HomeMy Public PortalAbout10/25/1988 PABEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
OCTOBER 25, 1988
The Planning Commission met in a Regular Planning Commission
Meeting on Tuesday, October 25, 1988, in the City Council
Chambers with Chairperson Burton presiding:
Meeting was called to Order at 7:02 P.M.
On Roll Call, the following commissioners were present:
Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Remy, Fries and Chairperson
Burton.
Affidavit of Posting was read.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. The Minutes for the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of
October 4, 1988, were approved as submitted with a typo on
page 2, paragraph 7, line 6, " accured" should have been
"accrued ".
2. Oral Communication: None.
3. Director's Report: None.
CONTINUED PUBLIC BEARINGS:
4. 87- PP -17, 87 -V -6 and 87- ND -39, a proposed 4 unit apartment
building, located at 738 Chestnut between 7th and 8th
Streets. Applicants, Victor & Vincent Schiro.
It should be noted for the record that the staff report
shows the Negative Declaration No. as 87 -ND -37 and it should
be corrected to read 87- ND -39.
CDD Koules presented the staff report and noted because of
an area shortage for the fourth unit, it was felt that a
variance would accommodate the fourth unit since the
applicant is only short 25% of the area required. Also, the
proposal would tie together a common 20' driveway since Mr.
Schiro has already developed the property adjacent to the
south which has a 10' driveway on the side.
Commissioner Remy questioned the 20' driveway noting that
she thought the fire department wanted a 24' driveway with
CDD Koules noting that the structures are accessible from
the street and the hose lines could fight a fire without
having access onto the site.
Chairperson Burton then asked for proponents /opponents from
the audience wishing to speak.
Mr. Vincent Schiko, 15842 La Palma, Hacienda Heights,
a dresse t e commission e aining his prp7ect comment g
that they are improving the building by offering more square
footage, more play area, basketball court in back and a play
area in front; living area would be 325 s.f.; first
apartment will be a house.
CDD Koules noted that this project was not reviewed as a
total project with 2 parcels. It was reviewed separately
and then the driveway problem was resolved by suggesting the
common easement.
PC Minutes
October 25, 1988
Page 2
Attorney Ryskamp noted that his concern is a common easement
with two different owners in the future could end up
creating considerable problems as to who maintains the
driveway.
City Engineer Dotson commented that if the property is
merged you deny the applicant the right to sell separately
and asked what authority do we have to force this kind of a
merger?
Attorney Ryskamp commented that where there is a common
driveway it is creating an easement - we do have the
authority.
Mr. Vincent Schiro, addressed the commission again noting no
fence can be put down the middle; has to maintain the
driveway in order to compete.
Attorney Ryskamp felt that we are creating a potential
future problem with an easement and asked Mr. Schiro if he
was opposed to the concept of merging the two properties
with Mr. Schiro stating "not at all." Mr. Schiro didn't
feel it was a problem; however, he is not opposed.
CDD Koules noted that he does not anticipate the problems
that Mr. Ryskamp mentioned. It is a much more complex
process to merge the two lots. The applicant does have the
right to create the lots separately - doesn't see what would
be accomplished.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Burton
then closed the public hearing at 7:22 P.M., turning the
matter back to the commission for discussion.
It was noted by Commissioner Schuelke that the original
proposal from the packet of 10/20/87, the driveway was 24
feet between the two buildings and that proof of a
reciprocal agreement between the two parcels was in the
staff file.
CDD Koules commented that there was a reciprocal agreement
that the parties agree no fence shall be built on the
southerly line of the seller's property nor the northerly
line of the neighbor's property - just a fence restriction.
No one can build a fence on the common lot line.
Chairperson Burton noted that if it was 24 feet on the
original proposal, it should also be a 24 foot driveway now.
After lengthy discussion and in checking the plot plan from
the original staff report and in reading page 117 of Title
17, it was determined that the driveway should be 24 feet.
Attorney Ryskamp noted that the original application and
filing date is pirt of the project and the variance is now
for the density issue.
CDD Koules commented that if you cut -out 4'i of the building
make sure that the open space and other requirements are all
met. Clarification is needed however, as to whether the
applicant is to merge the two parcels or adept a reciprocal
easement - applicant should be informed. He further noted,,
the applicant would have to file a subdivision map to merge
the two parcels into one since you cannot eliminate a lot
line by a Certificate of Compliance. Not allowed to
increase or decrease the number of parcels with a
Certificate of Compliance which is a state law.
PC minutes
October 25, 1988
Page 3
City Engineer Dotson noted that a lot line adjustment cannot-" "
increase nor decrease the number of lots. Will have to
check the map act.
Attorney Ryskamp noted that relative to the merger is it
is felt that research should be done and that he be directed
by the commission to come back with language to make the
procedure possible so that in this type of situation there
is a simple procedure. CDD Koules noted that he did not
agree with this - felt we are getting procedure bound.
Attorney Ryskamp commented that he wanted to be able to
waive the map requirement and in the future have a procedure
so that in this situation we do not have to record a map.
CDD Koules stated that he maintains that the State
Subdivision Map Act disallows you from merging two parcels
with a Certificate of Compliance.
Chairperson Burton commented that the commission will direct
the City Attorney to research it and find out what the
City's position is and bring back a report.
On motion by Commissioner Remy, seconded by Commissioner
Fries that this project be returned to the applicant to re-
design the project to comply with the driveway requirement.
Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries, Remy and
Chairperson Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
5. 87- PP -19, a proposed three apartment units, located at 673
Massachusetts. Applicant, Howard Haig.
Per request of CDD Koules, this matter was continued to the
Regular Planning Commission Meeting of November 15, 1988,
since the applicant is still working on his revised plot
plan.
