HomeMy Public PortalAbout1990 PC MINUTESBEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
APRIL 3, 1990
The Planning Commission Meeting was called to Order at 7:00 p.m.
by Community Development Director Stephen KaUles.
Affidavit of Posting was read.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
Mayor Ann Connors then did the swearing in of tho commissioners
and introducted the body as "our new planning commission."
On Roll Call, the following commissioners were present:
Commissioners Dery, Echlin, I(islIng, Prouty and Ring.
It should be noted for the record that City Attorney Ryskamp, City
Engineer Dotson and his Assist+anL Barbara Hall wore all present
at this meeting.
1. Introduction and Swearing in of New Commissioners by Mayor
Connors. This item was taken out of sequence and handled
at the beginning of the meeting. Attorney Ryskamp however,
made introductory comments pertaining to the procedures for
the planning commission, noting that approximately 4 years ago
Robert's Rules was adopted as a standard procedure.
2. Appointment of Chairman: Commissioner Berg was elected
Chairman with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioner Berg, Echlin, Kisling, Prouty and Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
Commissioner Echlin was elected Vice Chairman unanimously.
3. Oral Communication: Attorney Ryskamp commented that it is
mandated by law there be a time in which any member of the
public may address the body on anything they wish during the
meeting which is then referred to staff. Further, the Brown
Act prohibits the commission from discussing anything that is
not placed on the agenda and posted at least 72 hours in
advance of the meeting.
4. Director's Report: COD Koules introduced all
personnel /consultants to the planning commission.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
5. (89 -TM -3) (Tract 24039) for a proposod subdivision of 176
acres, consisting of six hundred -two (602) single family lots,
complying with prior approval of Specific Plan 88 -02 and
PC Minutes of
April 3, 1990
Page 2
On motion by Commissioner Ring, seconded by Commissioner
Echlin to continue this matter to the meeting of may 15, 1990.
Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Prouty, Ring and
Chairmen Berg.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
6. 88- PP -6(R) and 89 -ND -4, a proposed revision to relocate a
proposed 3,780 sq. ft. auto service station on a prior
approval of tho sorvir,e station and a proposed 4,200 sq, ft.
full service car wash. Project is located on the west side of
Highland Springs Avenue, about 300 ft. north of its
intersection with Sixth Street. Applicant R. G. Development.
COD Koules presented the staff report noting that the
applicant now seeks to relocate (move the rear auto center
building) forward (an L shape facing left) and feels there
will be no greater impact than the original project that was
granted in 1989.
Chairman Berg then opened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m.
asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to
speak.
Mr. Ken Scofield, Architect from Redlands, addressed the
commission commenting that they had found it more advantageous
to make the building a drive -thru type of operation than a
drive -in and back -out situation. Will be the same size
buiiding just moving it to a different location to make a more
efficient use of the building for a lubrication facility.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Berg then
closed the public hearing at 7 :22 p.m. turning the matter back
to the commission for discussion.
CDD Koules noted that staff is utilizing the same Negative
Declaration that was used when the project was originally
approved.
On motion by Commissioner Ring, seconded by Commissioner
Echlin approving 88 -PP -6 as revised, motion carried
unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYIS: Cunminniunarn Luhlhi, Klnling, Prouty, Hlny and
Chairman Berg.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
7. 90- PUP -19 90 -U -1 and 90 -ND -2, a proposal to construct a 8,255
an f "..,I n iiu nf.r. A..41A4 n' +. n Fk. .v4 of 4 nn Qn r.i irn nnin
PC Minutes of
April 3, 1990
Page 3
Mr. Jerome Haddow, Architect with A & E Associates, addressed
the commission commenting that there would be a decorative
fence along First Street and a portion of California and
informed the commission where the 8' block wall would be.
Mr. Bob Smith, Consultant with So. Cal. Gas Co., addressed the
commission and noted that the planting material going to be
used is a part of the package which would be submitted on
April 9, 1990. The materials, quantity, etc, will be on the
drawings and has been discussed with the City Landscaping
Architect, Roger Deutschman. Also the Pine Tree is being used
as the approved street tree for First Street at this point and
along First Street and California they will be using the open
wrought iron for the purpose of visual security. The garage
and storage areas will have a solid block wall to screen it
from the residential area that backs up to them. Mfr. Smith
requested more definition on Section 1 - Street Improvements
per City Engineer as well as clarification on Page 2 - 1.01.5
- how many lights?
