayor and
Council Members, I am just here to respond to any questions you
might have. The main reason for going forward with this zone
change at this time is this parcel is needed to tie in the Ring
Ranch Road with my project and 14th Avenue. And, also, that is
where the main sewer line and water line will be going up that
Ring Ranch Road - as well.
There were no questions or comments from the Council.
Mayor Connors: Anyone wishing to speak in favor
Anyone wishing to speak in favor of Item No. 8.
wishing to speak in opposition to Item No. 8. At
speak in opposition to Item No. 8. Anyone wishing
on Item No. 8. Anyone wishing to speak at all on
will close the public hearing.
The public hearing was closed at 7:47 P.M.
Page 8
of Item No. 8.
Is there anyone
iyone wishing to
to speak at all
Item No. 8. We
Beaumont City Council
March 11, 1991
a. Consideration of Adoption of Negative Declaration 91 -ND -3,
Based on the Findings.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member Parrott,
to adopt Negative Declaration 91 -ND -3, based on the findings.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
b. ORDINANCE NO. 697 - FIRST READING - Prezoning Sixteen (16)
acres from Riverside County C -P -S (Scenic Highway Commercial.)
to City C -HS (Commercial Highway Service). Applicant: L.
Olinger and KSE Development Co. Location: Southeast corner
of 14th Street and Interstate 10. (91- ANX- 2 -50).
Motion to read Ordinance No. 697 by title only.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Leja, to read Ordinance No. 697 by title only.
AYES: Council Member Leja,
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
The ordinance was read by title only by the Deputy City Clerk.
Motion to Approve Ordinance No. 697 at its first reading.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Leja, to approve Ordinance No. 697 at its first reading.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
c. RESOLUTION NO. 1991 -09 - A Resolution of Application by the
City of Beaumont Requesting the Local Agency Formation
Commission to Take Proceedings for the Annexation of
Uninhabited Territory, Pursuant to the Local Government
Reorganization Act of 1985. (Beaumont 91- ANX- 2 -50).
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member
McLaughlin, to adopt Resolution No. 1991 -09.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
9. INTENTION TO _CONSIDER ADOPTION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE
DEUTSCH SPECIFIC PLAN P -89- , which allows for the development
of a maximum of 4,716 dwelling units on 1,162 acres proposed for
annexation to the City of Beaumont. This Development Agreement
provides rules and regulations relative to how this project will
be developed and guaranteeing the developer will receive and
provide certain amenities and benefits.
APPLICANT: Deutsch Corporati.on. LOCATION: Between 8th Street
and Brookside Avenue, and Between Cherry Avenue and Highland
Springs Road.
The City Manager advised the City Attorney would give the Council
an overview of what development agreements are in general, since
this is the first development agreement the Council has been
involved with.
Page 9
Beaumont City Council
March 11, 1991
The City Attorney presented an in -depth description of development
agreements and their purpose, as authorized by Government Code.
This presentation is a matter of record on the tape of this
meeting, and is available should anyone desire to hear the entire
overview.
Mayor Connors called attention to the fact there is a report of
action by the Planning Commission in the packet in which they
recommend approval of this development agreement.
The public hearing was opened at 8:02 P.M.
Mr. David Colgan, attorney for Deutsch Corporation: We would just
like to thank and acknowledge the staff for the professional
manner in which we went through a number of rewrites and came to a
deal which I think is both beneficial to Deutsch and to the City.
I don't think there is anything I can do to expand on what Mr.
Ryskamp said, and I would be glad to answer any questions,
otherwise we concur with the staff recommendation and urge your
approval.
There were no questions from the Council.
Mayor Connors: Is there anyone else wishing to speak in favor of
Item No. 9. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of Item No. 9.
Anyone wishing to speak in opposition to Item No. 9. Anyone
wishing to speak in opposition to Item No. 9. Please give your
name and address for the record.
Mr. Garry Readman, 13056 Palo Alto Street: I am not in total
disagreement with this project. But I am - have some concerns
about. First of all, flooding. And that area is known for a
flooded area. And we live close to the flooding area that is now
there. With 4,000 homes out there, this will create a lot of
water problems, plus your drainage through Southern Pacific's
right -of -way out there isn't big enough to hold that much
flooding.
And there is the car problems with that many cars. I think that
you would be well advised to try and work with the people on it.
Not so much as - say we are going to put a right -of -way through
here, and take your property, which I feel is going to happen to
some people. And I think this city here has a good project going
on, but I think that they need to think about it real hard. Thank
you.
Mayor Connors: Is there anyone else wishing to speak in
opposition to Item No. 9. Is there anyone wishing to speak at all
on Item 9. Anyone wishing to speak at all on Item 9. We will
close the public hearing.
The public hearing was closed at 8:05 P.M.
The City Attorney responded, for the Council's and public's
information, to the comments just made, that he thought it was
important to recognize the kind of details that are of the
greatest concern, such as drainage and traffic, and exact
alignment of where the streets are going through, are not being
locked in by this development agreement, nor for that matter those
types of details by the specific plan. Rather, the rules of the
game by which those decisions will be reached are, in effect, in
part, being defined, and perhaps, more important, the fact that
the developer is going to be required to pay for solving those
types of problems.
So the City, by taking this approach, is insuring these benefits
are received. If the project goes in over twenty -five years,
and this land were developed piecemeal, the City would never see
the very kind of planning that this gentleman wants, because
there would not be a single large plan, or a coordinated effort.
Page 10
Beaumont City Council
March 11, 1991
With this agreement, you are getting the opportunity to review
every year to make certain that it is taking place as it should.
Nor would there be the funds for this infrastructure without this
type of agreement. The developer, on the other hand, get
assurances that the City will not change the rules of the game as
the years go by without both sides agreeing.
The City Manager pointed out that, especially in the case of
drainage, the environmental impact report for this project
contains an extensive amount of engineering that has already been
done, and it will probably surprise everyone that the first
movement of water from the property starts at about Cougar Way
with a large drainage pipe being taken to Highland Springs Road.
There is nothing like that today at all. This will also carry
through the water being accepted from Cherry Valley, and this is
just the first of many with the pipes being very large,
underground, and there will probably be a retention basin not only
on the Deutsch property but on the Loma Linda property, on the
Hovchild property, etc., to step the water down from large
rainstorms to allow it to flow out slower as the rainstorm comes
back down.
He then referred to Mr. Ryskamp's comment that the fact if this
was done piecemeal, we would have piecemeal flooding because no
one could afford to put these kinds of pipes in as they have to be
started in one location and continue to move on, otherwise the
price of the housing would be too high and no one could ever
build.
In addressing Mr. Readman's comments, he stated the City would be
glad to share the EIR with him to show him the drainage, and also
he was sure he was referring to American Avenue, and one of the
reasons the City had to look at American Avenue was to try to get
the people off of the streets of Beaumont as quickly as possible
if we are successful in getting an interchange at American Avenue
and I -10. This would be the fastest way out of town if that takes
place, and is a way to keep more traffic away from individual
houses, etc.
He concluded that the Deutsch Corporation should be commended for
listening to the City, and many of the changes to the project came
about because staff said the Council won't buy that. As a result
we have a project that he is proud he had a part in as he feels
they did something for the community and something for the
landowner as well. He went on to say staff felt very fortunate
that they had an attorney working with the City on the development
agreement that worked with the City jointly, and not only on the
landowner's side. It was a very good feeling throughout this
project to realize the City had partnerships on both sides even
before the developer was ready to be annexed.
There were no comments or questions from the Council.
a. ORDINANCE NO. 698 - FIRST READING - Approving the Development
Agreement Between the City of Beaumont and the Deutsch
Corporation (Pursuant to Government Code Section
65864 - 65869.5).
Motion to read Ordinance No. 698 by title only.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member
McLaughlin, to read Ordinance No. 698 by title only.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
The ordinance was read by title
only by the Deputy City Clerk.
Page 11
oeaumont City Council
March 11, 1991
Motion to Approve Ordinance No. 698 at its first reading.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member
McLaughlin, to approve Ordinance No. 698 at its first reading.
AYES: Council Member Leja,
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
END PUBLIC HEARINGS.
MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
10. RESOLUTION NO. 1991 -10 - A Resolution of Intention to 1) Order
Abandonment of a Portion of Minnesota Avenue; 2) Order Abandonment
of a Portion of Elm (Iowa) Avenue; 3) Order Abandonment of a
Portion of "B" Street; and 4) Change the Street Name of the Entire
Length of Minnesota Avenue to Viele Avenue. Applicant: City of
Beaumont.
A report was received from the City Manager, a copy of which is a
matter of record in the Clerk's file, recommending adoption of
this resolution setting a date for hearing.
Mayor Connors questioned why Iowa continues to be shown in
parenthesis behind Elm, with the City Manager replying this is in
case you pick up an old document and it shows Iowa Avenue, this
will explain that Iowa is now Elm, and the same thing will show up
when the name of Minnesota is changed.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member
MacNeilage, to adopt Resolution No. 1991 -10.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
The meeting was recessed at 8:25 p.m., reconvening at 8:32 p.m.
11. Request from Munawar Ahmad Chaudhry for Business License to
Operate Sahara Market at 985 Beaumont Avenue. (Continued from
February 25, 1991).
The City Manager reported that documents were given to his office
which were, in turn, given to the City Attorney for review and the
City Attorney will be advising the result of his review of these
documents.
The City Attorney indicated the documents met the requirements
which were requested. As a part of the escrow instructions there
is a clear statement that in the event of default on the note
between Mr. Barakat and Mr. Chaudhry, that Mr. Barakat cannot take
over the business of Sahara Market, that it only relates to the
fixtures, furniture and equipment. Additionally, there is a
financing statement to be filed, a UCC -1, with the State on the
closing of the escrow and completion of the sale, which provides
only for equipment and fixtures located at the market. Likewise,
there is a proper security agreement and a $15,000.00 installment
note backing that up. The security agreement again relates only
to furniture, equipment and fixtures located at 985 Beaumont
Avenue, and nothing else.
He stated this eliminated his major concern there might be some
effort upon default to take the business back, and that has been
adequately dealt with in the proper legal format.
Council Member Leja asked what the status of the pending lawsuit
filed by the previous applicant is, with the City Attorney stating
it is his understanding that is still going on at this time, but
he has no personal knowledge beyond that fact.
Page 12
Beaumont City Council
March 11, 1991
Council Member Leja then asked if it would be significant to
anything the Council might decide tonight should the previous
applicant win the lawsuit.
The City Manager indicated the previous applicant already has
approval of a business license should he prevail in the lawsuit,
and the Council would not see two people asking for a business
license. The City will need to know that they have a lease on the
property before a business license would be issued.
The City Attorney emphasized the Council's action would not favor
one over the other. The application approval would be based on
the information provided to them.
Council Member MacNeilage asked Mr. Chaudhry if he was not
approved by the ABC, would he still operate a business at this
location, with Mr. Chaudhry stating he went to the ABC two days
ago and they indicated there would be no problem - they will issue
a license to him, but, yes, he would operate a business there even
if a liquor license were not issued.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
MacNeilage, to grant Mr. Chaudhry a business license to operate
Sahara Marke46 at 985 Beaumont Avenue.
Prior to a vote being taken, Mr. Tabell, the previous applicant,
requested to be heard.
Council Member McLaughlin withdrew his motion, with the second
being withdrawn by Council Member MacNeilage, to enable Mr.
Tabell to speak.
Mr. Tabell advised he was here regarding the Sahara Market,
because he feels there is a big question mark because his offer
was $62,000, and this applicant is buying it for $37,000. Mr.
Barakat approached him and offered him $5,000.00 plus his
attorney's fees if he would drop the lawsuit. If he is willing to
pay $5,000 plus attorney's fees on top of the $62,000 he would be
receiving as a result from selling to Mr. Tabell, why would he
sell for $37,000 unless he has an interest in the business.
He went on to say that the gentleman who is also proposing to buy
the business saw the ABC notice on the door, but still he asked
Mr. Barakat to sell it to him knowing the place had already been
sold to him. In his opinion, there will be another Mr. Barakat
there because.he will not care about the laws.
He advised further that the matter is in court with the first
hearing on the 19th of March, and he is requesting the council to
hold any action until the lawsuit has been concluded, and again
questioned that the figures just don't add up and the entire
matter doesn't sound right to him.
Mayor Connors asked for clarification that if the Council approves
eighteen people, the City will still issue only one business
license for this location, and if Mr. Tarbe11 were to win the
lawsuit, it would not be a matter of who came in first to obtain
the license.
The City Manager responded that the City has the right to ask
anyone who comes forward to show us the lease that has been signed
for the building. If the Council authorizes Mr. Chaudhry's
request tonight, he must still provide a lease for the building.
Discussion continued regarding approving the issuance of a
business license to more than one person, with the City Attorney
stating he also doe.sn't understand why Mr. Barakat is choosing to
sell to the second applicant, but it does not effect the legality
of the documents that have been provided, which clearly indicates
Mr. Barakat has no interest except the furniture and fixtures.
Page 13
Beaumont City Council
March 11, 1991
Additional questions were asked by the Council, with comments made
at length by the applicant and his interpreter, the previous
applicant, Mr. Tabell, the City Attorney and the City Manager.
Mayor Connors stated she remembered the original request from Mr.
Tabell, and the paperwork which was included in that agenda, as
well as the request from Mr. Chaudhry and the paperwork that was
in that agenda, and she knows the Council requested the
documentation given to Mr. Ryskamp, and she still doesn't feel
right about it.
The City Manager agreed it doesn't feel right because a gentleman
the Council had escrow instructions from for $62,000 cash has now
been turned down for $37,000 cash, and it is hard for anybody to
feel right about it, with the $37,000 not in cash but $15,000 in a
security agreement.
Mayor Connors continued that she saw three possibilities here, one
to approve it, one to continue it and one to deny it, and her
feeling right now, because of the feeling she gets from it, is to
deny it rather than continuing it.
The applicant, Mr. Chaudhry, through his interpreter, stated he
felt the Council should make a decision on his request tonight,
based on the documentation which has been presented to them,
and then let the Court make its decision later on.
Lengthy discussion continued with the City Attorney stating his
concern about whether or not there is evidence before the Council
to justify denial, and that the applicant has provided all of the
documentation that he can at this time. He emphasized he was not
suggesting the Council was bound to approve it, but a continuance
might be appropriate until it is determined that there is a lease,
and a resolution is complete. He reemphasized further his concern
right now is about the justification of denying the applicant,
when their only concern is this feeling that no one should be
selling something for $25,000 less than a signed, sealed, ready to
be delivered offer. He again recommended the matter be continued
until the next meeting, although he knows this is not what the
applicant wants.