6. 88 -PP -3, 88 -V -4 and 88- ND -14, a proposed 60 unit Travelodge
Motel and a Variance to allow a 55 ft. high sign with a 200
sq. ft. surface area, located on the south side of Fourth
Street about 300 feet east of Beaumont Avenue. Applicant,
Sam Lee and Daniel Tsai.
CDD Koules presented
of this project.
amended to read "Gas
Mr. Dannv Lee, 205
the commission n
Builders; needsl
traffic - is a
situation - will
approximately 325
Restaurant.
the
He
Co"
staff report recommending approval
noted that Condition #7 should be
not "Edison Co."
2 Palma Drive, Rolling Heights,
otng that the company name is
the 55' sign in order to attract
highway oriented business - do
be a good design sign;j rooms
s.f., will not block view for
addressed
Evergreen
highway
or die
will be
Denny's
There being no one else wishing to speak from the audience,
Chairperson Burton then closed the public hearing at 8:10
P.M., turning the matter back to the commission for
discussion.
On motion by Commissioner Fries to approve Plot Plan 88 -PP -3
recommending approval of Variance 88 -V -4 and Negative
PC Minutes
October 25, 1988
Page 4
Declaration 88 -ND -14 by City Council, subject to the
conditions of approval; seconded by Commissioner Bruner.
Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries, Remy and
Chairperson Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
City Engineer Dotson commented that this project will
increase the run -off (drainage) into the channel that
crosses the Hershey's property on 3rd and California.
7. 87 -DP -1 and 87 -TM -3, a proposed development on 160 acres
consisting of 366 detached single family units, 224 multi-
family units and 21 acres of commercial uses. The
residential construction is proposed to be developed in 9
phases and the commercigl" development at a future time;
located on the south side of Highway 60, and south of
Western Knolls Drive, 'at the westerly City limits.
Applicant, John Thomas, Beaumont Associates.
Chairperson Burton noted that this public hearing was opened
prior to this hearing.
CDD koules noted that this item had been continued from the
October 4, 1988 hearing to allow the applicant's engineer to
address the conditions of approval, also, a letter from the
City Manager was distributed to the commission prior to the
meeting. Caltrans' comments were received by the Planning
Department on October 21, 1988, thus, the reason for not
being in the packets.
Meeting adjourned at 8:15 P.M., reconvening at 8:25 P.M.
Mr. John Thomas, 1202 Kroll Lane, Huntinciton Beach,
addressed the commission commenting: his participation in
this meeting is to supply the commission with information;
will not be waiving any of the benefits which he may have
accrued as a result of violating the State Streamlining Act;
would not preclude Best, Best & Krieger acting as co-
counsel, Palmieri, and Tyler initiating a writ of mandate
proceeding.
Mr. Ryskamp noted that at this point a stipulation to
include the fact that any actions taken tonight are deemed
by all parties to have taken place on the 6th of September
with Mr. Thomas stating "yes."
Mr. Thomas, further speaking commented:
1) Minutes of October 4,
objected to) all of the
did not do. Conditions
a) Condition No. 1.02;
b) Condition No. 1.04;
c) Condition No. 2.01;
d) Condition No. 2.02.
1988 reflected that he had
conditions of approval which he
he did not object to were:
I
Also other items he discussed he indicated that usually
the procedure should be included with the final map and
improvement plans as opposed to being presented and
submitted with a tentative map;
PC Minutes
October 25, 1988
Page 5
2) Kunzman & Caltrans did a traffic study on this project'
which was submitted to Mr. Bounds and Mr. Bounds in
turn submitted the study to Caltrans - approximately 1
1/2 years ago;
3) Biological survey was done on the property and
submitted to the City 11/19/87;
4) Complete plan survey and an animal survey on the
property done - City has a copy;
5) Mr. Bounds submitted a letter to Caltrans approximately
1 1/2 years ago stating their map complied with the
general plan, zoning and circulation element in the
City of Beaumont;
6) Meetings with Valerie Beeler, Mr. Bounds and the
engineers were had with the basic idea that everything
that was documented and recorded would be included in
the map;
7) Letter from Valerie Beeler subsequent to the date Mr.
Bounds submitted his 'letter to Caltrans and also states
the map coincides with the general plan, zoning
and circulation element;
8) Applications and work done on project were done so at
the instructions of both Mr. Bounds and Valerie Beeler.
Mr. Hubert Webb, Civil Engineer for the project, addressed
the commission commenting:
1) Was his understanding this project was going to be
presented to the commission on the basis of a tentative
map with certain issues being addressed by further
study;
2) Project was not going to have a full blown Specific
Plan EIR;
3) Traffic studies, biology, gas mitigation studies have
all come out during the processing of the plan as a
result of on -going discussion with City staff;
4) His understanding the major two issues involving
the project was Caltrans and is there, or is there not
wastewater capacity available to the project;
5) They understood when the project was going to be
presented to the Planning Commission and Council,
there was going to be a condition in the conditions of
approval indicating that this area would have to
participate in a study for a wastewater expansion as
well as the interchange situation because the City of
Beaumont has to be the lead agency;
r
6) Applicant agreed he would assist in the
preparation with funding and whatever else was
necessary to aid the City in preparing these studies;
7) Reviewed Mr. Dotson's conditions and outlined the
following: 11
,
a) Condition No. 1.01: Opposed to this condition
because it was never a condition that the City
staff at the time they started the project
instructed them to comply with;
PC Minutes
October 25,
Page 6
b)
MTV
Condition
list of
map.