City Engineer Dotson noted the difficulty with street
improvements due to Caltrans project as well as the building
of the new Wastewater Treatment Plant, thus, the reason for
on -site improvements only. An agreement between So. Cal. Gas
Co. and the City of Beaumont would state "Suspension of
Improvement." Mir. Dotson then requested the commission to
amend Section 1 - Street Improvements to read "commence" in
place of "take place" and insert "1 year notice" in place of
090 days ". Also on Page 2 - 1.01.5 is "two (2) lights ".
He further noted that documents will control completion of
time.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Berg then
closed the public hearing at 7:43 p.m. turning the matter back
to the commission for discussion.
After discussion, and on motion by Commissioner Kisling,
seconded by Commissioner Echlin for approval of 90- PUP -1,
subject to the amended conditions, per City Engineer's
request and 90 -V -1 with the findings that the granting of the
Variance to increase the allowable fence height to 8 ft. from
6 ft. is justified on the basis of special circumstances
applicable to this parcel of property due to the need for
security measures necessary to the specific operation. Also
recommendation of approval of Negative Declaration 90 -ND -2
by City Council since it will not have a significant effect
on tho onvIronniant. M1otinn carried tinanimoti91y with the
fu.l lowltiil rol l null vot,u:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Prouty, Ring and
Chairman Berg.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
MAY 15, 1990
The Planning Commission Meeting was called to Order at 7:00 p.m.
On Roll Call the following commissioners were present.
Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Prouty, Ring and Chairman Berg.
The Affidavit of Posting was read.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. The Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of April 3,
1990 were approved as submitted.
2. Oral Communication: None.
3. Director's Report: COD Koules noted that he distributed to
each member of the commission an aerial flyer of the City of
Beaumont showing proposed developments as well as a project
status sheet showing projects either approved or in the
pipeline for approval as well as those that are expected to be
filed in the future.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
i 89 -TM -3) (Tract 24039) for a proposed subdivision of 176
cres, z PUBLIC
of six hundred -two (502) single family lots,
o�P 0 g with prior approval of Specific Plan 88 -02 and
n vironmental Impact Report EIR- 88 -02. Project location is
bounded on the south and west by 8th Street and Interstate 10,
on the north by Florence Street and Marshall Creek and on the
east by Elm Avenue. Applicant, Three -Rings Ranch /Coscan-
Stewart Partnership.
COD Koules addressed the commission noting this project
had been continued from April 3, 1990 with the hope that the
development agreement being prepared by the applicant and the
city engineer would be ready; however, more time is needed
therefore staff recommends this item be continued to the next
planning commission hearing of June 19, 1990.
Chairman Berg then opened the public hearing at 7:04 p.m.
asking if there were any proponents /opponents from the
audience wishing to speak; there being none he then closed the
public hearing at 7 :04 p.m. and on motion by Commissioner
Ring, seconded by Commissioner Echlin this item was continued
to the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting of June 19,
1990. Motion carried with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin,
Chairman Berg.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Kisling, Prouty, Ring and
PC Minutes of
May 15, 1990
Page 2
instances there would be an exemption from the state licensing
requirements when care and supervision were not provided.
Mr. Koules also noted that staff received a letter from
Beaumont School District which was distributed to the
commission and the applicant, noting that on this date
he spoke with Mr. Rozzi of the school district and Mr. Rozzi
clarified the intent of the letter. Mr. Koules further
noted the conditions of approval were revised to reflect this
matter as well as the licensing requirements.
Chairman Berg then opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m.
asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to
speak.
Mr. Charles McKennell, 255575 Christina, Mission Viejo,
addressed the commission stating he was here to clarify State
licensing procedures. He noted that under the state licensing
program the statute reads that if you offer board and direct
care (meaning dispensing medication and transporting patients)
comes under one form of licensing. However under the present
economic conditions of the area he felt you cannot fill the
complete residential facility based on state provided people.
He noted there is another Section within the state licensing
code that states you can have an Inn, hotel, etc. if you
provide board or board and food without direct supervision and
he would like to have a City license that will state either /or
or a combination of the two - both governed by the State. It
will be a board and care facility but some will require no
supervision. The total facility will come under State
regulations of fire, health and all the other regulations that
are required and the permits thereof.