The applicant was asked if he could provide a lease to the
Council, and, if so, they would then feel more comfortable in
approving the issuance of a business license providing the sale is
concluded.
Mr. Tabell advised that at this time the escrow is frozen and the
issuance of an ABC license is frozen, pending the outcome of the
lawsuit, and until the lawsuit has been determined, no sale can
be concluded.
Council Member Leja asked Mr. Chaudhry if he approached Mr.
Barakat regarding the sale, or if Mr. Barakat came to him, with
Mr. Chaudhry replying that Mr. Barakat came to him.
She then asked if Mr. Barakat had made him aware of the previous
sale, and all the legal problems he was experiencing. Mr.
Chaudhry indicated he only told him that the other gentleman could
not get the lease, and he didn't know all the other problems, and
being his first time in a business he doesn't know what is going
on.
Council Member McLaughlin asked if any money had changed hands on
either of the sales. Mr. Tabell said Mr. Barakat asked for
$10,000, but he declined saying everything should be paid into
escrow. Mr. Chaudhry stated that no money has been paid.
Everything is in escrow.
Mr. Chaudhry's uncle, whose name was not given, asked what Mr.
Chaudhry should bring to the next meeting, so he will be aware of
what he needs to provide to the Council, and what will postponing
this to the next meeting accomplish.
Page 14
Beaumont City Council
March 11, 1991
Mayor Connors responded this would give the Council an
opportunity to consider the changed picture they are looking at,
from what they were looking at when they studied this agenda, as
they are now getting a different kind of story than they did
before, and to give Mr. Chaudhry the opportunity to provide a
lease.
At this time Mr. Chaudhry provided a copy of an Assignment of
Lease executed by Mr. Barakat and Mr. Seeburger, the property
owner. The City Attorney asked Mr. Chaudhry if the business
license were to be approved, when could he begin operation of the
store. Mr. Chaudhry said getting a business license would be no
big deal, because he would still have to wait until the lawsuit is
settled.
The City Attorney pointed out the lease apparently goes into
effect on April 1, with the City Manager adding since it goes into
effect on April 1 there should be no problem in making a decision
by March 25 because he couldn't open in any event until April 1.
The City Attorney then brought forward the fact that if the Court
grants a preliminary injunction no one will be opening the
business with or without a business license, also Mr. Barakat's
court ordered 120 days to cease operation has run out.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member
McLaughlin, to continue this agenda item until the next regularly
scheduled Council Meeting on March 25.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
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.
a. Approval of Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of February 25,
1991.
b. Approval of Warrants as Audited per Warrant List of March 11,
19911 in the amount of $276,163.35; and Payroll of February
28, 1991, in the amount of $69,822.77.
c. Authorization to Call for Bids for Installation of Traffic
Signals at 6th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, and at 14th
Street and Beaumont Avenue, with Bids to be Received No Later
than April 15, 1991.
d. Consideration of Contract Proposal for Asset Seizure and
Forfeiture Administration Services, Based on a Contingency Fee
of 18% on the Value of all Assets Subsequently Forfeited Which
Were not Previously Seized by the Police Department, and
Authorization for Mayor the Execute the Agreement.
e. Approval of Payment to Hughes Investment in the Amount of
$170,801.00, for Installation Costs of Beaumont Trunk Sewer
Line in Highland Springs Avenue in Conjunction with Sun Lakes
Village Construction.
Mayor Connors requested the minutes of February 25 be amended as
follows:
On Page 6, sixth paragraph, the last sentence reads, "she
questioned whether the library should be providing this type of
information anyway ", which she felt sounded as if she was
Page 15
Beaumont City Council
March 11, 1991
questioning whether they should on the grounds they should not be,
and this was not her intention. What she questioned was shouldn't
they be providing this type of information anyway. Therefore the
last sentence should be amended to read "she questioned whether
the library shouldn't be providing this type of information
anyway ".
She then asked that Page 12 be amended to show that Council Member
McLaughlin did not return to regular session when the meeting was
reconvened from closed session. The minutes will be amended to
read "Let the record show Council Member McLaughlin did not return
to regular session when the meeting was reconvened from closed
session ".
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member
MacNeilage, to adopt the Consent Calendar with the amendments to
the minutes.
AYES: Council Member Leja, MacNeilage, McLaughlin, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Date Set for Next Regular Council Meeting, Monday, March 25, 1991,
at 7 :00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers.
There being no further business to come before the Council, the
meeting was adjourned at 9:15 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
City Clerk
Page 16
AMENDMENT TO
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
FEBRUARY 25, 1991
The minutes of Beaumont City Council meeting of February 25, 1991
are amended as follows:
Page 6, sixth paragraph, the last sentence is amended to read:
"She questioned whether the library shouldn't be providing this
type of information anyway ".
Page 12, Agenda No. 11, is amended to read: "Let the record show
Council Member McLaughlin did not return to regular session when
the meeting was reconvened from closed session ".
Respectfully submitted,
Robert J. Bounds,
City Clerk
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
FEBRUARY 25, 1991
The Beaumont City Council met in a Regular Meeting on Monday, February
25, 1991, at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor
Connors presiding.
On roll call the following Council Members were present: Leja,
McLaughlin, MacNeilage, Parrott and Mayor Connors.
The invocation was given by Council Member Leja, who then led the
Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
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
Mayor Connors requested that Item No. 9 be taken out of sequence
and heard prior to Item No. 7. There were no objections from the
Council to make this adjustment to the agenda.
3. ORAL COMMUNICATION:
There was no one requesting to speak during oral communication.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - 7:00 P.M.
4. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 26100 (90- PM -2); INTENT TO ADOPT NEGATIVE
DECLARATION 90- ND -11; AND APPEAL OF CONDITION NO. 7.05(e) RELATING
TO MITIGATION FEES. APPLICANT: Bill Ehrlich. LOCATION: Viele
and "B" Streets. The proposed division of 12.45 acres into
thirteen parcels.
The City Manager presented the staff report concerning this parcel
map, explaining the necessity to realign certain streets for
better traffic flow, and indicating a recommendation from the
Planning Commission for approval of the parcel map and adoption of
the negative declaration, with conditions of approval as amended
by the Planning Commission.
He then addressed the appeal filed by the applicant concerning
Condition No. 7.05.(e), advising that he has worked with Mr.
Ehrlich on a new Condition 7.05(e), and recommended the existing
condition be deleted in its entirety and replaced as follows:
7.05(e) - The following mitigation fees will be due and payable
at the time building permits are issued.
1.
Traffic Signalization Fees -
$ 500.00
per acre.
2.
Fire Mitigation Fees -
$ 800.00
per acre.
3.
Police Mitigation Fees -
$ 640.00
per acre.
4.
Traffic Mitigation Fees -
$1000.00
per acre.
(said fee shall be designated
for use in constructing road-
way improvements on the east
side of Viele Avenue between
B Street and the Southern
Pacific Railroad tracks.)"
Additionally, he recommended that Condition No. 2.07.01 be deleted
in its entirety, as it is not needed for this project.
The public hearing was opened at 7:13 P.M.
Page 1
Beaumont City Council
February 25, 1991
Mr. Bill Ehrlich, 6700 Staten Avenue, Buena Park, California:
This is an assemblage of six parcels which we started acquiring
about a year and a half ago, and we acquired the number of parcels
so that we could get frontage on Viele in an industrial area that
would like to see development, and also to be able to get to the
railroad tracks. By picking up a slice of County land, we are now
contiguous to the right -of -way for the SP railroad, and if a rail
user has an interest in some of our parcels along the top, we can
now provide that.
We also negotiated an acceptive agreement between us and the
property owner immediately to the west, because that is where the
storm water will go out, and we have a large storm drain to build
that will run from our cul de sac on down, and then into the
natural channel. This is an area, if you are familiar, during the
- when it rains - the rainy season, is low and is wet. And so,
hopefully, when this is developed it will be able to free that
entire intersection for not only our parcel, but the proposed
Western Coating parcels and other people that will participate in
the area.
There is a rendering of the product over here. While this is a
parcel map hearing, it is kind of hard to just draw lots without
having an idea of what you plan to build there. It is our intent
to go into the market place, being able to show respective users
of light industrial buildings of an approved plot plan, that they
have some concept of how they can build, and they could build on a
lot. What kind of parking they would need. Because there is
always a time lag when you are out showing property - they buy it
subject to tentative, and they come in - it takes months to
complete that cycle. So these lots have been set up at the
present time for a plot plan that has buildings from nine to about
thirty thousand square feet. The lots can be joined if they
desire - instead of half acre lots, if someone wants one acre
lots. There are up to two acres presently on the map. they can
be joined kind of like a puzzle. So we really have a pretty wide
variety of building types.
We have lived entirely within the codes of the City of Beaumont so
far as planning goes. We are not asking for any variances or any
special approvals. But one of the City Engineer's conditions,
which read to me somewhat like an open book, were fees for
purposes and amounts not yet determined or established by the
City, could be applied to us I felt was unfair. So, hence, the
$175.00 fee, and this appeal tonight. I have talked with the City
Manager. It is tough to bring industry out here. You know, we
have been working on it now for a year. The economy does not
always cooperate, and anything that can be done by the City to
minimize our costs in the industrial business would sure be
appreciated. I have, in any event, agreed, if it is your wish,
that we would accept the fees that Mr. Bounds has suggested and
has drafted to you.
If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer.
Mayor Connors: Okay, thank you. Does anyone have any questions.
Council Member Parrott: Yes, I have a question. Do you have any
clients that will need the track siding there.
Mr. Ehrlich: No. Rail clients. No, there was one call that we
got, so far as rail went. I don't show this to the public until I
have an approval by the City. So we talked and said when it is
approved we will go back and we will talk to you. Whether they
are still there today or not I can't tell you. But it is designed
that way that we can have a rail siding if necessary.
Mayor Connors: Mrs. Leja has a question.
Mr. Ehrlich: Sure.
Page 2
Beaumont City Council
February 25, 1991
Council Member Leja: If everything goes as planned tonight, what
type of estimated time of completion do you see of preparing the
property.
Mr. Ehrlich: Well, we are in a slump right now. We have two
years under the present approval to record the map. If I was here
last July I would have said I would be building today. Because I
really felt there was that kind of excitement and interest. Right
now we are going to spend six months doing the critical plans for
water, storm drain, that type of engineering work, and wait until
we see that window in the market.
Housing in Beaumont will help us with industry. Pricing will help
us. There is an awful lot of multi- tenant industrial product
between here and Los Angeles. We hope to be somewhat different as
that user can buy his lot and build his own building, because most
of that inventory out there are large scale multi- tenant, where
you are always a tenant, okay. Hopefully we have that edge, but I
would be very happy if a year from now we could start it.
Mayor Connors: Anyone else. Thank you. Is there anyone else
wishing to speak on Item No. 4. Anyone else wishing to speak on
Item No. 4. Anyone else wishing to speak on Item No. 4. We will
close the public hearing.
The public hearing was closed at 7:18 P.M.
a. Consideration of Approval or Denial of Appeal of Condition
No. 7.05(e) of the City Engineer's Conditions of Approval,
relating to undetermined mitigation fees.
Motion by Council member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Parrott, to approve the appeal and replace Condition 7.05(e) with
the following wording:
7.05(e) - The following mitigation fees will be due and payable
at the time building permits are issued.
1.
Traffic Signalization Fees -
$ 500.00
per acre.
2.
Fire Mitigation Fees -
$ 800.00
per acre.
3.
Police Mitigation Fees -
$ 640.00
per acre.
4.
Traffic Mitigation Fees -
$1000.00
per acre.
(said fee shall be designated
for use in constructing road-
way improvements on the east
side of Viele Avenue between
B Street and the Southern
Pacific Railroad tracks.)"
and further move to delete Condition 2.07.01 from the conditions
of approval in its entirety.
AYES: Council Member Leja,
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
McLaughlin, MacNeilage, Parrott
b. Consideration of Adoption of Negative Declaration 90- ND -11.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member Parrott,
to adopt Negative Declaration 90- ND -11, based on the findings.
AYES: Council Member Leja, McLaughlin, MacNeilage, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
c. Consideration of Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 26100 (90-
PM-2), with conditions of approval as presented or modified.
Page 3
Beaumont City Council
February 25, 1991
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
MacNeilage, to approve Tentative Parcel Map 26100, with conditions
of approval as modified.
AYES: Council Member Leja,
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
END PUBLIC HEARINGS.
McLaughlin, MacNeilage, Parrott
5. Request from Munawar Ahmad Chaudhry for Business License to
Operate Sahara Market at 985 Beaumont Avenue. (Continued from
February 11, 1991).
Chief Funston presented the staff report, advising that he met
with Mr. Chaudhry this last week, and it appeared there was some
communication problem with Mr. Chaudhry regarding what the City
was requesting from him. There had, in fact, been an escrow
opened on the property at 985 Beaumont Avenue, and he received a
copy of the escrow papers and noted the only thing Mr. Barakat
will be keeping is an installment note for $15,000.00 on the
business.
Chief Funston did not know if that qualifies with his probation
terms or not. The escrow appears to be fine other than that one
question.
Chief Funston further advised the escrow reflects the intent to
transfer the ABC license as well, and last week he received notice
from the ABC that they had canceled Mr. Barakat's license, and he
no longer has a license. The applicant was informed of this and
it was suggested to him he may want to investigate this
development.
ABC has further notified Chief Funston, that after reviewing the
case, they may have some reservations about issuing another
license at that location, but that would be ABC's decision.
The Chief also reported he had made some inquiries concerning the
cash supporting this purchase, and they appear to be legitimate.
It has been indicated to him there are no ties in any way with Mr.
Barakat.
Council Member McLaughlin asked for confirmation that ABC would
not issue a license, with Chief Funston responding that at this
point they have some reservations about issuing a license, but he
doesn't know whether or not they will accept his application.
That is strictly up to ABC.
Council Member McLaughlin then requested to hear from the
applicant regarding whether or not he is still interested in the
property if the license is not issued.
Mr. Chaudhry indicated he is interested if ABC gives him a license
for it.
Council Member McLaughlin asked what type of business would he
operate at this location if he does not get an ABC license.