No. 1.03: If the City will furnish
street names they will place them on the
c) Condition No. 1.04: Agrees with this condition.
d) Condition No. 1.05:
preference - either
some opening with w
with a passage way.
e) Condition No. 1.06:
within the right of
or a road offer of
road.
Opposed. This is a matter of
a solid block wall or leave
rought -iron through this area
Could be mitigated. 10' more
way within the tract boundary
10' on the other side of the
f) Condition No. 2: Believes this to be a legitimate
condition; however, on a lot of cases other
agencies do not require the typical section.
Attorney Ryskamp explained - 'there was a question as to
whether this particular zone on the general plan required
a development plan or' a specific plan and it was
the City's contention that the application was not completed
until the 29th of April 1988. He noted there was a meeting
in March with Mr. Thomas, his attorney, Mr. Webb, Mr.
Koules, Mr. Bounds, Mr. Dotson and himself and discussed at
length the requirements of the project, the need for a
Specific Plan vs. a Vesting Tentative Map and they arrived
at a list of additional items that needed to be submitted to
complete the application. When the last of these initial
items were submitted, they then had an application that was
complete; therefore, the City had one year from April 29th.
When an application is complete that does not mean you
cannot request additional materials - it means you have the
basic materials before you.
Mr. Thomas, commented that if you go over the development
standards for that zone and if you go over all the comments
and instructions that were given to them by Mr. Bounds and
Valerie Beeler for over 2 years, neither one of them ever
mentioned the fact that they had to do a Specific Plan. His
attorneys have reviewed all the documentation and they
disagree with the City's attorney and have requested that he
immediately file a writ of mandate proceeding.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Burton
then closed the public hearing at 9:14 P.M., turning this
matter back to the commission for discussion.
Attorney Ryskamp noted for the record that Mr. Dotson be
allowed to address the issue pointing out that on July 21,
1987, he (Dotson) sent a letter which was subsequently
forwarded to the applicant specifically stating there wasn't
enough information at this point to make conditions of
approval.
Mr. Dotson stated that the letter he wrote was in July 1987,
in response to a request from Valerie Beeler to review the
map for purposes of preparing conditions of approval.
Commented he wrote a very brief letter stating "way too soon
- there is not enough here." He then read from his letter
quoting "the tentative map is very nice but its submittal is
premature - way premature." Further noting that he stands
by this statement now.
Attorney Ryskamp pointed out that there were three options
before the commissin: 1) to approve the project; 2) to deny
PC Minutes
October 25, 1988
Page 7
the project and 3) take no action recognizing that the City
can work with the applicant until April 29, 1989 to complete
an EIR as well as the other steps to make the project
workable - in which case it would be returned to staff. He
noted also that a fourth alternative could be that the
application is not complete because there has been no
specific plan and return it to start all over again.
CDD Koules noted that the reviewing agencies in response to
the Notice of Preparation are of such magnitude that they
are going to involve an EIR and most likely a re- design of
the project and this understanding should be set forth.
On motion by Commissioner Schuelke, seconded by Commissioner
Remy that this application 87 -DP -1 and 87 -TM -3 be returned
to staff for the purpose of working with the applicant to
bring into compliance by April 29, 1989, based on the
finding that it has come to us prematurely.
Attorney Ryskamp wanted it clarified as to whether the
application is not complete or if she (Commissioner
Schuelke) wanted staff to work with the application and
materials that they now have which was accepted as complete
on April 29, 1989, with Commissioner Schuelke stating
"both." Attorney Ryskamp then noted that the application
can be complete and still require extensive additional
materials - acceptable as complete in that it has the major
issues and yet require additional materials including a full
EIR.
Meeting recessed at 9:36 P.M., reconvening at 9:45 P.M.
CDD Koules informed the commission that April 29th was the
date that the phasing map was submitted and to use this as
the date of acceptance of a complete application. This then
would be consistent with the March 22nd meeting they had
with the applicant and his representatives. The EIR process
has already prompted some serious concerns and would have to
be reflected in some map revision. Further, he would do his
best to work with the applicant to bring this to a completed
project.
Chairperson Burton informed Mr. Thomas that she personally
felt that an EIR should be done. She noted that a motion
was on the floor which should be withdrawn or re- stated.
Attorney Ryskamp commented that the only thing that needed
to be corrected was rather than in reference to a Specific
Plan, request staff to work with the applicant to attempt to
complete work on the project by the one year dead -line date
which is April 29, 1989.
Motion carried with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke and Remy.
NOES: Commissioner Fries and Chairperson Burton.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
SCHEDULED MATTER:
8. Appeal of Community Development Director's decision,
reference Outdoor Advertising Displays (Billboards) per
Section 17.60.015 of Beaumont Municipal Code.
CDD Koules presented the staff report explaining that the
applicant was in the office requesting to file four
billboards at the Intersection of highway 60 and Interstate
PC Minutes
October 25, 1988
Page 8
10.
Attorne Gar Moble , One New ort Place, New ort Beach,
addresse t e commissson stating a was represent ng Adams
Advertising. He further commented: It was represented to
them that this was a denial and he confirmed this in a
letter to the City Clerk at the time they filed the appeal.
Has been treating this as an appeal of denied applications,
contrary to what Mr. Koules had indicated that they were not
received - presumption they are operating under.
Attorney Ryskamp then asked Mr. Mobley for clarification
since the applications were not accepted and not in the
City's files, if the copies being submitted were to be part
of the record.
Attorney Mobley presented the following documents to be made
a part of the record.