Commissioner Prouty questioned Mr. McKennell as to the age of
the facility and if it had been examined for any seismic
safety factors. Mr. McKennell responded by noting that the
facility had been inspected for electrical safety, and gas
but did not know if it had been inspected for seismic safety.
Ms. Bonnie Gerwin speaking from the audience noted that the
facility had been inspected and approved.
Mr. Charles McKennell, still speaking, informed the commission
they would be looking for clients under the state statute
who nro wlinf, Lhoy cnll cllnnta 1 and 2, ambulatory poopin who
du nuL nund full time supervision and are not in wheelchairs
nor walkers. They will not have class 4 which is the mentally
disturbed. Also there will be a maximum of 2 persons per room
if the room is adequate; however, he feels that the private
sector would be looking for private single rooms and there are
32 rooms.
Chairman Berg then asked if the people in the facility would
be people for drug rehabilitation or have mental problems with
Mr. McKennell stating "no" because each person will be
screened by local police and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. If they have any criminal record it has to be
PC Minutes of
-May 15, 1990
Page 3
Chairman Berg commented that he was concerned about the
parking lot and the residence on the north side which looks
like it has a barbed wire fence and noted that if people are
going in and out there should be a 6' blockwall. Another
concern is the driveway into the building sometimes ,can be
very difficult and there should be another entrance to the
facility possibly onto California. The curb and gutter needs
repair and the alley looks like it could use some work.
COD Koules noted that in terms of the driveway, the Riverside
County Fire Department did review this plot plan and the
applicant will have to comply with the fire department
requirements. Also he couldn't get more parking than exists
on the parking lot and there is a condition on the attached
conditions of approval which require the applicant to provide
no more than 30 percent of the parking spaces shown on the
plot plan for compact cars.
Chairman Berg commented that the drawings did not show any
particular kind of scale and he would like to know what
the dimensions are before voting to approve the project.
Once cars are parked in the parking lot how much space do you
have for cars going in and coming out?
COD Koules explained that the City Engineer inspects all sites
for drainage, etc. and that it has been his practice not to
improve the alleyways with Chairman Berg asking "when is the
alleyway not improved when it is being used for an entrance
and exit" with Mr. McKennell responding "no its not ".
Chairman Berg then reopened the public hearing at 7:33 p.m.
asking if anyone from the audience wanted to speak.
Ms. Valerie Monroe, 666 California, Beaumont, addressed the
commission noting there were people exiting from the facility
by the alleyway, that there were lots of traffic, would like
to see the facility improved.
Chairman Berg noted that he would like to hear what Ms. Gerwin
had to say since she indicated she wanted to speak.
Ms. Bonnie Gerwin, again addressed the commission noting that
she agrees with the young woman the business could be improved
and that a board and care facility will have much more care;
building looks better than most in Beaumont and has never had
a problem with parking.
Mr. Charles McKennell, again addressed the commission
commenting that he is a qualified businessman and does not run
a facility to accommodate neighbors nor the City, he runs a
facility to accommodate himself and it will be a first class
facility.
Chairman Berg then closed the public hearing at 7:44 p.m.
turning the matter again back to the commission.
PC Minutes of
May 15, 1990
Page 4
Chairman Berg then made a motion to approve 90 -PUP -2 with the
following amendments:
Item No. 1: Itemize: Recommendations attached to the
conditions of approval from city engineer;
Item No. 7: Add. Would like to see an automatic sprinkler
system for the landscaping.
Item No. 15: Add. The applicant will resubmit a revised plot
plan to scale showing a minimum 20' driveway off
of 6th Street.
Item No. 16: Add. Construct a blockwall on the north side of
the property 6' in height.
and recommended approval by City Council of Negative
Declaration 90 -ND -4 since it will not have a significant
effect on the environment, seconded by Commissioner
Kisling. motion carried with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling and Chairman Berg.
NOES: Commissioners Ring and Prouty.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
The plot plan does not have to come back before the commission
if it meets all the requirements.
5. 89 -PM -2 (PM 25090) and 90 -ND -3, for a proposed subdivision of
61.65 acres consisting of three (3) M -L (Light - Manufacturing)
zone parcels, located on the north side of 4th Street,
approximately 2640 feet west of California Avenue. Applicant,
K -I Investment, at al.
CDD Koules noted that the applicant had requested a
continuance of this item and a copy of the letter has been
distributed to the commission. Staff therefore would
recommend a continuance of this parcel map.