Dr. Gulzer Ahmad introduced himself, indicating he was here in
the capacity of interpreter for Mr. Chaudhry. He then translated
Mr. McLaughlin's question for Mr. Chaudhry's benefit.
Mr. Chaudhry replied through Dr. Ahmad that he would operate a
convenience type store.
The City Attorney asked if the $15,000.00 note was secured or
unsecured, with Chief Funston advising it notes in the escrow
papers that it is an installment note in favor of the seller.
Page 4
V
Beaumont City Council
February 25, 1991
The City Attorney then stated his concern about this installment
note and whether or not it would allow Mr. Barakat to step back in
upon a failure of payment, and asked the applicant whether or not
there was any other security for this note instead of the
business. This question was translated by Dr. Ahmad for Mr.
Chaudhry, with Mr. Chaudhry then replying, through Dr. Ahmad, that
there is no other property being put up as security.
Mr. Ryskamp questioned whether or not if he fails to make a
payment on the loan, can Mr. Barakat take away the business, with
the applicant indicating (again through the interpreter) that he
could not.
Chief Funston read from the escrow papers "that the security
agreement shall secure the same covering the fixtures and the
equipment, together with the financing statement executed by the
buyer and the seller which shall be filed with the Secretary of
State ", - so it appeared he could take the fixtures and equipment.
The City Attorney felt the fixtures and equipment is the business,
and stated his concern about whether or not that violates the
probation, because that would be a potential interest in the
business because all it would take is one or two bad months, and
Mr. Barakat would be back in the business.
Discussion continued along this line, with the conclusion that
the City Attorney should review the escrow papers before
discussion continued.
At this point, it was suggested the Council continue to the next
item on the agenda to allow the City Attorney time to review the
escrow instructions, returning to this agenda item when he is
prepared to continue the discussion.
a. Determination of Use of 17th Year Community Development Block
Grant Funds. (Continued from February 11, 1990).
Ms. Martha Willis, a member of the Mid - County Board of Directors
for Alternatives to Domestic Violence, addressed the Council in
support of the ADV request for funds. In her presentation, Ms.
Willis indicated this request is to help support the services
their agency provides for battered women and their children who
reside in Beaumont. Those services include a toll -free, 24 -hour
crisis line, outreach counseling and advocacy, emergency shelter
and community education and training. The amount requested from
Beaumont is the per capita, fair share portion (1%) of the amount
still needed to be raised to cover all costs in the amount of
$252,307.00.
She continued her presentation with additional information
relating to the services provided by ADV.
Answering* a question from Council Member Leja, Ms. Willis stated
that women and children in this area are being served, as it is
the only source of assistance available, and clarified the service
includes men as well, in actuality, spousal abuse is a better
definition, rather than just women and children. Answering
further questions from Ms. Leja, she indicated that shelter is
available for the women and children, with the Salvation Army
providing shelter for the men, up to a maximum of thirty days;
counseling is available, both by telephone and face to face which
is an on -going situation; and they offer job placement services.
Mayor Connors asked if there are paid employees as well as
volunteers, with Ms. Willis responding there are 25 staff members
and over 100 volunteers, and several shelters with approximately
50 beds available. In addition to the safe houses, there are
other resources for shelter. Counseling is available to the
children as well as the adults. She then confirmed their
statistics show ADV received a call from Beaumont every six or
seven days during this last year.
Page 5
Beaumont City Council
February 25, 1991
Ms. Clara DiFelice, of the Beaumont Library District, stated she
is available for any questions the Council may have regarding the
proposal previously submitted to them, and that the basic goal of
the project is to provide some intensive material on job
information, and to initiate a public relations campaign to
identify the library as a source for job information and materials
in the community.
Council Member McLaughlin felt this type of program might solve
some of the problems previously discussed regarding domestic
violence. It appears to him one of the goals is to educate these
people so they can provide for themselves, and not be a burden to
society as a whole, and he felt it was a well thought -out program.
Council Member Leja asked if this program would also address
illiteracy, or do they have an illiteracy program, with Ms.
DiFelice answering the library does not have an illiteracy program
at this time, the closest one being in Banning. She did advise
the Library District has requested a grant for next year with the
Federal Government Title 6 literacy program. In addition, the
California Literacy Campaign is another source of funds that she
hopes to approach in the next month or two. Job information is
often linked to literacy programs, and the Beaumont Library
District would like to be able to expand their services in that
area.
Council Member Leja then asked how they address english as a
second language, or no english at all. Ms. DiFelice responded
that a lot of the materials are designed for such a job seeking
market, with a lot of the materials in spanish or other languages.
They have some of these materials at this time, and this funding
would allow them to develop that area intensively, and provide,
for example, the GED test in spanish.
Council Member Parrott felt that anything which can be done in
this area to assist the unemployed is good.
Mayor Connors felt what the library is proposing is part of their
normal course of business rather than a specific jobs program, and
she also wondered whether access to information and materials
wasn't part of the right of the library patron already. When a
jobs program was discussed at the last meeting in relation to CDBG
funds, it was determined that a program should be in place before
funds should be allocated to it. In her opinion, this same
philosophy should apply to this program also, and she questioned
whether the library should be providing this type of information
anyway.
Ms. DiFelice agreed the library will be providing job information
for job seekers in the community, they already do. What the CDBG
funds will be used for is to provide a jump start to a collection,
provide an in -depth source of funds that may be put into a
collection of materials to provide a really strong base for job
seekers. From that point on the library will continuously up-
date and keep the collection going. In addition, another part of
the funding would be used mainly for public relations materials.
There is often a problem identifying the library as a source of
information about jobs as job seekers tend not to think of the
library as a normal source for information without a community job
program in place to refer them. This concluded Ms. DiFelice'
presentation.
Mayor Connors called attention to the request from the Department
of Community Action, which mentions Indio, Riverside, Corona and
Hemet, and asked for comments on this request, stating her
personal feeling is the County wants cities to fund their program.
She then pointed out we have the H.E.L.P. organization in
Beaumont, as well as the Alternatives to Domestic Violence
program. It was confirmed there was no one present from this
group to answer questions.
The City Manager answered a question from Council Member Leja that
he has received three of these letters within a short period of
Page 6
Beaumont City Council
February 25, 1991
time, all dated the same date, but no contact has been made by
this group. He did point out the letter dated January 25 was
received on February 14, which was not in time for their last
meeting of February 11.
Mayor Connors said she felt the same way about both this request
and the library district, in that the library is asking the City
to pay for their program and materials, and the County is asking
the City to fund a program which they have.
Council Member Leja stated she wished someone was present so she
could ask some questions, since many federal programs have been
cut dramatically, and she could find out what agency the people in
this area use for emergency cold weather shelter. The City
Manager advised that the H.E.L.P. organization provides cold
weather shelter for this area, and it is better service than what
is given in a lot of areas.
As added information concerning Alternatives to Domestic Violence,
Chief Funston reported there were 213 cases of domestic violence
last year, and of that amount 30.5% contacted ADV. Law
Enforcement is mandated by State law to notify the Department of
Justice of all cases of domestic violence, and give the victims
the alternatives they have and ADV is the only referral service
available locally. A form provided by ADV is handed to the
victim, and also an in -house form which discusses the rights of
victims and makes a referral to the service. The police
department has had nothing but good luck in using this service.
Discussion continued, with additional questions asked of the
library district, and information concerning procedures provided
by the City Manager.
Council Member Leja stated she felt the library should be included
in the discussions with the school district and city in
establishing a real thorough job preparation program, rather than
funding small factions here and there, as a result the timing of
this request isn't right at this time.
Council Member McLaughlin recommended the fund for parks
improvement and the multi - purpose room be increased, since they
are very good programs.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
MacNeilage, that use of the 17th Year Community Development Block
Grant Funds will be as follows:
1. Alternatives to Domestic Violence to receive $2,523.00.
2. D.A.R.E. Officer to receive 15% of the total grant money.
3. Remaining balance of total grant money to be used in
Rangel Park and the Multi Purpose Room.
AYES: Council Member Leja, McLaughlin, MacNeilage, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
b. Consideration of Adoption of Notice of Exemption for 17th Year
Community Development Block Grant Funds.
c. Consideration of Authorization to Submit Application for 17th
Year Community Development Block Grant Funds.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Leja, to adopt Notice of Exemption for 17th Year Community
Development Block Grant Funds and authorizing staff to submit an
application for these funds.
Page 7
Beaumont City Council
February 25, 1991
AYES: Council Member Leja, McLaughlin, MacNeilage, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
The meeting was recessed at 8:19 P.M., reconvening at 8:24 p.m.
5. Discussion was directed back to Agenda Item No. 5 with the City
Attorney asked to report his findings. The City Attorney reported
his review of the escrow instructions reveal it calls for a
security agreement, and Uniform Commercial Code One (UCC -1) filing
as to fixtures, equipment and furniture. Two important items
which are missing from that security agreement are good will and
inventory, which means that while Mr. Barakat might be able to
stop the operation of the business by stepping in and taking the
furniture, fixtures and equipment, he would not be able to take
back over the business. In other words, he would not have the
right to go in and seize directly, if they don't pay on the note,
the inventory and good will. The lease is tied up separately by
an assignment of the lease. He is liable for it, but he doesn't
have direct control over the lease at this point either.
He continued that if the escrow is followed as it is set up, Mr.
Barakat does not have the right to take back over the operation of
the business. He might stop the operation, but he could not step
back in and just begin operating•it again. He did point out that
he does not have copies of the supplementary documents, the UCC -
1 filing, or the security agreement, or a copy of the note, so he
is basing his opinion on the one paragraph description contained
in the escrow instructions.
It was suggested by Mayor Connors the item be continued in order
that the City Attorney might be provided with these documents to
insure the City has all information necessary to make a decision.
Council Member Leja stated she is still leery of the entire
transaction, and would prefer a continuance.
The City Attorney advised that if the item is continued, the
applicant should be given specific directions regarding exactly
what it is the Council desires be furnished to it, which are the
documents to be signed. At this point the Council has a set of
instructions to the escrow holder of what they are supposed to
produce. What is needed are copies of the security agreement, the
note and the UCC -1 filing, fully executed, signed by the parties
ready to be used when they close escrow. This will enable the
Council to see what is going to be finally signed, with the idea
the Council wants to be certain that Mr. Barakat cannot step back
in directly upon failure to pay the note, and take over the
operation of this business, as that is the Council's concern.
The City Attorney emphasized he wants to be as certain as
possible that what has been submitted to escrow is what is going
to be used to close the deal, because of the uneasiness created by
the difficulties with Mr. Barakat and as a result hyper- concerned
about the transaction going as it is set forth.
Council Member McLaughlin said it would appear for this business
to be successful they would almost have to have the ABC license,
and if they don't get that might be more likely to default on the
loan, so he felt the matter should be postponed until the City
Attorney is comfortable with the escrow documents.
The City Attorney asked for clarification that the applicant would
buy the business even if there were no beer and wine license, with
Dr. Ahmad responding for Mr. Chaundhry that he is buying it
whether there is a license or not.
The City Manager asked when the escrow is supposed to close, with
the applicant replying the escrow closing date is past, as it has
been held up due to a lawsuit which has been filed by the previous
Page 8
Beaumont City Council
February 25, 1991
proposed purchaser of the business.
Council Member McLaughlin thought the item should be continued for
not only the reason previously stated, but also to see what the
status of the escrow is in relation to the other problems.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member
McLaughlin, to continue this agenda item until March 11, 1991,
with copies of the Security Agreement, Note and UCC.1 filing,
which should be fully executed ready to be used when escrow
closes, provided to the Council for their review.
AYES: Council Member Leja, McLaughlin, MacNeilage, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
9. Discussion Regarding Letter Received from Southern California Gas
Company relating to the Deutsch Specific Plan SP -89 -1 and
Environmental Impact Report EIR -90 -2.
This agenda item was taken out of sequence at the request of Mayor
Connors under adjustments to agenda.
Mayor Connors requested the representative of the gas company to
come forward, stating she is the one who brought up the question
of the blowdown facility at the hearing regarding the Deutsch EIR,
and the gas company has now indicated the information given to the
Council was incorrect. Mr. Michael E. Edson, representing the
Southern California Gas Company replied that was correct, and that
the matter of moving the gas line was brought up by Deutsch as a
possibility, but no final agreements have been made. He went on
to say that some of the items say "they ", and the gas company
wants to know who "they" are - are they referring to their plan,
or are they referring to "they" being the gas company planning to
move it. No final plans have been made or resolved, and as of
right now the facility will stay where it is at until the gas
company and the Deutsch Company have sat down and put an agreement
together as to what the location of the pipeline will be through
their property, both specific plans for Banning and Beaumont, and
where one goes before the other, the issue of sound mitigation
needs to be addressed.
Mayor Connors asked if the gas company questioned the dba as given
to the Council by Deutsch, with Mr. Edson replying in the
affirmative, explaining that at the present time the dba is 95,
not 70. If it is dropped down to 70 or below, the gas will roll
out, spread and lay out over the adjacent property, not have the
velocity to exit a safe distance, away from the homes and into the
atmosphere, even if it is enclosed and muffled.
Mr. James Taylor, representing the Deutsch Corporation, addressed
the Council stating the information they relied on is in the
response to comments of the environmental impact report, but he
would like to make sure that everyone understands at this
particular point in time they are not building the project in
Beaumont today or tomorrow, or in Banning today or tomorrow.
Unti l such time as a specific plan has been approved in both
communities, he cannot, in good conscious, have his engineers and
planners sit down with various public agencies and design specific
solutions to existing problems. What the environmental document
provides is protection to the City of Beaumont, and subsequently a
similar document in the City of Banning, so that before the first
home can be built, all the problems that are identified in the EIR
will be solved, one of which is the location of the 30" pipeline,
and the other is the location and the sound produced by the
blowdown facility. He is not at that point in time where he is
going to accept from the gas company without measuring the sound
themselves, what they say the velocity and the noise is, but
there is a requirement in the EIR that be done, and they will do
Page 9
Beaumont City Council
February 25, 1991
that. When the plan in Banning has been redone, which is where
the facility is, not in Beaumont, they will be working with the
city and the gas company, as they did in 1985, (at which time they
were told by the gas company that the pipeline would have to be
relocated and they are proposing to relocate it). They don't know
exactly where that relocation is going to take place, but believe
it will take place in the realignment of 14th Street, and there is
information from the gas company that relocating the line into a
street situation is an acceptable solution to the problem.