1) Pamphlet on Public Service Signs;
2) Pamphlet on Adams Style of Structure;
3) Library References 5.5226;
4) Copy of Order re: Prel. Injunction;
5) Copy of opposition to Order to Show Cause;
6) Copy of PC Minutes dated 12/1/87;
7) Copy of Letter to Mr. Bisel dated 12/7/87'
8) Copy of CG Zoning Ordinance;
9) Copy of Declaration by Moses W. Johnson;
10) Eleven pictures of signs along freeway.
Attorney Mobley, explained that outdoor advertising differs
in a significant respect from on premise signs such as the
Travelodge sign. The difference being that on -site signs are
used almost exclusively as permanent commercial messages to
advertise a business or service, whereas, outdoor advertising
is available to the use by the public for a variety of
messages that can be both commercial and non - commercial -
therefore, it takes on the aspects of free speech. The
proposed signs they are proposing are not inconsistent with
uses` of property that exists in the City of Beaumont. His
understanding is that the MC Zone is basically the only zone
that permits (on a permitted basis) outdoor advertising signs
and this is basically the only location left in the City of
Beaumont that is undeveloped along the highways or freeways.
Feels they are entitled to the applications on basically
three grounds:
1) Believes they comply with the strict requirements of the
MC Zone classification 17.50.105. This Section indicates
that outdoor advertising signs are a permitted use. In
all other sections it is subject to site development
approval.
2) Doesn't feel that 17.60 Section applies to the MC Zone
because in the MC Zone there is no reference to Section
17.60.
i
3) Feels they are being denied their applications based on a
re- interpretation of Section 17.60 and what it
specifically means - not being con)Sistent or being
treated in an even handed fashion.
Attorne�Mobley continued speaking stating that if the
commission takes the position that 17.60 applies and
prohibits the permits they are applying for, they believe it
would be invalid for two reasons: 1) it violates the
provisions of the California Outdoor Advertising Act and 2)
PC Minutes
October 25, 1988
Page 9
it violates Sections 5526 and 5227 in the California Business
and Professions Code. If the City takes the position that no
signs are permitted within 500 ft. of the freeway, it is a
total prohibition of signs along the freeways and is
specifically pre - empted by the Outdoor Advertising Act. The
United States Supreme Court has recognized that Outdoor
Advertising is entitled to the first amendment of free speech
protection. Strongly believes that they have a right to
these signs and therefore, appealing to the commission to
issue these permits. Will not have any adverse effect and
will not have any impact, certainly not any more significant
than a 55' Travelodge sign that was just approved.
CDD Koules commented that he reads Ordinance 17.60.015
literally which is the reason for the denial of acceptance of
the application and takes issue with Mr. Mobley's
interpretation.
Attorney Ryskamp commented that he disagrees with the freedom
of speech argument, but would like to have an opportunity to
review the material and.' bring back a response to the
commission.
Attorney Johnson commented that this matter be continued to
give them a chance to look at the legal argument - does not
want to comment without doing some research.
On motion by Commissioner Fries that this matter be
continued to the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of
November 15, 1988, in order to give Mr. Ryskamp time to give
an opinion pertaining to the state code.
CDD Koules wanted clarification as to the appeal to his
decision to not accept the application with Mr. Ryskamp
explaining the concern as to whether there was an appeal to
a denial of the request, or an appeal of a refusal to accept
the application. It is the City's contention that the
application was never accepted because it did not conform,
rather than having been specifically denied - was never
accepted as an appliation since fees were not collected.
Motion seconded by Commissioner Remy. Motion carried
unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries and Remy.
NOES: Chairperson Burton.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
There being no further business
meeting adjourned at 10:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
PC Se et4
before the commission, the
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
OCTOBER 25, 1988
The Planning Commission met in a Special Planning Commission
Meeting on Tuesday, October 25, 1988, in the City Council
Chambers with Chairperson Burton presiding:
Meeting was called to Order at 7:02 P.M.
On Roll Call, the following commissioners were present:
Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Remy, Fries and Chairperson
Burton.
Affidavit of Posting was read.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. The Minutes for the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of
October 4, 1988, were approved as submitted with a typo on
page 2, paragraph 7, line 6, " accured" should have been
"accrued ".
2. Oral Communication: None.
3. Director's Report: None.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
4. 87- PP -17, 87 -V -6 and 87- ND -39, a proposed 4 unit apartment
building, located at 738 Chestnut between 7th and 8th
Streets. Applicants, Victor & Vincent Schiro.
It should be noted for the record that the staff report
shows the Negative Declaration No. as 87 -ND -37 and it should
be corrected to read 87- ND -39.
CDD Koules presented the staff report and noted because of
an area shortage for the fourth unit, it was felt that a
variance would accommodate the fourth unit since the
applicant is only short 25% of the area required. Also, the
proposal would tie together a common 20' driveway since Mr.
Schiro has already developed the property adjacent to the
south which has a 10' driveway on the side.
Commissioner Remy questioned the 20' driveway noting that
she thought the fire department wanted a 24' driveway with
CDD Koules noting that the structures are accessible from
the street and the hose lines could fight a fire without
having access onto the site.
Chairperson Burton then asked for proponents /opponents from
the audience wishing to speak.
Mr. Vincent Schiro, 15842 La Palma, Hacienda Heights,
addressed the commission explaining his project comme t nin g
that they are improving the building by offering more square
footage, more play area, basketball court in back and a play
area in front; living area would be 325 s.f.; first
apartment will be a house.
CDD Koules noted that this project was not reviewed as a
total project with 2 parcels. It was reviewed separately
and then the driveway problem was resolved by suggesting the
common easement.
PC Minutes
October 25, 1988
Page 2
Attorney Ryskamp noted that his concern is a common easement
with two different owners in the future could end up
creating considerable problems as to who maintains the
driveway.