Chairpman
Berg then opened the
public
hearing at 8:10 p.m.
asking for
proponents /opponents
from the
audience wishing to
speak, there
being none he then
closed
the public hearing at
8:11 p.m.
continuing this matter
to the
next Regular Planning
Commlaylon
Mooting of June 19, 1990.
There being no further business before the commission, the
meeting adjourned at 8:13 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cherry 71y lor
Secretary
PC Meeting of
June 19, 1990
Page 3
On motion by Commissioner Prouty, seconded by Commissioner
Kisling, recommending that Annexation 90 -ANX -1 and Pre - Zoning
90 -RZ -1 be approved by City Council as well as Negative
Declaration 90 -ND -4. This project will not have a significant
impact on the environment. Motion carried unanimously with
the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Prouty, Ring and
Chairman Berg.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
7. 90- ANX -4, 90 -RZ -3 and 90 -ND -5, a City- initiated proposed pre -
annexation zonin to M -L (Light Manufacturing) on approx.
113.15 acres, APN 417 - 020 -009, 011, 018, 019 and 020, located
on the south side of the westerly extension of 4th St. for a
distance of approx. 2,400 ft. and thence southerly for a
distance of approx. 3,000 ft. to a point in line with the
westerly extension of Davis Mountain Road. The proposed
annexation area surrounds the existing City sewer treatment
plant. Applicant, City of Beaumont.
COD Koules presented the staff report and noted that in order
to bring this land into the City it has to be pre- zoned. We
are proposing to change the county zoning to Light Industrial
zoning. The Industrial Zone would allow the City at some
point in time to come in and expand the sewer treatment plant
and at that time a specific project would be brought before
the commission for planning review and discussion. COD Koules
also noted that an Environmental Impact Report has been
prepared for the expanded sewer treatment plant.
Chairman Berg then opened the public hearing at 7:23 p.m.
asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to
speak. There being none he then closed the public hearing at
7:23 p.m. turning the matter over to the planning commission.
On motion by Commissioner Kisling, seconded by Commissioner
Echlin recommending that Annexation 90 -ANX -4 and Pre - Zoning
90 -RZ -3 be approved by City Council as well as Negative
Declaration 90 -ND -5. This project will not have a significant
impncL un IJin onvirummtinL. Motion carried unanimously with
the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin,
Chairman Berg.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
SCHEDULED MATTERS:
Kisling, Prouty, Ring and
8. 89 -PP -2, Am. 11, and 89 -ND -7, a request- for a one year
extension for a proposed 32,827 sq. ft. mini - warehousing
facility on 1.55 acres, located on the east side of Allegheny
Avenue about 300 feet north of Sixth Street. Applicant,
Vincent Denise.
PC Meeting of
June 190 1990
Page 5
Mr. Ray Philabaum, 9157 Oak Creek, representing Beaumont -
Cherry Valley Recreational Parks District, addressed the
commission stating that his concern is with the proposed
development of the parks and open space within the City of
Beaumont. Also the Park 8 Recreational Department has not
been consulted and has on numerous occasions for the past
several years tried to get the City of Beaumont involved in
the master Plan they (Parks) have been working on (copy of
which had been submitted to the City). They (Parks) feel
they have the expertise and their efforts should not be
duplicated.
Mr. Brian Ross, Beaumont- Cherry Valley Recreational Parks
District, addressed the commission stating he was a little
dismayed and under the assumption after numerous meetings
with the City and after spending over $20,000 developing a
master plan, in being assured by the City they wanted to work
with them in this effort; however, they have been unsuccessful
in the effort in getting the City to respond even though the
City has said this is what we want. Looking at the conceptual
plan Mr. Ross stated that it is a deficient plan and does not
address the ballfields, does not address the community
centers, does not address the number of acres, and has an
over abundance of mini - parks.
COD Koules noted that there is about 300 acres of mini - parks,
neighbor parks and community parks plus 88 acres of the
equestrian areas, 150 acres in schools, 78 acre golf course on
Hovchild project and a rule of thumb in planning is 5 acres
of parks per 1000 population.
Chairman Berg commented that he felt the Conceptual Plan was a
good idea for the City of Beaumont. Also this will be a
guide for the City to plan by and is something that has been
needed for a long time.
Commissioner Prouty addressing COD Koules ask if this was a
vote of confidence whereby there will be a certain amount of
parks but not limited to the number or size or who will be
running them?