Mr. Taylor continued that at the time they have those two plans in
place, and they are prepared to sit down and design the project,
that is when they will meet with the various agencies that have
problems, and they will solve the problem of noise, they will
solve the problem of the location, or the Deutsch Corporation has
a problem pursuing the project.
Mayor Connors asked for clarification that Deutsch is saying
enclosing and muffling will reduce the dba, while the gas company
is saying it will not, with Mr. Taylor stating he didn't know how
much muffling and enclosing will lower the sound. He has figures
in the EIR, and whether they are accurate or not they will all
find out. But their intention is to not allow an unmuffled,
vertical pipe, which is what exists today, to remain on their
project, and they will relocate.
Mr. Taylor went on to say that they have asked the question, who
will pay for it. The gas company is responsible for paying for
certain parts of upgrading that pipe for a residential quality
pipe. The Deutsch Corporation is responsible, depending-upon how
much relocation is required, and they are suggesting that it makes
sense to relocate the 30" pipe from its present location into a
street. That the blowdown facility should also be moved. Deutsch
is proposing a golf course in the Banning plan, which is more
than 250 feet from any residence, and it makes sense to locate
that blowdown facility in that kind of an open space, and that is
what they are going to propose. But it is too soon, at this point
in time, because he doesn't know, nor can any City Engineer tell
him, the exact location of the extension of 14th Street, and until
he has that information, he cannot meet with people, and he cannot
design specifically what these facilities will be.
Mayor Connors again asked for clarification that the goal is to
reduce the dba so that at the residences it will be no louder than
adjacent traffic, probably around 70 dba, with Mr. Taylor
indicating their goal is to get it as low as possible so that they
do not have difficulty in selling homes, or having people using
any of the open recreation areas that will be adjacent to it. An
additional objective is to satisfy the requirements of the gas
company.
Mayor Connors then pointed out her original question was who was
supposed to do the noise notification for the blowdown, and how
the city would know it has been done, etc., continuing with the
question do they anticipate any situation where it might not be
down to such a level. Mr. Taylor responded that that is possible
and what wi11 be done, technically, is a sound study will be
prepared by them, submitted to the city, and the city, he assumes,
would evaluate that sound study, involving discussions with the
gas company. There would be proposals as part of that study as to
how to mitigate the sound levels then identified, and how the
notification, if necessary, would take place. Those answers are
answers that would be developed prior to the issuance of any
building permits, and would be a part of the subdivision map that
would come to the city for approval.
Mayor Connors then asked Mr. Edson if there is a problem from the
gas company relative to what Mr. Taylor has just said.
Mr. Edson stated there is really no problem as long as it is
understood and agreed that no clearance letters will be given for
Page 10
Beaumont City Council
February 25, 1991
the tracts when they develop, until an amended right -
of -way is signed by both companies. At that point, the gas
company will feel secure that Deutsch understands, and the gas
company understands, what exactly is going to be placed in the
easements, around the easements, and what facilities will be
relocated into where.
Questions were asked of Mr. Edson and Mr. Taylor by Council,
with the City Manager also providing additional information.
No action was needed on this agenda item:
7. Consider the Adoptic
Following Specific
Deutsch and Kirkwood
The City Manager
recommendation for
required by law.
in of a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the
Plans and Environmental Impact Reports:
Ranch.
presented his staff report, with a
approval of these monitoring programs, as
Motion by Council Member MacNeilage, second by Council Member
McLaughlin, to adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Programs for
the Specific Plans and Environmental Impact Reports for
Deutsch and Kirkwood Ranch.
AYES: Council Member Leja, McLaughlin, MacNeilage, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
8. Consideration of Proposal from Kenneth I. Mullen, Consulting
Engineers, Inc., to Provide Professional Engineering Services for
Design of Phase I Water Facilities and Authorize the Mayor to
Execute Agreements for Same.
The staff report was given by the City Manager, giving
background information on this proposal, with a
recommendation for approval. A copy of this staff report is
a matter of record in the Clerk's file.
There were no questions from the Council, however, several
questions were asked by Barbara Voight, a resident of Cherry
Valley, which were answered by the City Manager.
Motion by Council. Member McLaughlin, second by Council
Member MacNeilage, to approve the agreement with Kenneth I.
Mullen, Consulting Engineers, Inc. for the design of Phase I
Water Facilities in the amount of $1,504,700, and authorize
the Mayor to execute the Agreement.
AYES: Council Member Leja, McLaughlin, MacNeilage, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
10. 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 February 11,
1991.
b. Acceptance of Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting
of January 22, 1991.
Page 11
Beaumont City Council
February 25, 1991
c. Approval of Warrants as Audited per Warrant List of February
25, 1991, in the amount of $124,037.66; and Payroll of
February 14, 1991, in the amount of $68,824.45.
d. Authorize a Contract Amendment with Culbertson, Adams &
Associates to Read as Follows: General Plan $61,020.00;
Program EIR $76,000.00 and LAFCO Application $1,980.00.
e. Request from Rotary Club for Fee Exempt Permit to Sponsor the
Carson and Barnes Circus in Beaumont.
f. Report of Planning Commission Action at Regular Meeting of
February 19, 1991.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member Parrott,
to adopt the Consent Calendar as presented.
AYES: Council Member Leja, McLaughlin, MacNeilage, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
11. Recess to Closed Session Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957
for the purpose of evaluation of performance of a specific public
employee.
The meeting was recessed to closed session at 9:19 P.M.
The meeting was reconvened to regular session at 10:55 P.M.
Let the record show no action was taken in closed session.
Council Member Leja requested that a study session be scheduled
for Saturday, March 9, 1991, at 9:00 a.m., for the purpose of
discussion of priorities of the City Council.
There was a consensus of the Council to hold this study session as
requested on March 9, 1991, at 9:00 a.m., in the City Council
Chambers.
Date Set for Next Regular Council Meeting, Monday, March 11, 1991,
at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers.
There being no further business to come before the Council, the
meeting was adjourned at 10:57 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
ty Cler
Page 12
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
FEBRUARY 11, 1991
The Beaumont City Council met
11, 1991, at 7:00 P.M., in
Connors presiding.
On roll call the following
McLaughlin, MacNeilage, Parro
The invocation was given by
of Allegiance to the flag.
in a Regular Meeting on Monday, February
the City Council Chambers, with Mayor
Council Members were present: Leja,
tt and Mayor Connors.
Mayor Connors, who then led the Pledge
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
A request was received from the City Attorney to add a closed
session to this agenda pursuant to Government Code Section
54946.9(a) regarding pending litigation. There being no
objections from the Council, a closed session was added as
Item No. 7.
3. ORAL COMMUNICATION:
There was no one requesting to speak during oral communication.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - 7:00 P.M.
4. REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INPUT FOR UTILIZATION OF 17TH YEAR COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDS.
The City Manager indicated it is anticipated at this time that
approximately $55,000.00 will be received as the City's 91 -92
fiscal year community development block grant fund program.
He then called attention to two requests which have been received,
one from Alternatives to Domestic Violence, a county program, and
one from Mr. L. W. May, of May Motors. The only other contact
made was from the Beaumont Historical Society, and it was
indicated to them their request would not meet the guidelines that
are required to be used for these funds.
The public hearing was opened at 7:06 P.M.
There was no response to Mayor Connors' request for anyone wishing
to speak on the use of community development block grant funds.
The public hearing was closed at 7:07 P.M.
a. Discussion Relative to Proposed Projects for use of 17th Year
CDBG funds.
Mayor Connors opened discussion with Council Member McLaughlin.
Council Member McLaughlin stated he felt the D.A.R.E. program
would be a very worthy use of these funds, and other than that he
had no other programs to suggest at this time.
Council Member MacNeilage concurred with Mr. McLaughlin in using
the portion available for the D.A.R.E. program, and was hoping for
suggestions from the public.
Page 1
Beaumont City Council
February 11, 1991
Council Member Leja said she was very disappointed no public input
was received on the use of these funds. Since no input was
received, she felt both the D.A.R.E. program and the domestic
violence program are excellent programs, and asked if anyone from
the domestic violence organization was present. The City Manager
advised he told them they could speak tonight, but apparently no
one is present.
Mrs. Leja then asked if we had any percentages regarding
Beaumont's participation in this program, or if Chief Funston
knows how much service is provided to Beaumont.
Chief Funston indicated the police department has used the service
often, especially in the middle of the night when it is hard to
find someplace to take the ladies or gentlemen as the case may be,
and he has been very pleased with their service.
Council Member Leja asked if the City has everything needed for
the renovation of the multi - purpose room at this time, with the
City. Manager answering there are always things which could be
added to the multi - purpose room such as additional lighting,
replacing the acoustical carpeting on the walls, possibly
acoustical baffles to give better acoustics, etc.
Council Member Leja then suggested the possibility of initiating a
job training program for low and moderate income people, using
this grant money to get it started. Industries considering
locating in the area prefer that a program such as this is in
place to assure an available work force. Economic indicators show
it is more computers and high tech, and this is the field the city
might emphasize. By starting a program such as this, the City
could then apply for corporate grants to match these funds. She
felt this would be a good direction for the City to take.
Council Member Parrott agreed with Mrs. Leja that it is very
important to have people trained for industries who might come
into the area. He also supported the request from the domestic
violence group, as he feels it is a very important service and of
assistance to our police department.
Mayor Connors questioned Mr. Bounds' comment in his memo relative
to the possibility of a problem of the PASSNET officer qualifying
for this funding. Mr. Bounds replied that the reason he did not
pursue this question was that since only 15% of the funding can be
used for public safety, it would be better to use the entire 15%
for the D.A.R.E. officer, rather than trying to confuse the issue
by breaking it down between the two programs. It is his
recommendation the 15% be used for the D.A.R.E. program.
Mayor Connors then brought up the request from Alternatives to
Domestic Violence, stating she knows we have funded it in the
past, but she does not recall why we stopped. She does
remember that Beaumont was not being served, but now she is
hearing that we are being served. Information she received
previously, from citizens in the community, was it was very
difficult to get help through this organization because they could
not handle enough people, and enough people from Beaumont were not
being served. This raised the question in her mind that if the
PASSNET officer would not qualify because it is not totally
Beaumont, then she wondered why this one would qualify since it
also is not only Beaumont, and there is the question of whether
Beaumont is being served or not.
The City Manager was requested to obtain information from this
organization showing how much service has been provided to the
City of Beaumont.
Mayor Connors asked if there was sufficient time to obtain
information concerning the jobs program, with the City Manager
stating there would be, however, he felt certain we would have to
Page 2
5.
Beaumont City Council
February 11, 1991
have a class in line this year starting probably in October or
November, and whatever this funding would not pay for, the City
would have to pick up.
Discussion followed concerning the ways and means of initiating a
program such as this, with the indication this type of program
could be researched for several months, putting a whole program
together and possibly making it a part of our economic development
activity which would be funded with block grant funds, and not
just funded every once in a while. If a good program can be put
together paperwise, it will show the City means business, and will
continue with it. The groundwork could be laid in preparation for
applying for funding next year.
Mayor Connors referred to Mr. May's letter, asking if the street
lights were the responsibility of Edison, with the City Manager
replying that a portion of Sixth Street lights belong to the City,
and we are responsible for maintaining them. There is a pole down
right now waiting for a part for it, but these funds cannot be
used for maintenance of existing equipment. The same is true of
the surface of Sixth Street included in Mr. May's letter. This is
also maintenance and would be taken care of with gas tax funds.
Mayor Connors then asked exactly what the historical society had
requested, with the City Manager stating they need seed money to
start the work they want to do in the City, especially looking at
certain older buildings that may not meet earthquake standards,
and this money cannot be used for this purpose.
In answering questions from Council Member McLaughlin, the
City Manager brought up the possibility of placing new playground
equipment in Rangel Park with a portion of this CDBG funding,
which would be a very good program. The restrooms at Rangel Park
probably also need renovating.
A summary of those programs to be considered would be 1) funding
for the D.A.R.E. officer, 2) playground equipment for Rangel Park,
as well as renovation of the restrooms, 3) further consideration
of the request from Domestic Violence after statistics regarding
how many people in Beaumont have been served, and how much was
spent on the people in Beaumont, have been obtained, and 4)
additional upgrading of the multi - purpose room. Referring to the
request from Domestic Violence, Mayor Connors emphasized that
basically this is the type of program everyone wants to support,
however, this money should be used in the best way possible for
this city, so this information should be reviewed prior to
approving any funding.
Council Member McLaughlin indicated he would like staff input
regarding any possible programs they may be aware of.
Council Member Leja asked what the status of the job training
program is, with the City Manager stating he will talk with the
school superintendent about the ROPA program and look into various
ways to initiate a program, for consideration next year.
b. Determination of Use of 17th Year Community Development Block
Grant Funds, and Authorization to Submit Application to
Economic Development Agency.
It was the consensus of the Council to continue this agenda item
to the next regular meeting on February 25, 1991, with direction
to staff to bring back an application for approval.
Request from Munawar Ahmad Chaudhry for Business License to
Operate Sahara Market at 985 Beaumont Avenue.
Chief Funston requested a continuance of this agenda item to
enable him to meet with the applicant for the purpose of obtaining
answers to a number of questions he has, specifically that there
is no Barakat money involved in funding this purchase.
Page 3
Beaumont City Council
February 11, 1991
The applicant was present, and was requested to contact Chief
Funston to arrange a meeting.
The City Attorney asked that he be allowed to indicate to Mr.
Chaundry that while this is not in any way a criminal
investigation, the reason the police are involved is because of
the difficulties which were encountered with Mr. Barakat in his
operation, and therefore there is extra scrutiny to be sure he is
not involved in any way, shape or form, and hopefully not repeat
the kinds of problems which were incurred previously. His one
concern when an investigation like this is going on, is that the
applicant understand the results of this investigation will be
reported to the Council, and they will make a decision determining
the applicant's right to operate the business or not, which is
within their power in terms of the issuing of the business
license. Since this is an important right, and could effect the
applicant's livelihood in the transaction that is going on, the
applicant should recognize he does have the right to have legal
representation to assist him if that is necessary, and also be
present with him in terms of answering Chief Funston's questions. -
He emphasized this is not intended to blow this out of
prospective, but merely so that the applicant does understand that
this legislative body will be making decisions that will effect
his right to operate or not operate this business in the City of
Beaumont.