City Engineer Dotson commented that if the property is
merged you deny the applicant the right to sell separately
and asked what authority do we have to force this kind of a
merger?
Attorney Ryskamp commented that where there is a common
driveway it is creating an easement - we do have the
authority.
Mr. Vincent Schiro, addressed the commission again noting no
fence can be put down the middle; has to maintain the
driveway in order to compete.
Attorney Ryskamp felt that we are creating a potential
future problem with an easement and asked Mr. Schiro if he
was opposed to the concept of merging the two properties
with Mr. Schiro stating "not at all." Mr. Schiro didn't
feel it was a problem; however, he is not opposed.
CDD Koules noted that he does not anticipate the problems
that Mr. Ryskamp mentioned. It is a much more complex
process to merge the two lots. The applicant does have the
right to create the lots separately - doesn't see what would
be accomplished.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Burton
then closed the public hearing at 7:22 P.M., turning the
matter back to the commission for discussion.
It was noted by Commissioner Schuelke that the original
proposal from the packet of 10/20/87, the driveway was 24
feet between the two buildings and that proof of a
reciprocal agreement between the two parcels was in the
staff file.
CDD Koules commented that there was a reciprocal agreement
that the parties agree no fence shall be built on the
southerly line of the seller's property nor the northerly
line of the neighbor's property - just a fence restriction.
No one can build a fence on the common lot line.
Chairperson Burton noted that if it was 24 feet on the
original proposal, it should also be a 24 foot driveway now.
After lengthy discussion and in checking the plot plan from
the original staff report and in reading page 117 of Title
17, it was determined that the driveway should be 24 feet.
Attorney Ryskamp noted that the original application and
filing date is part of the project and the variance is now
for the density issue.
CDD Koules commented that if you cut -out 4' of the building
make sure that the open space and other requirements are all
met. Clarification is needed however, as to whether the
applicant is to merge the two parcels or accept a reciprocal
easement - applicant should be informed. He further noted,
the applicant would have to file a subdivision map to merge
the two parcels into one since you cannot eliminate a lot
line by a Certificate of Compliance. Not allowed to
increase or decrease the number of parcels with a
Certificate of Compliance which is a state law.
PC minutes
October 25, 1988
Page 3
City Engineer Dotson noted that a lot line adjustment cannot
increase nor decrease the number of lots. Will have to
check the map act.
Attorney Ryskamp noted that relative to the merger issue it
is felt that research should be done and that he be directed
by the commission to come back with language to make the
procedure possible so that in this type of situation there
is a simple procedure. CDD Koules noted that he did not
agree with this - felt we are getting procedure bound.
Attorney Ryskamp commented that he wanted to be able to
waive the map requirement and in the future have a procedure
so that in this situation we do not have to record a map.
CDD Koules stated that he maintains that the State
Subdivision Map Act disallows you from merging two parcels
with a Certificate of Compliance.
Chairperson Burton commented that the commission will direct
the City Attorney to research it and find out what the
City's position is and bring back a report.
On motion by Commissioner Remy, seconded by Commissioner
Fries that this project be returned to the applicant to re-
design the project to comply with the driveway requirement.
Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries, Remy and
Chairperson Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
5. 87- PP -19, a proposed three apartment units, located at 673
Massachusetts. Applicant, Howard Haig.
Per request of CDD Koules, this matter was continued to the
Regular Planning Commission Meeting of November 15, 1988,
since the applicant is still working on his revised plot
plan.
6. 88 -PP -3, 88 -V -4 and 88- ND -14, a proposed 60 unit Travelodge
Motel and a Variance to allow a 55 ft. high sign with a 200
sq. ft. surface area, located on the south side of Fourth
Street about 300 feet east of Beaumont Avenue. Applicant,
Sam Lee and Daniel Tsai.
CDD Koules presented the staff report recommending approval
of this
project. He
noted that Condition #7 should be
amended to
read "Gas Cc"
not "Edison Co."
Mr. Danny
Lee, 2052 Palma
Drive, Rolling Heights,
addressed
the commission noting that the company name is
Evergreen
Builders;
needs the 55'
sign in order to attract
highway
traffic -
is a highway
oriented business - do
or die
situation
- will be a
good design sign; rooms
will be
approximately
325 s.f.,
will not block view for
Denny's
Restaurant.
There being no one else wishing to speak from the audience,
Chairperson Burton then closed the public hearing at 8:10
P.M., turning the matter back to the commission for
discussion.
On motion by Commissioner Fries to approve Plot Plan 88 -PP -3
recommending approval of Variance 88 -V -4 and Negative
PC Minutes
October 25, 1988
Page 4
Declaration 88 -ND -14 by City Council, subject to the
conditions of approval; seconded by Commissioner Bruner.
Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries, Remy and
Chairperson Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
City Engineer Dotson commented that this project will
increase the run -off (drainage) into the channel that
crosses the Hershey's property on 3rd and California.
7. 87 -DP -1 and 87 -TM -3, a proposed development on 160 acres
consisting of 366 detached single family units, 224 multi-
family units and 21 acres of commercial uses. The
residential construction is proposed to be developed in 9
phases and the commercial development at a future time;
located on the south side of Highway 60, and south of
Western Knolls Drive, at the westerly City limits.
Applicant, John Thomas, Beaumont Associates.
Chairperson Burton noted that this public hearing was opened
prior to this hearing.
CDD koules noted that this item had been continued from the
October 4, 1988 hearing to allow the applicant's engineer to
address the conditions of approval, also, a letter from the
City Manager was distributed to the commission prior to the
meeting. Caltrans' continents were received by the Planning
Department on October 21, 1988, thus, the reason for not
being in the packets.