COD Koules commented that it is not a detailed plan but a
concept plan requiring a vote of confidence that this is what
you would like to see the city doing.
Commissioner Ring noted that the Park District had some good
ideas and certainly has a lot of input.
On motion by Commissioner Echlin, seconded by Commissioner
Ring to support the parks, open space, and beautification
concept plan for the City of Beaumont. Motion carried
unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioner Echlin, Kisling, Prouty, Ring and
Chairman Berg.
NOES: None.
ft OCT0 T,1. a - -_
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
JUNE 19, 1990
The Planning Commission Meeting was called to Order at 7:00 p.m.
On Roll Call the following commissioners were present.
Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Prouty, Ring and Chairman Berg.
The Affidavit of Posting was read.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. The Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of May 15,
1990, were approved submitted.
2. Oral Communication; None.
3. Director's Report: None,
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
4. 89 -PM -2 (PM 25090) and 90 -ND -3, for a proposed subdivision of
61.65 acres consisting of three (3) M -L (Light Manufacturing)
Zone parcels, located on the north side of 4th Street, approx.
2640 feet west of California Avenue. Applicant, K -I
Investment, at al.
COD Koules presented the staff report noting that the site
contains a dump on the westerly portion. Also the
proposal is to have an easement road running northerly from
4th Street up to Dowling's property. Further, the proposed
parcel map is in compliance with the general plan and the
existing zoning and staff recommends approval with the
attached conditions of approval.
Chairman Berg then opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m.
asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to
speak.
Ms. Nancy Leonhardt, Urban Environs, representing the
applicant addressed the commission stating they concur with
the conditions of approval and staff's recommendation.
There being no one else to speak, Chairman Berg then closed
the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. turning the matter over to the
commission for discussion.
There was discussion as to the kind of fill the dump site was
when in use, with City Engineer Dotson explaining that it
was an unsupervised county controlled dump; however, in the
60's the county filled it over. Also there is some claim that
it was a burn pit. In 1963 ( approx.) they dug through the
dump with a sewer main and did not uncover any charcoal just
garbage. The applicant that purchased the property in 1980
hired Pioneer Consultants that did tests and defined the
limits of the dump - their report said "trash ". Mr. Dotson
PC Minutes of
June 19, 1990
Page 2
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
5. 89 -TM -3 (Tract 24039), for a proposed subdivision of 176
acres, consisting of six hundred (600) single family lots,
complying with prior approval of Specific Plan 88 -02 and
Environmental Impact Report EIR- 88 -02. Project location is
bounded on the south and west by 8th Street and Interstate 10,
on the north by Florence Street and Marshall Creek and on the
east by Elm Avenue. Applicant, Three -Rings Ranch /Coscan-
Stewart Partnership.
COD Koules stated that staff had received an oral request to
have this item continued by the applicant who is present this
evening to address the planning commission.
Mr. Curt Ensign, Director of Operations for Inland Empire
Division for Premire Homes, 1787 W. Pomona Rd, Suite K.
Corona, Ca. 91720, addressed the commission commenting that
they didn't feel they were quite ready to move forward. They
have a few concerns with the timing of the off -tract
improvements and some of the reimbursable issues with regard
to some of the major infrastructure which is tied to Mello -
Roos. Feels it can be resolved within the next 3 to 4 weeks
and therefore would like a 30 day continuance.
COD Koules suggested that the next Planning Commission Meeting
be held on July 17, 1990.
On motion by Commissioner Ring, seconded by Commissioner
Prouty to continue this item to the Planning Commission
Meeting of July 17, 1990. Motion carried unanimously with the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin,
Chairman Berg.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Kisling, Prouty, Ring and
Chairman Berg noted that those in the audience who filled out
a Request to Speak Form would have a chance to speak at the
next planning commission meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
90- ANX -10 90 -RZ -1 and 90 -ND -4, a proposed pre- annexation
zoning to C -G (Commercial - General) on 1.0 acres, APN# 406-
140 -003, located on the west side of Beaumont Avenue, about
500 feet north of its intersection with 14th Street (11867
Beaumont Avenue). Applicant, Allied Group, Inc. /Helon Saab,
Inc.
CDD Koules presented the staff report noting this was a
request to annex a one acre piece of around on the west side
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
JULY 17, 1990
The Planning Commission Meeting was called to Order at 7:00 p.m.
On Roll Call the following commissioners were present.