The applicant did not fully comprehend the City Attorney's
statements, so the City Attorney rephrased his statement to the
effect there have been problems with the previous operation of the
market, therefore, the City is very concerned to eliminate those
problems, and also specifically there is a court order that Mr.
Barakat is not to be operating the market and there is no
connection between the applicant and Mr. Barakat. That is the
purpose of this investigation. The Chief of Police will be asking
the applicant questions when he meets with him. The applicant has
the right to have an attorney because the result of this
investigation, how the applicant answers, will be reported to the
Council. The Council has the right to say the applicant cannot
operate in the City, or to say the applicant can operate, so it is
important to the applicant, it is going to effect what he can and
cannot do, therefore, the applicant has the right to have an
attorney to help guide him through the process.
The City Attorney stated further he is also particularly
concerned, since the applicant did not understand him, that the
applicant may want someone present to help him understand the
questions, because it is important to the applicant, and it is
important to the City that it be done right.
The City Manager called attention to the fact the City had an
application for this business previously, and it showed a great
deal more money being expended for the business, and Mr. Barakat
had indicated that he refused to sell to the other gentleman
because he had a better offer from the present applicant, and
everything shown in this application does not add up to the amount
the previous applicant was going to pay, and this is what th.e
Council needs to know - does the City still have Mr. Barakat
involved someplace.
It was also brought out by the City Attorney that the previous
applicant had an escrow opened which gave all the specific
information regard the purchase, and nothing like that has been
submitted with the application.
This agenda item was continued to the regular meeting of February
25, 1991 to allow Chief Funston to meet with the applicant and
bring a report back to the Council.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR - All Items Listed Under the Consent Calendar
are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be
Page 4
Beaumont City Council
February 11, 1991
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 January 28,
1991.
b. Approval of Warrants as Audited per Warrant List of February
11, 1991, in the amount of $307,541.32; and Payroll of January
31, 1991, in the amount of $70,299.24.
c. Consideration of Proposals from STA, Inc. to Provide
Mitigation Monitoring Programs for Deutsch Specific Plan EIR
and Kirkwood Ranch Specific Plan EIR, and Authorization for
Mayor to Execute Agreements for Same.
d. Declaring Certain City Vehicles and Equipment Surplus, and
Authorizing Disposal of said Vehicles and Equipment by Auction
or Other Means.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member Parrott,
to adopt the consent calendar as presented, with the signature
block on Item No. C corrected to reflect signature by the Mayor.
AYES: Council Member Leja, McLaughlin, MacNeilage, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
7. Recess to Closed Session.
The meeting was recessed to closed session at 8:11 p.m., 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
City of Beaumont vs Bowie, Riverside Superior Court Case No.
200647.
This item has been added to the agenda pursuant to Government Code
Section 54954.2(b) as the need to take action arose after the
agenda was posted.
For the record, the City Attorney advised he received information
of an urgent nature on this particular case late Friday afternoon
in the mail, and it was too late to post the item to the agenda,
and because there are things that need to be done relative to the
case, he needed comment and input from the Council, for that
reason he has used this rarely used section to add this closed
session to the agenda.
The meeting was reconvened to regular session at 9:06 P.M.
Let the record show no action was taken in closed session.
Date Set for Next Regular Council Meeting, Monday, February 25,
1991, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers.
There being no further business to come before the Council, the
meeting was adjourned at 9:07 P.M.
Respgctfully submitted,
Robert J. Bounds,
City Clerk
Page 5
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
JANUARY 28, 1991
The Beaumont City Council met in a Regular Meeting on Monday, January
28, 1991, at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor
Connors presiding.
On roll call the following Council Members were present: Leja,
McLaughlin, MacNeilage, Parrott and Mayor Connors.
The invocation was given by City Attorney Ryskamp, who then led the
Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
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 - 7:00 P.M.
4. ORDINANCE NO. 692 - SECOND READING - Repealing Section
T7.40.325(8) of the Beaumont Municipal Code and Adding Section
17.40.325(8) to the Beaumont Municipal Code Dealing with Outdoor
Merchandise Displays.
a. Motion to Read Ordinance No. 692 by title only.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member
McLaughlin, to read Ordinance No. 692 by title only.
AYES: Council Member Leja, McLaughlin, MacNeilage, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
The Ordinance was read by title only by the deputy city clerk.
b. Motion to Adopt Ordinance No. 692 at its second reading.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member
Mclaughlin, to adopt Ordinance No. 692 at its second reading.
AYES: Council Member Leja, McLaughlin, MacNeilage, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
5. ORDINANCE NO. 693 - SECOND READING - Prezoning 1,162 acres
from Riverside County A -1 (Light Agriculture) to City
Specific Planning Area (SPA 4.1 dwelling units per acre),
(90- RZ -8). Applicant: Deutsch Corporation. (89- ANX- 1 -48).
Location: Bounded by Brookside Avenue to the north, Highland
Springs Avenue to the east, 8th Street to the south, and
Cherry Avenue to the west.
Motion to read Ordinance No. 693 by title only.
Beaumont City Council
January 28, 1991
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member McNeilage,
to read Ordinance No. 693 by title only.
AYES: Council Member Leja, McLaughlin, MacNeilage, Parrott
and Mayor Connors..
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
The ordinance was read by title only by the deputy city clerk.
Motion to adopt Ordinance No. 693 at its second reading.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member
McNeilage, to adopt Ordinance No. 693 at its second reading.
AYES: Council Member Leja, McLaughlin, MacNeilage, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
6. ORDINANCE NO. 695 - SECOND READING - Adding Chapter 15.42 to the
Beaumont Municipal Code Dealing with Earthquake Hazard Reduction
in Existing Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Wall Buildings.
Motion to Read Ordinance No. 695 by title only.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member
McLaughlin, to read Ordinance No. 695 by title only.
AYES: Council Member Leja, McLaughlin, MacNeilage, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Motion to adopt Ordinance No. 695 at its second reading.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member Parrott,
to adopt Ordinance No. 695 at its second reading.
AYES: Council Member Leja, McLaughlin, MacNeilage, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
7. RESOLUTION NO. 1991 -07 - Pursuant to Chapter 10.04 of the
Municipal Code of Beaumont, Prescribing Intersection Stop Signs at
10th Street and Palm Avenue, to Expedite Traffic Flow and Traffic
Safety.
Mr. Bounds called attention to a letter from Pastor Robert Wood
requesting a continuance of this item to allow him the opportunity
to address the council at the next meeting, since he had not been
able to meet with personnel from the City regarding the placement
of the stop sign.
Mayor Connors indicated she did not recall that City personnel
were to meet with him, with Council Member McLaughlin asking what
authority Mr. Wood would have to say where it goes when you have
to put it in a certain location legally. Council Member McNeilage
said his understanding was the item was to be brought back to the
Council tonight, with the City Manager concurring that was also
what he understood.
The City Manager's report indicated that Hector Aguirre had
checked the property at 10th Street and Palm Avenue on the
northwest corner, and found there is ample room to install a stop
sign. The installation would be according to law and wouldn't
damage the elm tree in the street right -of -way.
Page 2
Beaumont City Council
January 28, 1991
All council members indicated they had inspected the site
themselves, and agreed there appeared to be no problem in
installing the stop sign at this location.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
McNeilage to adopt Resolution No. 1991 -07.
AYES: Council Member Leja, McLaughlin, MacNeilage and
Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: Council Member Parrott.
ABSENT: None.
8. Consideration of Approval of Proposals to Provide Professional
Engineering Services for 1) Master Plan of Water Facilities and 2)
for Water Resources Management Plan, and Authorization for Mayor
to Execute the Agreements.
The City Manager presented information concerning these two
proposals. His report is a matter of record in the Clerk's file.
Mayor Connors pointed out typographical errors in both proposals,
which will be corrected.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Parrott, to approve the proposals of Kenneth I. Mullen, Consulting
Engineers, Inc., the Master Plan at $56,150.00 and the Resources
Management Plan at $196,924.00, to be paid from Account No.
4250 - 4060 -5053, and authorize the Mayor to execute agreements for
same.
AYES: Council Member Leja, McLaughlin, MacNeilage, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
9. Discussion Relative to 17th Year Community Development Block Grant
Projects.
The City Manager explained the CDBG process and the types of
projects that could possibly be proposed.
Discussion followed regarding possible projects including flood
control and the elimination of blight and slums in a particular
area, and whether or not they would be qualified. Insofar as
slums or blight is concerned, the City Manager pointed out these
types of projects would require more money than we would receive
through CDBG, and were better handled through a redevelopment
agency. Council Member Leja brought forward the fact that larger
cities receive more money than a city of this size, and are able
to apply this funding to this type of project, where the City of
Beaumont is limited because there just isn't enough money to do
it.
Council Member Leja then asked how public input could be
encouraged, with the City Manager stating this can be done through
public notice and articles in the newspapers.
The City Manager clarified for Council Member McNeilage that it
has been his experience the maximum number of citizens with input
has been six, and those are usually organizations who want the
money to take outside the city. It is very difficult to talk the
community into coming down and helping plan.
The City Manager asked the Council Members to submit their
suggestions to his office prior to the next council meeting to
give him the opportunity to obtain an idea of what the costs
would be.
Page 3
Beaumont City Council
January 28, 1991
Mayor Connors requested assurance that this money could be used to
make up a portion of the cost of the DARE officer, with the City
Manager confirming this was possible, and that he also believed
we could get the same amount of money for one of the drug
officers, and he will find out if this is correct.
There was no further discussion.
10. 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 January 14,
1991.
b. Acceptance of Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting
of December 18, 1990.
c. Approval of Warrants as Audited per Warrant List of January
14, 1991, in the amount of $112,257.73; and Payroll of January
17, 1991, in the amount of $71,354.12.
d. Request from H.E.L.P. for One Year Extension of Lease of City
Facility at 296 California Avenue, Subject to Terms and
Conditions of Existing Lease.
e. Report of Planning Commission Action at Meeting of January 22,
1991.
Motion by Council Member Parrott, second by Council Member Leja,
to adopt the consent calendar as presented.
AYES: Council Member Leja,
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
McLaughlin, MacNeilage, Parrott
Date set for next regular Council Meeting, Monday, February 11,
1991, at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers.
There being no further business to come before the Council, the
meeting was adjourned at 7:48 P.M.
ectfully submitted,
tit-
uty
City Clerk
Page 4
BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF
JANUARY 14, 1991
The Beaumont City Council met in a Regular Meeting on Monday, January
14, 1991, at 7:02 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, with Mayor
Connors presiding.
On roll call the following Council Members were present: Leja,
McLaughlin, MacNeilage, Parrott and Mayor Connors.
The invocation was given by City Manager Bounds, who then led, the
Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
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 - 7:00 P.M.
4. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23491. (88- TM -2). Applicant: Darrel W. Coffman.
Formerly Ronald Hemsley . Location: Northeast corner of Cougar
Way and Sunnyslope. A request for a one year extension of a
proposed eleven lot single family subdivision tract map.
Stephen Koules, Director of Community Development, presented the
staff report on this project, with a recommendation from the
Planning Commission to approve a one year extension of the tract
map, with the revised conditions of approval.
The public hearing was opened at 7:06 P.M.
No one requested to speak either in favor of, opposition to, or at
all on this matter.
The public hearing was closed at 7:07 P.M.
a. Consideration of Approval of a one year extension for
Tentative Tract Map 23491 (88- 1-M -2), subject to the revised
conditions of approval as presented.
Motion by Council Member Parrott, Second by Council Member Leja,
to approve a one year extension for Tentative Tract Map 23491 (88-
TM-2), subject to the revised conditions of approval as presented.
AYES: Council Member Leja, McLaughlin, MacNeilage, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
5. ORDINANCE NO. 692 - FIRST READING - Repealing Section 17.40.325(8)
of the Beaumont Municipal Code and Adding Section 17.40.325(8) to
the Beaumont Municipal Code Dealing with Outdoor Merchandise
Displays.
A staff report was received from Community Development Director
Page 1
Beaumont City Council
January 14, 1991
Koules, with a recommendation from the Planning Commission for
approval of the amendment to the Beaumont Municipal Code.
The public hearing was opened at 7:11 P.M.
There was no one requesting to speak regarding this matter.
The public hearing was closed at 7:12 P.M.
a. Motion to Read Ordinance No. 692 by title only.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Parrott, to read Ordinance No. 692 by title only.
AYES: Council Member Leja,
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
McLaughlin, MacNeilage, Parrott
The ordinance was read by title only by the deputy city clerk.
Mayor Connors questioned what impact this amendment would have on
existing businesses, with Mr. Koules indicating with this
amendment you would not have outdoor display as a right, but
rather only upon review. She also questioned having case by case
reviews, with both Mr. Koules and the City Manager stating these
would be reviewed based on location and type of business.
b. Motion to Approve Ordinance No. 692 at its first reading.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Leja, to approve Ordinance No. 692 at its first reading.
AYES: Council Member Leja, McLaughlin, MacNeilage, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
6. PROPOSED PRE - ANNEXATION CHANGE OF ZONE 90 -RZ -8, SPECIFIC PLAN
SP -89 -1 and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR -90 -2. Applicant:
Deutsch Corporation. Location: Bounded by Brookside Avenue to
the north, Highland Springs Avenue to the east, 8th Street to the
south, and Cherry Avenue to the west.
A proposed Pre - annexation zone change on 1,162 acres from
Riverside County A -1 (Light Agriculture) to City Specific Planning
Area (SPA 4.1 dwelling units per acre), (89- ANX- 1 -48); the
proposed adoption of a Specific Plan on 1,162 acres for a
residential community of 1,968 single family dwelling units, 2,208
patio homes and 540 townhomes /condos, for a total of 4,716 units,
six schools, one library, one fire station, 15 acres
of commercial and 65 acres of parks /trails. (SP- 89 -1); and
certification that the final environmental impact report has been
completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) (EIR- 90 -2).
Stephen Koules presented the staff report concerning this project,
with a recommendation for approval by unanimous vote of the
Planning Commission.
The public hearing was opened at 7:23 P.M.
Mr. Jim Taylor, representing the Deutsch Corporation: We have
been in the planning process for this acreage for a little over a
year, and as Mr. Koules has said, we have had significant
opportunities to work with your staff in making sure that our plan
conforms with master plans and guidelines of the city. I am just
going to take a few minutes to highlight some of the key
Page 2
Beaumont City Council
January 14, 1991
ingredients that we feel are associated with our plan, and to also
indicate to you how our plan dovetails into master plan systems
that we know that the city has.