Meeting adjourned at 8:15 P.M., reconvening at 8:25 P.M.
Mr. John Thomas 1202 Kroll Lane Huntin(qton Beach,
addressed the commission commenting: his participation in
this meeting is to supply the commission with information;
will not be waiving any of the benefits which he may have
accrued as a result of violating the State Streamlining Act;
would not preclude Best, Best & Krieger acting as co-
counsel, Palmieri, and Tyler initiating a writ of mandate
proceeding.
Mr. Ryskamp noted that at this point a stipulation to
include the fact that any actions taken tonight are deemed
by all parties to have taken place on the 6th of September
with Mr. Thomas stating "yes."
Mr. Thomas, further speaking commented:
1) Minutes of October 4,
objected to all of the
did not do. Conditions
a) Condition No. 1.02;
b) Condition No. 1.04;
c) Condition No. 2.01;
d) Condition No. 2.02.
1988 reflected that he had
conditions of approval which he
he did not object to were:
Also other items he discussed he indicated that usually
the procedure should be included with the final map and
improvement plans as opposed to being presented and
submitted with a tentative map;
PC Minutes
October 25, 1988
Page 5
2) Kunzman & Caltrans did a traffic study on this project
which was submitted to Mr. Bounds and Mr. Bounds in
turn submitted the study to Caltrans - approximately 1
1/2 years ago;
3) Biological survey was done on the property and
submitted to the City 11/19/87;
4) Complete plan survey and an animal survey on the
property done - City has a copy;
5) Mr. Bounds submitted a letter to Caltrans approximately
1 1/2 years ago stating their map complied with the
general plan, zoning and circulation element in the
City of Beaumont;
() Meetings with Valerie Beeler, Mr. Bounds and the
engineers were had with the basic idea that everything
that was documented and recorded would be included in
the map;
7) Letter from Valerie Beeler subsequent to the date Mr.
Bounds submitted his letter to Caltrans and also states
the map coincides with the general plan, zoning
and circulation element;
8) Applications and work done on project were done so at
the instructions of both Mr. Bounds and Valerie Beeler.
Mr. Hubert Webb Civil Engineer for the project, addressed
the commission commenting:
1) Was his understanding this project was going to be
presented to the commission on the basis of a tentative
map with certain issues being addressed by further
study;
2) Project was not going to have a full blown Specific
Plan EIR;
3) Traffic studies, biology, gas mitigation studies have
all come out during the processing of the plan as a
result of on -going discussion with City staff;
4) His understanding the major two issues involving
the project was Caltrans and is there, or is there not
wastewater capacity available to the project;
5) They understood when the project was going to be
presented to the Planning Commission and Council,
there was going to be a condition in the conditions of
approval indicating that this area would have to
participate in a study for a wastewater expansion as
well as the interchange situation because the City of
Beaumont has to be the lead agency;
() Applicant agreed he would assist in the
preparation with funding and whatever else was
necessary to aid the City in preparing these studies;
7) Reviewed Mr. Dotson's conditions and outlined the
following:
a) Condition No. 1.01: Opposed to this condition
because it was never a condition that the City
staff at the time they started the project
instructed them to comply with;
PC Minutes
October 25, 1988
Page 6
b) Condition No. 1.03: If the City will furnish a
list of street names they will place them on the
map.
c) Condition No. 1.04: Agrees with this condition.
d) Condition No. 1.05: opposed. This is a matter of
preference - either a solid block wall or leave
some opening with wrought -iron through this area
with a passage way.
e) Condition No. 1.06: Could be mitigated. 10' more
within the right of way within the tract boundary
or a road offer of 10' on the other side of the
road.
f) Condition No. 2: Believes this to be a legitimate
condition; however, on a lot of cases other
agencies do not require the typical section.
Attorney Ryskamp explained there was a question as to
whether this particular zone on the plan rituired
a development plan or a specific p lan was
the City's contention that the application was not completed
until the 29th of April 1988. He noted there was a meeting
in March with Mr. Thomas, his attorney, Mr. Webb, Mr.
Koules, Mr. Bounds, Mr. Dotson and himself and discussed at
length the requirements of the project, the need for a
Specific Plan vs. a Vesting Tentative Map and they arrived
at a list of additional items that needed to be submitted to
complete the application. When the last of these initial
items were submitted, they then had an application that was
complete; therefore, the City had one year from April 29th.
When an application is complete that does not mean you
cannot request additional materials - it means you have the
basic materials before you.
Mr. Thomas, commented that if you go over athe
thdevelopment
comments
standards for that zone and if you g o o
and instructions that were given to them by Mr. Bounds and
Valerie Beeler for over 2 years, neither one of them ever
mentioned the fact that they had to do a Specific Plan. His
attorneys have reviewed all the documentation and they
disagree with the City's attorney and have requested that he
immediately file a writ of mandate proceeding.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Burton
then closed the public hearing at 9:14 P.M., turning this
matter back to the commission for discussion.
Attorney Ryskamp noted for the record that Mr. Dotson be
allowed to address the issue pointing out that on July 21,
1987, he (Dotson) sent a letter which was subsequently
forwarded to the applicant specifically stating there wasn't
enough information at this point to make conditions of
approval.
Mr. Dotson stated that the letter he wrote was in July 1987,
in response to a request from Valerie Beeler to review he
map for purposes of preparing conditions of app
Commented he wrote a very brief letter stating "way too soon
- there is not enough here." He then read from his letter
quoting "the remature. °s nice but
way pstands
premature - way p
by this statement now.