Commissioners Echliln, Kisling, Prouty, Ring and Chairman Berg.
The Affidavit of Posting was read.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. The Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of June 19,
1990, were approved as submitted.
2. Oral Communication: None.
3. Director's Report: COD Koules noted there was no report just
a reminder that on Item #4, continued from June 19th, there
has been no contact by the applicant with staff or the City
Engineer regarding the Revised Conditions of Approval (Vincent
Denise, 89- PP -2).
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
4. 89 -PP -2, Am. ¢1 and 89 -ND -7, a request for a one year
extension for a proposed 32,827 sq. ft. mini - warehousing
facility on 1.55 acres, located on the east side of Allegheny
Avenue about 300 feet north of Sixth Street. Applicant,
Vincent Danise.
Chairman Berg opened the public hearing at 7:03 p.m, asking
for proponents/ opponents wishing to speak from the audience.
Mr. Vincent Danise, addressed the commission noting that he
had consulted with his engineer /architect and they are
in agreement with the conditions of approval.
Chairman Berg then closed the public hearing at 7:04 p.m.
turning the matter back to the commission for discussion.
COD Koules noted that it was the recommendation of the
department to grant the one year extension of time subject to
the Revised Conditions of Approval.
On motion by Commissioner Ring, seconded by Commissioner
Prouty to approve the one year extension subject to the
Revised Conditions of Approval. Motion carried with the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Prouty, Ring and
Chairman Berg.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
Minutes of July 17, 1990
Page 2
Commissioner Ring noted that there should be a name change
from Coscan /Stewart to Premier Homes.
On motion by Commissioner Ring, seconded by Commissioner
Kisling to continue this matter to the Planning Commission
Meeting of August 21, 1990. Motion carried unanimously with
the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Prouty, Ring and
Chairman Berg.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
6. 90 -PUP -3 and 90 -ND -7, a proposed 5,200 ft. sanctuary building
addition to an existing church complex located at 1164
Beaumont Avenue. Applicant, Assembly of God Church.
Chairman Berg noted that as a matter of record he lives within
300 feet of this project and therefore feels he should turn
the chair over to Vice Chairman Echlin. Also, he will not be
participating in the voting.
COD Koules presented the staff report noting there had been
some minor changes and at staff's request the applicant
submitted blueline maps of the project which have been
distributed.
Vice Chairman Echlin then opened the public hearing at 7:11
p.m, asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing
to speak.
Mr. Paul Ferguson. representative of Assembly of God Church,
addressed the commission questioning the conditions of
approval from the City Engineer. Mr. Ferguson then asked
about an appeal and if the fifteen (15) days was also for
persons who were interested but not at the meeting.
COD Koules stated "yes" that an appeal to the conditions is
for any appellant who wants to take issue with the project
itself.
Mr. Paul Ferguson continued speaking and questioned Section 1,
Item 1.01 of the City Engineer's conditions - feels that a
curved driveway would add safety to the pedestrians crossing
from the parking area to the sanctuary. Calls attention that
each of the two drive approaches serves more than one
aisleway. Mr. Ferguson further questioned Ordinance 546,
Riverside County Fire Dept. and commented that neither Title
21 or UBC requires sprinkling under 21,000 sq. ft.
Commissioner Echlin asked Mr. Ferguson about a thirty (30) day
continuance with Mr. Ferguson noting it would be alright.
Vice Chairman Echlin then closed the public hearing at 7 :30
1 - 4......I
Minutes of July 17, 1990
Page 3
Commissioner Prouty stated he was referring to the conditions
of approval.
Mr. Ferguson then asked if this meant they could negotiate
matters between themselves anal the City Engineer or if it
meant it is adopted as it shows on the plan. Chairman Berg
explained it is approved as it shows on the plan and the
conditions of approval as outlined by the City Engineer.
COD Koules stated that the applicant will be notified that he
has fifteen (15) days from date of receipt of notification
that he can appeal to City Council and that the appeal would
be a hearing de novo.
7. 90 -PP -1 and 90 -ND -6, a proposed construction of a 4,700 sq.
ft. industrial building to be located at 624 Wellwood Avenue.
Applicant, Rudy Zerr.
CDD Koules presented the staff report commenting that staff
recommends approval of the project and adoption of the
Negative Declaration.
Chairman Berg then opened the public hearing at 7:37 p.m.
asking for proponents/ opponents from the audience wishing to
speak.