We have three types of housing included in the plan. The single
family detached, the patio homes. These are shown on the exhibit
to the far right hand side on the wall, which indicates how these
types of developments would occur on individual lots. These are
all single family detached homes on lots ranging from 6,000 to a
minimum of 7,000 sq.ft. In addition, we have a third category of
home, which is the town home or condominium. This constitutes a
small portion of the plan, approximately 11 %, whereas almost 90%
is in the single family detached on the larger lot. The townhome
program is also shown on an exhibit, which is the middle exhibit.
All of the product that we are proposing in this plan is for sale
housing. There is no rental housing associated with the project.
In addition, we have worked with tf
providing five elementary school
understand, the Council has addressed
temporary school site, which is the
plan on the far left, which is just
also a junior high school site.
ie school district, and are
sites, one of which, we
previously as the site of a
site shown on the land use
above Cougar Way. We have
We have five parks, three neighborhood, a trail park, and one
community park, totaling the 65 acres. In addition, we have
reflected in our plan the City's master plan for an optimum
situation which results in a trail in the Edison easement to link
various portions of the City, and that is a part of our plan.
We have combined our parks with schools so that the biggest bang
for the dollar can be achieved between the park district, be it
the City or whomever, as well as the school district.
In addition, our circulation element includes the City's desire to
realign Cherry Avenue with American Way for a future interchange
at the interstate freeway. We have also extended 14th Street and
Cougar and achieved the requirements of the City's engineer, and
conform with the County's master plan of arterials for the
extension of these roads.
Because we are proposing a planned community that has a variety of
housing, and is self- contained in the terms of schools and parks,
we also show a 15 acre commercial site that will serve the
commercial needs of the residents of this community. This is a
neighborhood community site in which you would see such uses as
supermarket, drug store and convenience types of shop, as opposed
to the more discretionary types of shopping that one can find on
Wilson and on Ramsey.
In essence that constitutes the significant portions of our plan.
The document that we submitted to support this plan has very
comprehensive diagrams relative to landscaping of the arterials
all the way from local streets to major arterials as described by
Mr. Koules.
Tonight we have in attendance the representatives from STA, who
prepared the environmental impact report should you have any
questions of them. With those remarks, we will make ourselves
available to answer any questions you may have during the course
of the public hearing, and we thank you very much for the courtesy
for allowing us this brief presentation.
Mayor Connors: Thank you Mr. Taylor. Does anyone have any
questions of Mr. Taylor. Is there anyone else wishing to speak in
favor of Item No. 6.
Unidentified speaker from the audience: I have a question.
Mayor Connors: Would you come to the microphone and give your
name and address for the record please.
Page 3
Beaumont City Council
January 14, 1991
Laura Grunwald: My name is Laura Grunwald, and I live on
American, and I just wanted to know what that is going to do to my
street because I am raising a family. What does that do to
American Avenue if they are going to make it a through -way to the
freeway.
Mayor Connors: Mr. Bounds, did you want to . . .
Mr. Bounds: The Deutsch Company did not present this as their
basis for coming to the City, and it being done this way.
Pennsylvania Avenue - the City staff has looked at for some time.
The fact that we only have a half of an interchange is very
detrimental to business that is going to be on 6th that might be
able to get their people off, but then send them to some other
interchange.
With the fact that that is a half interchange, we have looked at,
and we have started working through the federal government and
the state government to determine where a full interchange could
be put on I -10, and where it could actually give birth to a better
north /south street, which is going to be needed as we start
building to the north of 8th Street in this particular area, and
out further as well. So what was derived as the best link that we
could find at this time, came to be American Avenue.
Mrs. Grunwald: Isn't Highland Springs on -ramps both ways, isn't
that more practical.
Mr. Bounds: That is only one. That won't be nearly enough. That
is like saying Beaumont is going to last forever.
Mrs. Grunwald: What does that do to my front yard in simple
terms.
Mr. Bounds: There is a possibility - well, obviously, right -of-
way will have to be purchased on both sides of American if you are
talking between 6th and 8th Street in the future. This is nothing
that can be done overnight, I will grant you that.
Mrs. Grunwald: No, but are we talking within the next three to
five years.
Mr. Bounds: No. We are talking, probably, ten years.
Mrs. Grunwald: Okay. Thank you.
Mayor Connors: Is there anyone else wishing to speak in favor of
Item No. 6. We have a request to speak in opposition to Item No.
6. Gina Glock. Would you please give your name and address for
the record.
Gina Glock, 1365 E. 8th Street: I live at 1365 E. 8th Street in
Beaumont, where I have been a resident and property owner for
seventeen years. I am here to oppose the annexation of Deutsch
land. And I am here to also ask for your support in voting no on
this resolution. I know that some of the things that come through
the City Council are just rubber stamped. And I am here to ask
you please do not just rubber stamp this issue.
As being a resident of 8th Street, I don't know if you can hear me
on this, but I feel that there are three real big problems. First
off, for the members of 8th Street it is going to create an
island. About eight years ago this land was going to be annexed.
The people - the residents of 8th Street that did not want it
because they would be an island, opposed it. I realize that you
are not asking for the annexation of the residents on 8th Street,
but it will directly affect us. And to Mrs. Grunwald, I can say
yes, when American is widened - I don't care if it is five years
or twenty years - I plan on living here for fifty more years. I
do not want to see that happen. I do not see why you can't widen
Page 4
Xenia. That is already part of the
the swap meet and meet the freeway
that are already part of the County.
Beaumont City Council
January 14, 1991
City and it could go through
without affecting residences
My next issue is the environmental and safe ability of this
annexation. I know that you are probably concerned with the water
crisis that the Pass area has, and you know that you are planning
on getting water from the State Water Agency. But have you also
considered the overage of the 5,000 acre foot that we are already
in. If we get the amount of water acreage foot that the State
allots us, it is supposed to be enough for 17 to 35,000 homes.
But if there is 5,000 homes already in this new area, I cannot see
how it is going to take and help the water crisis that is already
here.
One of the other major factors that I want you to consider is the
crime rate here in Beaumont. And if you have recently read the
Press - Enterprise, you know that the crime rate has tripled in the
last five years. By adding housing to Beaumont in such a great
quantity, and at such a rapid pace, you are going to have an
influx of crime here. If you have seen the writing in the post
office , on the Catholic Church, on the library, and if you have
paid any attention to the writings on the wall here in Beaumont,
then you know yourself that the crime has increased over the last
five years.
I am not opposed to growth. I live here now, and I intend to live
here, and I know Beaumont has got to grow. But I think annexation
of the Deutsch property is going to affect the residences in the
County there on 8th Street. There is about 100 people that are
registered owners there. And you are going to have to widen 8th
Street as wide as Beaumont Avenue. You are going to have to widen
American Avenue. That is a family area, where it is going to take
- you are going to have to almost change it. If it is going to be
like Beaumont Avenue you would want to change the zoning there,
and not have just houses, but you would want to have businesses.
And I really feel that if you are really concerned - if you really
care about Beaumont, sure you are going to want growth, but you
are going to want growth to come from within - you don't want to
have to have a big influx all of a sudden of 5,000 homes, people
coming from without, and all of a sudden it is not going to be
called Beaumont. Thank you for your time.
Mayor Connors: Do any of the council members have a question for
Mrs. Glock.
Council Member Leja: I do.
Mayor Connors: Mrs. Glock.
Council Member Leja: You state - I won't get into a thing about
the rubber stamp issue - I take offense to that because if you
kept up with the City Council stuff you would realize we have
differing votes up here all the time, and it is not a rubber stamp
issue here. But, I was concerned that you said it would hurt your
present standard of living for the residences on 8th Street. How
will it hurt the standard of living.
Mrs. Glock: Presently we are in the County, okay. And, because
we are in the County most of us are zoned R -3, and that means that
we can have - well, we have animals, small animals, rabbits,
ducks, chickens, and I know from the city surrounding me that you
just aren't able to have even a rooster in the city zoning, even
though, like I have two acres where I am at. Another issue is the
fact, of course, of the sewer. Twenty years ago, a resident on
the corner of 6th Street and American was annexed into the City,
with the understanding they would receive sewer. It is twenty
years later, and that resident has not received sewer. I cannot
see my taxes going up, and having to pay extra money for services
I will not be receiving, having to change my mode of life, having
people come into the community that don't care about this
Page 5
Beaumont City Council
January 14, 1991
community. We have to live here and care about it. Your not just
hereto make a fast buck, and that is what I think is going to
happen when all of that land comes for sale.
Council Member Leja: Can I give you just a little bit of thought
about some things. The reason that those people don't have sewer,
you can blame the Beaumont- Cherry Valley Water District. We are
in the process of having our own water treatment plant. . .
Mrs. Glock: Can you answer how many homes that will service. I
am under the understanding that right now no more sewer permits
are even issued in the City of Beaumont because they do not have
the facilities.
Council Member Leja: That is what we are building .
Mrs. Glock: How many homes will it serve.
Council Member Leja: That is the problem that we have had with
the Beaumont - Cherry Valley Water District, so if you have
questions about that you can take that to them. Also. . .
Mrs. Glock: Can you tell me how many homes it will service.
Council Member Leja: Mr. Bounds probably can.
Mrs. Glock: Okay.
Council Member Leja: But we do have roosters in the City. I get
calls about roosters all the time at my house.
Mrs. Glock: Okay, but I am saying it will effect the amount of
animals and the type in the zones.
Council Member Leja: One more food for thought here. I have a
family here too. I am concerned about the quality of life. What
about the advantages of having schools near by, parks that your
children can play in, organized activities, summer playground
programs. It is endless of what a project like this can improve
the quality of life - not just for a few residents, but for a
whole group of people in the city.
Mrs. Glock: Those parks and those schools w -ll service those
people that are living on that land. They will not service any of
us that live here in the town itself.
Council Member Leja: I see people from Cherry Valley at Stewart
Park all the time.
Mrs. Glock: I just know because I know of the part of the plan
for the school district in servicing the community. The walls
that will go up, and I probably mentioned this at the Planning
Commission. I see it when you see other developments. Walls go
up and they are their own private community. Stay out. Look at
Sun Lakes over there. You have to go through an attendant and
know somebody to get through the gates. It is going to happen in
this development here. Sure there will be parks, but they will be
private parks. . .
Council Member Leja: I didn't see any private parks here Sir,
are there any private parks. . .
Mrs. Glock: 65 acres it was mentioned at the Planning
Commission . . .
Mayor Connors: Mrs. Glock, you can't both speak at the same time.
Mrs. Glock: Okay. At the Planning Commission it was mentioned
there is 65 acres of parks, but the park goes through - the
public park goes through the facility. It was mentioned the other
parks are for private use. And they should be opened up to the
whole public.
Page 6
Beaumont City Council
January 14, 1991
City Manager: The mention was made by Mr. Taylor of five schools.
And he also mentioned that to get the best bang for the buck that
every school will have a park with it. Those are not locked gates
at those parks. None of them are locked gates, and there are no
locked roads or gates in this whole project. It is really hard
for a developer to try to prove something to some one if they
won't come in and look at the plans that we have for them to look
at.
Council Member Leja: Also, you might want to look at the parks
and open space policy that we have adopted. It is connecting the
parks throughout the city for the enjoyment of every citizen in
the area.
City Manager: Not just residents of these developments.
Council Member Leja: Not just residents -- we have people from
Cherry Valley that use Stewart Park all the time and enjoy it. We
have - you know - we are a community.
Mrs. Glock: That is a public park.
Council Member Leja: These are public parks.
City Manager: They are county people though.
Mrs. Glock: Parks that are on school grounds are usually locked
for the rate of crime.
Council Member Leja: I guess you didn't hear what Mr. Bounds
said, but we won't get into a debate. . . . .
Mrs. Glock: He said they were not going to be locked, but . . .
Council Member Leja: We have parks across from the school right
behind here that they aren't locked.
Mrs. Glock: To me the parks is not the issue, it is the whole
development of the area in such a fast rate. I am sure that LAFCO
will be concerned that you are trying to create an island, which
is against LAFCO ruling.
Council Member Leja: Simply the reason I brought this up is I
think it will improve your quality of life instead of hinder it.
Mrs. Glock: Thank you, I realize you have a different quality of
life than I have.
Mayor Connors: Excuse me, Mrs. Glock, I have some comment and
questions for you to, but we won't be able to continue if you are
going to insult the Council.
Mrs. Glock: I am sorry if you are insulted, Mrs. Leja, but we
have a different quality of life.
Mayor Connors: Is there anyone else that wishes to say anything
here. Mr. Bounds.
City Manager: I would just like to discuss the fact that you keep
talking about you are in the County, you don't want to be in the
City, and no one in this annexation has even asked you to be a
part of the City. We. . .
Mrs. Glock: No, but it will come to that. I have lived here long
enough to know it will come to that.
City Manager: May I talk now, and you talk after, please. I
would appreciate that. This city will not change your zoning in
your area. We will not ask you to come to the city and be a part
of the city unless you desire to be. This council has not gone
out and asked us to draw people in and make them join the city in
Page 7
Beaumont City Council
January 14, 1991
any way, shape or form. The animals that you have there, you will
still be under county control.
Mrs. Glock: Can I ask then, how can you widen 8th Street and
American that is part of our land, and part of the county. If
you, if - - how are you going to do this widening if you don't use
our land.
City Manager: Did anyone say it was going to be widened in a
year. Didn't I say probably ten years.
Mrs. Glock: I don't care if it is fifty years, I am going to be
there.
City Manager: Okay, there is a way that any government, city,
county or otherwise, may condemn property for the betterment of
other people.
Mrs. Glock: Yeah, I realize that - yes.
City Manager: I am sorry, that is the way you build streets.
Mrs. Glock: I know you have the right to take it.
City Manager: No - don't take it - you pay dearly for it.
Mrs. Glock: You pay the price that you want to pay - but.
City Manager: Well, I am sorry that I can't discuss it on an even
tone because you have got your own mind made up. . .
Mrs. GIock: Well, I just don't realize why Xenia wasn't even
considered because it is already . . .
City Manager: It was considered ma'am. We spent many hours on
this whole project.
Mrs. Glock: Because it doesn't effect anything that is already in
the town - that is part of the city.
City Manager: Yes it would -- that is your opinion.
Mrs. Glock: Isn't it already part of the city, and it could go
right through the swap meet.
Council Member McLaughlin: You do have residential homes on
Xenia, so if your speaking strictly . . .