Attorney Ryskamp pointed out that there were three options
before the commissin: 1) to approve the project; 2) to deny
PC Minutes
October 25, 1988
Page 7
the project and 3) take no action recognizing that the City
can work with the applicant until April 29, 1989 to complete
an EIR as well as the other steps to make the project
workable - in which case it would be returned to staff. He
noted also that a fourth alternative could be that the
application is not complete because there has been no
specific plan and return it to start all over again.
CDD Koules noted that the reviewing agencies in response to
the Notice of Preparation are of such magnitude that they
are going to involve an EIR and most likely a re- design of
the project and this understanding should be set forth.
On motion by Commissioner Schuelke, seconded by Commissioner
Remy that this application 87 -DP -1 and 87 -TM -3 be returned
to staff for the purpose of working with the applicant to
bring into compliance by April 29, 1989, based on the
finding that it has come to us prematurely.
Attorney Ryskamp wanted it clarified as to whether the
application is not complete or if she (Commissioner
Schuelke) wanted staff to work with the application and
materials that they now have which was accepted as complete
on April 29, 1989, with Commissioner Schuelke stating
"both." Attorney Ryskamp then noted that the application
can be complete and still require extensive additional
materials - acceptable as complete in that it has the major
issues and yet require additional materials including a full
EIR.
Meeting recessed at 9:36 P.M., reconvening at 9:45 P.M.
CDD Koules informed the commission that April 29th was the
date that the phasing map was submitted and to use this as
the date of acceptance of a complete application. This then
would be consistent with the March 22nd meeting they had
with the applicant and his representatives. The EIR process
has already prompted some serious concerns and would have to
be reflected in some map revision. Further, he would do his
best to work with the applicant to bring this to a completed
project.
Chairperson Burton informed Mr. Thomas that she personally
felt that an EIR should be done. She noted that a motion
was on the floor which should be withdrawn or re- stated.
Attorney Ryskamp commented that the only thing that needed
to be corrected was rather than in reference to a Specific
Plan, request staff to work with the applicant to attempt to
complete work on the project by the one year dead -line date
which is April 29, 1989.
Motion carried with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke and Remy.
NOES: Commissioner Fries and Chairperson Burton.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
SCHEDULED MATTER:
8. Appeal of Community Development Director's decision
reference Outdoor Advertising Displays (Billboards) per
Section 17.60.015 of Beaumont Municipal Code.
CDD Koules presented the staff report explaining that the
applicant was in the office requesting to file four
billboards at the Intersection of Highway 60 and Interstate
PC Minutes
October 25, 1988
Page 8
10.
Attorney Gary Mobley One Newport Place, Newport Beach,
addressed the commission stating he was representing Adams
Advertising. He further commented: It was represented to
them that this was a denial and he confirmed this in a
letter to the City Clerk at the time they filed the appeal.
Has been treating this as an appeal of denied applications,
contrary to what Mr. Koules had indicated that they were not
received - presumption they are operating under.
for clarification
Attorney Zyskamp then asked Mr. Mobley
since the applications were not accepted and not in the
City's files, if the copies being submitted were to be part
of the record.
Attorney Mobley presented the following documents to be made
a part of the record.
1) Pamphlet on Public Service Signs;
2) Pamphlet on Adams Style of Structure;
3) Library References S. 5226;
4) Copy of Order re: Prel. Injunction;
5) Copy of Opposition to Order to Show Cause;
6) Copy of PC Minutes dated 12/1/87;
7) Copy of Letter to Mr. Bisel dated 12/7/87'
8) Copy of CG Zoning Ordinance;
9) Copy of Declaration by Moses W. Johnson;
10) Eleven pictures of signs along freeway.
Attorney Mobley, explained that outdoor advertising differs
in a significant respect from on premise signs such as the
Travelodge sign. The difference being that on -site signs are
used almost exclusively as permanent commercial messages to
advertise a business or service, whereas, outdoor advertising
is available to the use by the public for a variety of
messages that can be both commercial and non - commercial
therefore, it takes on the aspects of free speech. The
proposed signs they are proposing are not inconsistent with
uses of property that exists in the City of Beaumont. His
understanding is that the MC Zone is basically the only zone
that permits (on a permitted basis) outdoor advertising signs
and this is basically the only location left in the City of
Beaumont that is undeveloped along the highways or freeways.
Feels they are entitled to the applications on basically
three grounds:
1) Believes they comply with the strict requirements of the
I�IC Zone classification 17.50.105. This Section indicates
that outdoor advertising signs are a permitted use. In
all other sections it is subject to site development
approval.
2) Doesn't feel that 17.60 Section applies to the MC Zone
because in the MC Zone there is no reference to Section
17.60.
3) Feels they are being denied their applications based on a
re- interpretation of Section 17.60 and what it
specifically means - not being consistent or being
treated in an even handed fashion.
Attorney Mobley continued speaking stating that if and
commission takes the positiopp
that 17.60the pbelieve it
prohibits the permits they are a 1 in for, Y
would be invalid for two reasons: 1) it violates the
provisions of the California Outdoor Advertising Act and 2)
PC Minutes
October 25, 1988
Page 9
it violates Sections 5526 and 5227 in the California Business
and Professions Code. If the City takes the position that no
signs are permitted within 500 ft. of the freeway, it is a
total prohibition of signs along the freeways and is
specifically pre - empted by the Outdoor Advertising Act. The
United States Supreme Court has recognized that Outdoor
Advertising is entitled to the first amendment of free speech
protection. Strongly believes that they have a right to
these signs and therefore, appealing to the commission to
issue these permits. will not have any adverse effect and
will not have any impact, certainly not any more significant
than a 55' Travelodge sign that was just approved.
CDD Koules commented that he reads Ordinance 17.60.015
literally which is the reason for the denial of acceptance of
the application and takes issue with Mr. Mobley's
interpretation.