Mr. Joe Zerr, son of the applicant, addressed the commission
stating they were in agreement with the conditions of
approval and that the project will be a metal building for
light industrial or commercial use and doesn't foresee any
kind of traffic problem.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Berg then
closed the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. turning the matter over
to the commission for discussion.
On motion by Commissioner Kisling, seconded by Commissioner
Echlin, the commission approved Plot Plan 90 -PP -1, subject to
the conditions of approval and Negative Declaration 90 -ND-
6, since the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment. Motion carried unanimously with the following
roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Prouty, King and
Chairman Berg.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
SCHEDULED MATTER:
B. Appeal of Denial of Minor Plot Plan 90 -MPP -3 for storing and
hauling scrap metal, located at 651 Elm Avenue. Applicant,
Dale Saler.
COD Koules presented the background on this item notino that
Minutes of July 17, 1990
Page 4
AYES: Commissioners Echlin,
Chairman Berg.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
Kisling, Prouty, Ring and
There being no further matters before the commission,
meeting adjourned at 7:43 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
C r y ylor
PC Sec tart'
the
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
SEPTEMBER 189 1990
The Planning Commission Meeting was called to Order at 7:03 p.m.
On Roll Call the following commissioners were present.
Commissioners Echlin, Prouty, Ring and Chairman Berg. Commissioner
Kisling was excused.
The Affidavit of Posting was read.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. The Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of July 170
1990, were approved as submitted.
2. Oral Communication: Chairman Berg turned the meeting over to
Vice Chairman Echlin and then addressed the commission as a
private citizen. He distributed a letter to the planning
director and secretary (see attached) and noted there were
problems that exist with the development at 1141 Beaumont
Avenue which are as follows:
1)
No fire
hydrant within
165' of 'the project
prior to
bringing
combustibles on
the job site;
2)
Dust is
always rising from the job site due
to truck
traffic;
3)
Concrete
pour pads are
placed directly over
the sewer
manhole,
and
4)
Residential lots to the west are used as
a storage
area /access road without
the permission of the property
owner.
Chairman Berg wanted it noted for the record that if nothing
is done to correct these problems, he would like to have this
matter heard at the next commission meeting. Also, Chairman
Berg noted that he did not receive a notice prior to the
public hearing for this project.
3. Director's Report:
COD Koules stated that at the Meeting of August 27, 1990,
the City Council adopted a staff recommended revised fee
schedule which goes into effect October 27, 1990. A copy of
the new fee schedule as well as the old fee schedule was
distributed to each of the commissioners by COD Koules.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
4. 89 -TM -3, (Tract 24039) for a proposed subdivision of 176
acres, consisting of six - hundred (600) single family lots,
complying with prior approval of Specific -Plan 88 -02 and
Environmental Impact Report EIR -88 -2. Project location is
bounded on the south and west by 8th Street and Interstate 10,
on the north by Florence Street and Marshall Creek and an the
east by Elm Avenue. Applicant, Three -Rings Ranch /Premier
PC 'Minutes of
September 189 1990
Page 2
Mr. Robert Pieksma. 925 Olive St.. Beaumont, adjacent property
owner to the project addressed the commission and noted that
his primary interest is what is going to happen to the
drainage ditch since if it is blocked the water will flood his
yard.
Chairman Berg explained that drainage, street layouts, etc.
would be addressed by the city engineer when the subdivision
maps are brought in.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Berg then
closed the public hearing at 7:14 p.m. and continued this
matter to October 16, 1990.
5. 90 -RZ -4 and 90 -ND -8. request to change the existing zoning
from C -G (Commercial General) to RHD (Residential High
Density) on approximately 12 acres, located on the southeast
corner of Beaumont Avenue and Brookside Avenue. Applicant,
Ronald P. Whittier.
COD Koules noted that the planning department had received two
letters of protest and a letter from the Cherry Valley
Environmental Planning Group asking for continuance of this
item.
COD Koules presented the staff report explaining that Assembly
Bill 1301 requires that zoning be in compliance with the
general plan designation. Further, it is staff's feeling that
a commercial use at this site would pre- commit the other three
corners of this quadrant to similar commercial uses. The
City's position is that they do not want to see a commercial
quadrant up at Brookside and Beaumont Avenue. The question of
acceptable density will be addressed when the applicant files
a plot plan to actually develop the parcel - now the applicant
is seeking a zone reclassification. Also, there is another
level of review and since there are no readily identifiable
environmental features on this site, a negative declaration is
being recommended for this project. Mr. Koules also noted
that the applicant owns the property to the south and would
like to have the option of developing both parcels as one
project.