Mrs. Glock: One or two . . .
Council Member McLaughlin: Well, it doesn't matter, you still
have. you could be the only one that is against it.
Mrs. Glock: Well, Mrs. Grunwald, I know, lives right there on the
street. And I know three other residences right there on 8th
Street that couldn't be here that it will directly affect their
property.
Council Member McLaughlin: Improve it.
Mrs. Glock: No - they will lose it.
Council Member MacNeilage: Wasn't it said there wouldn't be
enough room for on or off -ramps from Xenia for the freeway.
City Manager: That is right. The federal government will not
allow it that close to Highland Springs Road.
Mrs. Glock: That close to what?
Page 8
Beaumont City Council
January 14, 1991
City Manager: Highland Springs Road. It is too close to Highland
Springs Road, and they have a very direct disclaimer over allowing
anything that close together. So, we cannot put it there, and
that is one of the things I was going to tell you, but you didn't
want to listen, I don't think.
Mrs. Glock: Well, I don't understand - I do understand now, it is
too close to Highland and Pennsylania is too close to Beaumont,
and American is right in the middle.
City Manager:
Mayor Connors:
growth, but you
is slow growth
slow growth to
That is about it.
Mrs. Glock, you
were opposed to
and rapid growth.
you, and how many
said that you were not opposed to
rapid growth. What rate of speed
How many people a year would be
rapid growth.
Mrs. Glock: 500 a year would be slow growth, and it would come
from within. People moving in and buying houses that are already
here in the community. Rapid growth is 45,000 homes and all of a
sudden in ten years we are going to have as many people as already
live here in Beaumont. And we are going to have more new schools,
and it is not going to be a gradual growth, and with the rapid
growth, as you know from Moreno Valley, you get all of the crime.
And I think . . .
Mayor Connors: If the growth is going to come from within, where
are the 500 people going to come from.
Mrs. Glock: From families that already live here. My children
care about Beaumont. They thought of living here. And when my
eight year old daughter is in tears because of the trees being cut
down at the end of 14th Street and Cherry Avenue, and she is
worried about all of the housing going up. Why mom can't they put
up things to help the animals. And when my children consider
leaving their home, and my own husband where he lived for forty
years, I consider it crucial, and I consider it important - and so
my children probably won't live in this town, even though I want
them to. I want to create a home for them so that there will be
tradition in the town. But I foresee the children - our future -
leaving this community because they aren't happy with it. And not
because of that reason.
Mayor Connors: Well, what you seem to be doing here is taking
what we are doing, and changing it into what your prediction is
for the future. And whatever you predict for the future is the
way it is going to be. And we can't vote that way.
Mrs. Glock: But that is the way . . .
Mayor Connors: I would like to know where you got your statistics
on the water crisis.
Mrs. Glock: I have a newspaper article from the Press - Enterprise
from about a year ago. I clip these all the time, and it tells
about the State water project coming in and it would serve 17,000
to 35,000 homes for the Pass area, but not specifically just for
Beaumont.
Mayor Connors: That is what I wanted to know. That is what I
wanted to know. And I woul d 1 i ke to cauti on you not to bel i eve
everything you read in the paper. That is a side subject though.
Are there any other questions. All right, thank you. Is there
anyone else wishing to speak in opposition to Item No. 6. Anyone
else wishing to speak in opposition to Item No. 6. Anyone else
wishing to speak at all on Item No. 6. Please state your name and
address for the record please.
Dean Lowe: I live at 11167 Cherry Avenue in Cherry Valley. Right
across the street. And they said they were going to realign
Page 9
Beaumont City Council
January 14, 1991
Cherry Avenue, and I am wondering what they mean by realignment.
Are they going to widen the street, or are they going to take down
my nice big pine tree out in front, or are they going to use the
Deutsch property on the other side for the widening of the street,
or are they going to put in another street and abandon that one,
or what.
Mayor Connors: Okay, do you want to answer that, or Mr. Taylor,
or who?
City Manager: When development is created within an area, if you
have a two lane road at the time and need four lanes, if that is
the case, or additional space for parking, or whatever the case
might be - the rule of thumb is always use half on each side. In
other words, you own a half and somebody else owns a half, and you
say, okay, what am I going to do. Well, obviously, if you are not
going to improve your property than you won't be putting your half
in. We will be required, then, to have a three lane street,
probably, or a tight four lane with no parking on it in that
particular area. What we have looked at is north of that
property, the right -of -way is already wide enough for four lanes.
The County had planned that, apparently, years ago. So what we
did, we looked at the ability to provide a better way for those
people who live in that area, Cherry Valley and yourself, to try
to be able to get you in a north /south direction without -- and
the way it is now, going down Cherry, turning on 14th, back down
Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania being narrower again and difficult to
create a four -lane on. Then getting to the freeway, and if you go
the right way your okay, if not, why you are going to have to go
to some other interchange.
So in looking at that we selected Cherry because of, already in
the County the right -of -way is there. It provides a good
north /south street. Which I can tell you that CalTrans works with
the cities all the time, and County. We work with County road
planners when we work with things like this, and they have views
of this all the time and give us suggestions. And we, in this
particular case, did work with the County planner, and he
certainly thought that we were using the proper motivation to get
traffic north and south, so that is the reason we arrived at
Cherry. None of the other streets have anything near the width as
we go further north. This property will provide at least half of
what is going to be needed in the future, and we will have to
determine at the time we get down to actual plans and specs to
exactly what we need.
I don't see us corning over on your side of the property, if that
is what you desire, for quite a period of time, really.
Mr. Lowe: Thank you. During the holidays they were plowing the
tumbleweeds back and forth, and I don't really have anything
against houses over there to stop the tumbleweeds. I mean, it was
something else. But I was wondering how they were going to do
that, and if they had plans, because right now we do have quite a
bit of traffic during the school period, with the high school and
that there, and by adding another school almost, it isn't quite
across the street from the piece of property, the acre we have
there, I was just wondering if they were going to do that.
City Manager: I think you will find a much better street in front
of your house prior to houses being built across the street from
you.
Mr. Lowe: Thank you very much.
City Manager: We will be looking at working on phases to try to
work where we can get more people through the city quicker, rather
than work all through the interior all the time.
Mr. Lowe: I'll buy that.
Page 10
Beaumont City Council
January 14, 1991
Mayor Connors: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on Item
No. 6. Yes, please state your name and address for the record.
Robert Wood, 1001 Palm Avenue: I also am the pastor of the
Beaumont Presbyterian Church, and I have a question for Mr.
Taylor. The question is in this site plan was there ever a
consideration given to designating property for church usage.
Mayor Connors: Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Taylor: All the residential areas allow churches subject to a
conditional use permit. We have not designated any particular
site. We would leave it up to the churches to approach the
property owner to determine where in the plan they want to be.
But they are an allowed use everywhere in the plan.
Mr. Wood: Thank you.
Mayor Connors: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on Item
No. 6. Yes sir. Please state your name and address for the
record.
Howard Hessler, 1230 Pennsylvania Avenue: One of the questions I
have is this seems like a nice, neat area that we have. Are we
going to have another walled area. Like I am talking about on
14th. You know they put walls around it. Are we going to try to
incorporate this into the city so it doesn't look like a separate
community. It seems like this is the going thing today, that we
wall things in, and they are their own separate community.
Mayor Connors: It is usually backyards along behind the walls, in
most cases.
Mr. Hessler: No, I mean, you drive along and you look at the
walled areas, and they kind of look like little separate
communities, and I don't really think this is what we are looking
for. We would like to -- the back of my property goes on to
Cherry Avenue. Now I don't know if I am going to look across the
street over a drainage ditch into a wall. Or if we are going to
have an open area that feels like the rest of the city is welcome.
Mayor Connors: Mr. Bounds, you seem to be ready to say something.
City Manager: Usually, when you are putting together a large
project like this, the residents who come and speak, speak exactly
against what you are saying. They say I don't want to look at
those people. I don't want them playing baseball where it will
hit my back fence, or whatever. In cases like this particular
project, if Cherry does come down, and I believe it is scheduled
to come down into the 1200 block, and I think into the 1100 block,
if I am not mistaken, along Cherry, I can tell you it will be
fenced because that street is going to be too wide to be allowing,
and I don't think you will desire to look at that traffic.
The walled streets, for instance a good example is what we are
doing in what we call North Palm, just for the sake of saying it
is north of 14th Street right now, you will see that it is all
back -up treatment with the houses. So we have got two walls, one
on each side, and try to landscape it. The reason for that is 1)
so that people don't have to back into the street like they do on
Palm Avenue today, or Beaumont Avenue today, that is really a
traffic hazard - very difficult. So cities now, where you have
more traffic, or especially four -lane, are all going to back -up
treatment to streets of that nature, and have to create a wall
that is substantial, otherwise then you get to look at one or two
backyards that, if the walls fall down, usually, you know what is
going to be inside, and you will have to look at that until we get
it back up. So you use more substantial walls, and I do agree,
that they do look different - I mean look very much the same, so
up on North Palm, what we are trying to do is cut inlets, do
various things, put trees, to try to liven up - you know, we got
Page 11
Beaumont City Council
January 14, 1991
it all planted and what happened - the freeze came and we are
going to see pretty quick what we got left.
But we intend for that to be a colorful area, and one that will be
a little bit more pleasant, but as you are driving along you are
not going to worry about a ball coming out in front of you, or a
child running out in front of you rapidly. You will be able to
see that at a distance. So, yes, it will have some walls around
it, but not locked gates, and the walls only for the benefit of
those that are driving a little bit faster.
Mr. Hessler: My question was that just that sometimes these
little communities that you look at, just don't look like they fit
in the city, and if we keeping having a bunch of these little
ones, it is going to look like we have a bunch of little cities.
City Manager: This is not very small here. 1100 acres is not
very small.
Mr. Hessler: Oh, I know, it is small - but I can see protecting a
large street, yes, I can see that.
City Manager: That is it basically - you are going to find
streets out there that have regular front end approach, the
driveways and everything like anybody else, but those wider
streets are going to be dealt with differently.
Mr. Hessler: Yes, that is what I was just wondering - around the
perimeter of it, would it be like a walled city, or would it just
be - would there be - you know, okay - I live- the back of
property is on Cherry Avenue. Would there be houses facing my
property.
City Manager: Not in the 1200 block.
Mr. Hessler: I mean, because, I am at 1230, I don't know where
that would come in, or if it . . .
City Manager: If I am not mistaken, we are bringing 11th Street
into that curvature at the north tip of the triangle.
Mr. Hessler: So that would be a wide street along there.
City Manager: Yes, so you wouldn't want to look at it.
Mr. Hessler: So- then on the other side, the ditch there would
probably be a culvert.
City Manager: Covered over. That street may be right on top of
that ditch.
Mr. Hessler: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Connors: I have this theory that I have advanced before,
that the phrase decorative block wall is a contradiction in terms.
Once you have a block wall, it is a real challenge to make it
decorative. Is there anyone else wishing to speak on Item No. 6.
Anyone else wishing to speak on Item No. 6. We will close the
public hearing.
The public hearing was closed at 7:56 P.M.
Discussion by the Council was opened by Mayor Connors, with
Council Member MacNeilage questioning why there would be five
elementary and one junior high, but no additional high school
included in this plan. Mr. Taylor replied that is what the school
district requested be included in the plan.
Mr. Taylor asked to be allowed to clarify for the benefit of the
audience that all the parks shown on the plan, 65 acres, are all
public parks that will be dedicated to a public agency, and will
Page 12
Beaumont City Council
January 14, 1991
be available to anyone wishing to use them. The linear park in
the Edison easement is a trail system, and the 65 acres of parks
are not included in that, but are flat, usable recreation areas,
to include a community park which they understand the City is very
interested in having with flat areas for muscle sport activities.
In addition to the 65 public acres, each separate residential
development will have it's own private recreation areas to include
pools and tennis facilities. But those are separate and beyond
the amount of acreage designated for public parks.
Council Member Leja indicated she had no questions, but did have a
statement as follows: I feel this plan is an excellent plan, and
it would improve the City of Beaumont. With the schools, parks,
any psychologist would - when you have schools and parks that
children can play in, and grow up well adjusted and be well
educated. Then, also, businesses start looking to the area to
come into the area because they see a work force, and a work force
and a place to live with nice homes, nice parks, good schools,
then people stay in the city. It has been proven time and time
again, usually people move away when there aren't jobs here and we
can't get jobs here until we have a work force that will attract
business.
So, I wanted to make that statement because I think a lot of times
things go hand in hand, and we really don't realize what all
connects through - what companies look at when they are moving
into an area. And I just think this is a quality project. A lot
of time and effort has gone into it. They have worked not only
with us, but with the school district, and I believe this is one
of those cooperative efforts that cities who did grow too fast -
you see, if we had grown too fast, we would have already been
splitting our seams, but we have taken a step back and we have
looked at what has happened in Moreno Valley. We have looked at
what has happened in the other communities, and with open parks
and with the schools being included, I can only say this has been
a well thought out plan.
Council Member Parrott had no questions, but did state it has a
good circulation plan, and everything has been taken into
consideration including recreation, and he felt this would be a
real addition to the city.
Council Member McLaughlin called attention to another plus in the
plan, and that is the provision for a library. The library board
has been looking for a site for another library for some time, and
it was commendable that the Deutsch Corporation was willing to
offer this library site with very little "arm twisting ". He
agreed with the other Council Members that it is an excellent,
well thought out plan.
Mayor Connors questioned who is supposed to be doing the noise
notification for blowdown, how does the city know it has been
done, how does the city know when the house is resold that those
people will know.
Mr. Taylor advised they have had conversations with the gas
company relative to that blowdown facility. It is in the City of
Banning, and as a part of their plan in Banning they are proposing
to relocate the facility on their property, but further away, and
do something that is not a part of that facility right now. The
facility is not muffled and it is not an enclosed facility. By
doing both of those, they will be able to reduce the single event
noise level to a point where it is not necessary to notify
residents. The noise level will be at an acceptable level.
Mayor Connors then asked that acceptable would compare to what,
with Mr. Taylor responding that right now it is about 95 dba, and
they feel they can reduce it to a point that it is no louder than
adjacent traffic when it has been enclosed and muffled, with a dba
of probably around 70.
Page 13
Beaumont City Council
January 14, 1991
Mayor Connors touched briefly on the fact she was not comfortable
with the findings regarding animal inhabitants of the land, and
then directed her comments to the issue of crime, making the
following statement.