Attorney Ryskamp commented that he disagrees with the freedom
of speech argument, but would like to have an opportunity to
review the material and bring back a response to the
commission.
Attorney Johnson commented that this matter be continued to
give them a chance to look at the legal argument - does not
want to comment without doing some research.
On motion by Commissioner Fries that this matter be
continued to the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of
November 15, 1988, in order to give Mr. Ryskamp time to give
an opinion pertaining to the state code.
CDD Koules wanted clarification as to the appeal to his
decision to not accept the application with Mr. Ryskamp
explaining the concern as to whether there was an appeal to
a denial of the request, or an appeal of a refusal to accept
the application. It is the City's contention that the
application was never accepted because it did not conform,
rather than having been specifically denied - was never
accepted as an appliation since fees were not collected.
Motion seconded by Commissioner Remy. Motion carried
unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries and Remy.
NOES: Chairperson Burton.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
There being no further business before the commission, the
meeting adjourned at 10:30 P.M.
(Resspectfully submitted,
yRe
PC Se et���
V
V
AI/V ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIATES
Consulting Engineers
3788 McCray Street • Riverside, California 92506 -2973
Telephone (714) 686 -1070
FAX (714) 788 -1256
ALBERT A. WEBB - (1899 -1981)
ERNEST N. WEBB - 11928 -1987)
A. HUBERT WEBB HAROLD L. MASERRY
JOHN STAAF DAVID M. ALGRANTI
SAM I. GERSHON RON BUCKLEY
JOHNJORDAN WALLACE H. FRANZ
MATTHEW E. WEBB
October 24, 1988
TO: Planning Commission, City of Beaumont
SUBJECT: 87 -TM -3, TRACT 22563
APPLICANT: Beaumont Associates
Contact Person: John Thomas
21202 Kroll Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
APPLICANT'S
ENGINEER: Albert A. Webb Associates
3788 McCray Street
Riverside, CA 92506
Project Manager: A. Hubert Webb
HISTORY:
M.
REF. W.O. 81 -253
FILE NO.
The project site consists of approximately 160 acres located in
the western portion of the City of Beaumont upon which a development has
been proposed to consist of approximately 336 single - family detached lots,
224 units of multiple - family lots, 21.3 acres of special commercial, and
approximately 43 acres of open space.
The project was originally proposed by the Applicant in
approximately 1979 through 1980. Discussions were held with City Staff
during this period to accomplish annexation to the City in order to
commence the planning process. From 1980 through the end of 1984 the City
and its consultants were preparing a General Plan. Shortly after the
adoption of the General Plan the City approved zone changes which were
consistent with the proposed Tentative Map. In 1985 Webb Associates had
meetings with the City Manager, City Engineer and Planning Director to
discuss the development concepts proposed by the Applicant. Some of the
factors discussed during these meetings are stated below:
1. Availability of water and sewer facilities.
2. Vehicular access from State Highway 60, as well as
improvements necessary on 4th Street east of the southeast
corner of the proposed Tentative Map.
LETR2 /81 -253
Civil Planning Environmental
i
J
Surveying
Assessment
*F
j
f
of
rF
5
{
Assessment
*F
ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIATES — Consulting Engine
Planning Commission, City of Beaumont
October 24, 1988
Page 2
3. Schedule of proposed time frames for processing of the
development.
During these meetings the City Manager indicated that the
City's existing wastewater treatment plant had approximately 200
equivalent dwelling unit capacity remaining and this capacity could be
made available for the site subjectto prior commitments.
Webb Associates continued to work on the site development
and had subsequent meetings with the City Manager and Engineer to discuss
in further detail the proposed project. The discussions included the
required street improvements for 4th Street, B Street, and A Street with
respect to the proposed freeway off ramp which would connect to A Street.
In addition, the matter of sewage treatment plant capacity was again
discussed and the City Engineer indicated that Webb should show an on -site
treatment plant, or as an alternative propose a sewer pump station which
would be utilized to pump sewage back to the City's existing treatment
plant. It was also discussed that in order to expedite the planning
review process that a Focus EIR could be prepared at a later date to
accompany an application to the Regional Water Quality Control Board for
the construction of an onsite treatment plant. This would be required in
the event the City was not capable of providing wastewater capacity to the
site. In addition, the City Staff indicated that the City would be the
lead agency for any applications to the Regional Water Quality Control
Board, as well as any negotiations required with CalTrans for the
construction of an overpass and off ramps in the vicinity of A Street.
However, these matters could be a condition of approval of the Tentative
Map and be resolved after the map was approved by the Planning Commission
and City Council.
During the review period by the City, the Staff requested
additional studies and information from the Applicant consisting of
traffic reports, biological assessment, and a geotechnical report, as well
as a gas mitigation report for an isolated area along the east tract
boundary located approximately 800' northerly of the southeast corner of
the proposed development. All of these studies were prepared and
submitted to the City Staff.
CONCLUSION:
On -going discussions were held with City Staff in order to
obtain their input in the preparation of the final Tentative Map. Webb
Associates proceeded in good faith to work closely with Staff in order to
address any major issues relative to the proposed project, and it is the
opinion of Webb Associates that Staff concerns should have been addressed
during this period of time. Staff members included Bob Bounds, City
Manager; Jim Dotson, City Engineer; and Valerie Beeler, Planning
Director. Webb Associates expected the project would be scheduled for
hearing by the Planning Commission until Mr. Thomas was notified there
were additional staff concerns. Inasmuchas considerable time has elapsed,
I would recommend that Tentative Tract 22563 be heard by the Planning
Commission.
LETR2 /81 -253
w l