Crime is caused by more people, but usually when they are cramped
together, not just because there are more people, naturally there
will be more crime, but as per capita it would not necessarily
be so if they are not in a situation where they are going to
become upset with each other quite as much like in an apartment
building. And we are talking about a project that has a lot of
other things in it, like the schools and the parks and the
library, and so forth.
It isn't good to have a one track mind when you are talking about
projects causing crime, and not think about the fact the City is
doing other things as well. The city is not just building things.
We have a PASSNET team for crime prevention. We have funded a
DARE officer for crime prevention in the schools. We will have
more police officers when we have projects come in. So you have
to judge the projects on their own, and you have to take care of
your city in other ways. And you have to believe that we are not
going to just leave everything else the way it is, and build this
big project and forget all about it. You have got to think about
that as we go along.
a. Consideration of Certification that the Final Environmental
Impact Report has been completed in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
MacNeilage, to certify that the Final Environmental Impact Report
has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
AYES: Council Member Leja, McLaughlin, MacNeilage, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
b. Consider Adopting Findings that changes or alterations have
been required in and incorporated into the project which
mitigate or lessen the significant environmental effects as
identified in the environmental impact report. (EIR -90-
2).
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Leja, to adopt findings that changes or alterations have been
required in and incorporated into the project which mitigate or
lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the
environmental impact report (EIR- 90 -2).
AYES: Council Member Leja, McLaughlin, MacNeilage, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
C. ORDINANCE NO. 693 - FIRST READING - Prezoning 1,162 acres
from Riverside County A -1 (Light Agriculture) to City
Specific Planning Area (SPA 4.1 dwelling units per acre),
(90- RZ -8). Applicant: Deutsch Corporation. (89- ANX- 1 -48).
Location: Bounded by Brookside Avenue to the north, Highland
Springs Avenue to the east, 8th Street to the south, and
Cherry Avenue to the west.
Motion to read Ordinance No. 693 by title only.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member
McLaughlin, to read Ordinance No. 693 by title only.
Page 14
Beaumont City Council
January 14, 1991
AYES: Council Member Leja, McLaughlin, MacNeilage, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
The Ordinance was read by title only by the Deputy City Clerk.
Motion to approve Ordinance No. 693 at its first.reading.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member Parrott
to approve Ordinance No. 693 at its first reading.
AYES: Council Member Leja, McLaughlin, MacNeilage, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
d. RESOLUTION NO. 1991 -03 - Adopting Deutsch Specific Plan
SP -89 -1. Applicant: Deutsch Corporation.
e. RESOLUTION NO. 1991 -04 - A Resolution of Application by the
City of Beaumont Requesting the Local Agency Formation
Commission to Take Proceedings for the Annexation of
Uninhabited Territory, Pursuant to the Local Government
Reorganization Act of 1985. (Beaumont 89- ANX -1 -48 - Deutsch).
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Parrott, to adopt Resolutions No. 1991 -03 and 1991 -04.
AYES: Council Member Leja, McLaughlin, MacNeilage, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
7. INTENTION TO ORDER ABANDONMENT of a Portion of Grace Avenue.
Applicant: Robert Bourshaw.
The City Manager presented his report concerning this proposed
abandonment, with a recommendation for adoption of the resolution.
A copy of this report is a matter of record in the Clerk's file.
Council Member MacNeilage asked if there was ever a possibility
of a crossing being put in there, with the City Manager indicating
that could never happen due to certain conditions that exist.
The public hearing was opened at 8:17 P.M.
There was no one requesting to speak to this issue.
The public hearing was closed at 8:18 P.M.
There were no questions from the Council, with one comment made by
Council Member Parrott stating his agreement to this abandonment.
a. RESOLUTION NO. 1991 -05 - Ordering Abandonment of Portion of
Grace Avenue. Applicant: Robert Bourshaw.
Motion by Council Member MacNeilage, second by Council Member
McLaughlin, to adopt Resolution No. 1991 -05.
AYES: Council Member Leja, McLaughlin, MacNeilage, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
END PUBLIC HEARINGS.
Page 15
Beaumont City Council
January 14, 1991
The meeting was recessed at 8:20 p.m., reconvening at 8:33 p.m.
8. RESOLUTION NO. 1991 -01 - Amending Resolution No. 1990 -01 and all
Other Resolutions in Conflict Herewith To Provide for Updated
Rubbish Service Collection Costs for Residential Users and
Commercial Bin Users.
A report was received from the City Manager indicating this
proposed increase is in accordance with the agreement the City has
with Inland Disposal, and recommending adoption of Resolution No.
1991 -01. A copy of this report is a matter of record in the
Clerk's file.
Council Member McLaughlin asked for information concerning when
the requirement to separate the rubbish into different categories
would go into effect.
Mr. Dave Davis, representing Inland Disposal, responded to this
question indicating it is in the very near future. He then
outlined what the Council could expect in the implementation of
this state law, emphasizing that contrary to common belief, the
implementation of this recycling will not necessarily mean lower
fees.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
MacNeilage, to adopt Resolution No. 1991 -01.
AYES: Council Member Leja, McLaughlin, MacNeilage, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
9. Consideration of Approval of Issuance of Business License to
Farah Tabel to Operate Quick Stop Market at 985 Beaumont Avenue
(formerly Sahara Market).
The City Manager called attention to the material in the packet
provided by Mr. Tabel, explaining that Mr. Tabel has opened
escrow for the purchase of this property. Because of the problems
with the previous owner, the Council, by previous action, had
required Council approval of any application for a business
license at this location.
Questions from Council Member McLaughlin and Mayor Connors were
answered by the City Manager.
The applicant also addressed the Council, explaining the status of
the purchase at this time.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
MacNeilage, to approve issuance of a business license to Farah
Tabel to operate the Quick Stop Market at 985 Beaumont Avenue
(Sahara Market) at the time escrow closes for his proposed
purchase of the property.
AYES: Council Member McLaughlin, MacNeilage and Mayor
Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: Council Member Leja and Parrott.
ABSENT: None.
10. RESOLUTION NO. 1991 -06 - Pursuant to Chapter 10.04 of the
Municipal Code of Beaumont, Prescribing Intersection Stop Signs at
Vasili Avenue and Cherry Valley Acres; at 10th Street and Palm
Avenue; and at 12th Street and Palm Avenue, to Expedite Traffic
Flow and Traffic Safety.
Chief Funston presented his report and recommendation for
installation of stop signs at the three locations described in
Resolution No. 1991 -06.
Page 16
11.
12.
Beaumont City Council
January 14, 1991
Council Member MacNeilage asked what the distance is between 12th
and 10th Street, with an estimate given of approximately 1100
feet.
There were no other questions from the Council.
Mrs. Susan Kettner, 1125 Palm Avenue, addressed the Council,
speaking in favor of installation of stop signs on Palm Avenue as
recommended by Chief Funston.
Mr. Robert Wood, 1001 Palm Avenue, addressed the Council, speaking
in opposition to the installation of a stop sign at 10th and Palm.
One reason being a thirty year old elm tree on the corner which he
felt would make it difficult to install a stop sign at that
location. Other reasons for his opposition were that there is, in
his opinion, very little cross traffic at 10th Street, and
vehicles running the stop sign creating more of a hazard for
pedestrians than exists now.
The Council discussed Mr. Woods' comments, particularly in
relation to the elm tree, with a recommendation from the City
Manager that if it is the Council's desire to investigate the
situation regarding the tree, they remove that location from the
resolution and approve only the remaining two locations. The 10th
and Palm location could then be returned to the Council for
consideration at a later date.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
MacNeilage, to adopt Resolution No. 1991 -06 with the stop sign at
10th and Palm deleted.
AYES: Council Member Leja,
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
McLaughlin, MacNeilage, Parrott
Direction was given to staff to determine whether a stop sign at
10th and Palm would be a legal stop intersection without removing
the elm tree, and bring a recommendation back to the Council.
URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 694 - Adding to the Beaumont Municipal Code
Section 8.32.425, Dealing with the Right of Entry to Abate.
The City Attorney explained that recent court decisions have
created the necessity of adopting this ordinance in order to
properly enforce the nuisance abatement ordinance, and explained
further the justification for adoption of the ordinance as an
urgency ordinance.
Questions raised by Mayor Connors regarding specific types of
entry were answered by both the City Attorney and Chief Funston,
with the City Manager also participating in the discussion.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member
McLaughlin, to adopt Urgency Ordinance No. 694 at its first
reading.
AYES: Council Member Leja,
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
McLaughlin, MacNeilage, Parrott
ORDINANCE NO. 695 - FIRST READING - Adding Chapter 15.42 to the
Beaumont Municipal Code Dealing with Earthquake Hazard Reduction
in Existing Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Wall Buildings.
Mr. Jeffrey Van Dam, consulting engineer, presented background
information concerning this ordinance, which was mandated by the
state.
Page 17
Beaumont City Council
January 14, 1991
Answering a question from Council Member Parrott, Mr. Van Dam
advised that churches were not exempted by the State, and there
are a couple of churches in Beaumont that will need reinforcing.
Mayor Connors noted that the ordinance is so technical, this is
one of the times they must fully rely on the experts.
The City Manager presented additional information, particularly
relating to the time limits given to property owners shown on Page
12 of the ordinance, and the fact the Council may change these
requirements should they desire to do so.
Motion to Read Ordinance No. 695 by title only.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member
McLaughlin, to read Ordinance No. 695 by title only.
AYES: Council Member Leja, McLaughlin, MacNeilage, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
The ordinance was read by title only by the Deputy City Clerk.
Mr. Robert Wood, pastor of the Presbyterian Church, addressed the
Council with regard to the fact his church is one of the buildings
on the list with unreinforced masonry. He then pointed out the
historical and unique nature of the church, and because it would
not be possible or financially feasible to attempt to reinforce
the building, asked that any waiver or exemption available be
applied to his church.
Mr. Van Dam explained that the City does not have the right to
exempt anything the State has not exempted, even their own
municipal buildings.
Discussion followed concerning this situation, with questions and
comments from the Council pertaining to any recourse available to
save older, historical buildings.
Council Member Leja asked for clarification that the ordinance
presented tonight is as lenient as it can be, with Mr. Van Dam
replying it is as lenient as it can be and still serve the public
well.
Motion to Approve Ordinance No. 695 at its first reading.
Motion by Council Member Leja, second by Council Member
McLaughlin, to approve Ordinance No. 695 at its first reading.
AYES: Council Member Leja, McLaughlin, MacNeilage, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
13. Consideration of Applications Received for Appointment to
Planning Commission.
The City Manager advised that three applications were received,
two of which were from Commissioners presently seated on the
Commission whose terms are expiring, Donald Echlin and Francis
Prouty, and the third application filed by Chuck Menley. Mr.
Bounds called attention to the fact there is still one additional
vacancy on the Commission in addition to. the two terms which are
expiring.
Council Member McLaughlin clarified the length of the terms, with
Council Member Leja asking for a continuance since she had not had
the opportunity to speak with one of the applicants, and Council
Page 18
Beaumont City Council
January 14, 1991
Member Parrott stating he felt the Commissioners presently serving
should be reappointed.
Mayor Connors agreed that the present commissioners should be
reappointed, but felt it was not in the best interests of Beaumont
or its citizens, to appoint a developer, especially one associated
with apartments, to the Planning Commission, and would not support
such an appointment no matter who it might be.
Council Member Leja retracted her request for a continuance based
on Mayor Connors' statement.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Parrott, to appoint Donald Echlin and Francis Prouty to the
Planning Commission for four year terms expiring December 31,
1994, leaving the third seat open for further applications, with
notice of vacancy to be posted.
AYES: Council Member Leja, McLaughlin, MacNeilage, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
14. Consideration of Claims Filed Against the City by Darla Tobar,
Anthony Tobar, Chelsey Marie Tobar and Austin Kenneth Tobar.
The City Manager submitted his report with a recommendation for
denial of these claims.
There were no questions or comments from the Council.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Parrott, to reject all four claims based on the following
findings:
1. That the documents and evidence reviewed thus far fails
to establish liability on the City of Beaumont.
2. It is impossible to adequately evaluate the claim without
extensive discovery.
AYES: Council Member Leja, McLaughlin, MacNeilage, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
15. Consideration of Award of Bid for Stewart Park Sprinkler System.
Mr. Bounds reported that all bids received were in excess of the
amounts provided by the park grants, and recommended the Council
consider adding sufficient funding to award the bid so the work
can proceed. A copy of Mr. Bounds' full report is a matter of
record in the Clerk's file.
There were no questions or comments from the Council.
Motion by Council Member Parrott, second by Council Member
MacNeilage, to:
1. Award contracts to Mentone Turf Supply in the amounts of
$28,589.00 for Phase I and $28,008.00 for Phase II for the
Stewart Park Sprinkler Systems.
2. Authorize $7,589.00 and $3,008.00 to be added to the State
Park Funds respectively for Phase I and Phase II for the
Stewart Park Sprinkler Systems as overbudget expenses to be
charged to Account 6050 -6020.
Page 19
Beaumont City Council
January 14, 1991
AYES: Council Member Leja, McLaughlin, MacNeilage, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
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 December 10,
1990.
b. Acceptance of Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting
of October 16, 1990.
C. Approval of Warrants as Audited per Warrant List of January
14, 1991, in the amount of $525,607.87; Payrolls of December
6, 1990, December 20, 1990 and January 3, 1991, in the
amounts of $66,397.42, $65,226.17 and $63,663.82 respectively.
d. RESOLUTION NO. 1991 -02 - Accepting Offer of Dedication for
Right -of -Way for Realignment of Viele Avenue and for 4.0 feet
of Right -of -Way Along Fourth Street, and Ordering Recordation
Thereof with County Recorder. (Western Coating).
e. Approve Audit Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1990.
f. Authorize Mayor to Execute Notice of Completion for Multi -
Purpose Room.
g. Request for Reassignment of Vehicles.
h. Report of Action of the Planning Commission Meeting of
December 18, 1990.
Motion by Council Member McLaughlin, second by Council Member
Leja, to adopt the Consent Calendar as presented.
AYES: Council Member Leja, McLaughlin, MacNeilage, Parrott
and Mayor Connors.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Date Set for Next Regular Council Meeting, Monday, January 28,
1991, at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers.
There being no further business to come before the Council, the
meeting was adjourned at 10:26 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
-/City Clerk
Page 20