Chairman Berg asked why staff is not asking for a Planned Unit
Development with COD Koules stating that the residential
high density as it now is written has open space requirements
that are very similar - in other projects they are proposing
about 20 to 21 units per acre.
Chairman Berg noted that they can use patios, concrete areas,
etc. as open space.
Chairman Berg then opened the public hearing at 7 :23 p.m.
asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to
speak from the audience.
PC Minutes of
September 18, 1990
Page 3
Ms. Nancy Witt, 507 Cynthia Avenue, Beaumont, addressed the
commission in opposition of this project - feels the only one
really benefitting is the developer.
Mr. Ray Morrow, 511 Cynthia Avenue, Beaumont, addressed the
commission in opposition of this project - will cause
additional problems with traffic, etc.
Mr. Craig Crispin, 508 Cynthia Avenue, Beaumont, addressed the
commission in opposition of this project - concerned about the
transitory people that will move in if built as high density.
Mr. David Baker, 505 Cynthia Avenue, Beaumont, addressed the
commission in opposition of this project - high density breeds
problems.
Ms. Jean Deeter, 511 Agnes Street, 'Beaumont, addressed the
commission in opposition of this 'project - feels high
density is a great disservice.
Ms. Georgia Crudo, 501 Cynthia'Avenue, Beaumont, addressed the
commission in opposition of this project - feels there is
enough problems without adding more high density - called
American Housing project (to the south) a prison since the
police is therall the time.
Mr. Gary MacNeilage, 1747 Vasili Lane, Beaumont, addressed the
commission in opposition of this project - presented a
petition to the commission (see attached), feels that an
environmental impact study should be done.
Mr. David Layman, 1731 Vasili Lane, Beaumont, addressed the
commission in opposition of this project.
Mr. Doug Leja (from the audience stated he wanted to hold his
comments until he hears from the applicant).
Ms. Patsy Reeley, 11105 Sunnyslope, Cherry Valley, addressed
the commission in opposition of this project - main concern is
the Deodora trees.
Mr. Harry Kirkland, 1743 Vasili Lane, Beaumont, addressed the
commission in opposition of this project.
Mr. Michael Burch, 1746 Vasili Lane, Beaumont, addressed the
commission in opposition of this project.
Ms. Sharon Slater, 1777 Vasili Lane, Beaumont, addressed the
commission in opposition of this project - not opposed to
commercial.
Ms. Patricia Thompson, 1695 Vasili Lane, Beaumont, addressed
the commission in opposition of this project - smells "pot"
from back yard, people walk and jump her wall, people throw
trash over the wall, has been spied on, a car was stolen from
her home 17 days ago, wakes up to gun shots.
PC Minutes of
September 189 1990
Page 4
shooting pictures of her, people climbing on wall, police
sirens at least once a week, drug dealing going on.
Mr. Harley Lintz, 1773 Date Avenue, Beaumont, addressed the
commission in opposition of this project.
Mr. Ron Whittier, 710 Rimpau, Suite 101, Corona, addressed the
commission stating that when he and his partners came into the
City of Beaumont their goal was to build apartments on the 11
acres which is zoned RHD and then have commercial on the 12
acres. However, in talking with staff and the city manager
they did not want to see commercial on these four corners.
Mr. Whittier commented that he and his partners will work with
staff to come up with an alternate plan and noted that a
postponement is needed in order to work this out. He stressed
however, that low density is not acceptable.
Commissioner Prouty asked Mr. Whittier how he felt about the
medium density with Mr. Whittier noting that what he was
hearing from the people is they did not want apartments.
Chairman Berg then asked about the P -R -SF single family which
allows commercial and residential, with Mr. Whittier noting
they (his partnership) had worked out a plan to go with some
commercial, offices; however, staff felt they did not want
commercial on the corner. Chairman Berg explained that if
there was a proper development, single family homes with some
small commercial could be built and be profitable.
Mr. Doug Leja, 1640 Jon Gilbert Lane, Beaumont, addressed the
commission with a couple of questions for the planning
commission wanting to know who did the initial study that gave
approval for this project to come before commission with COD
Koules commenting that staff reviewed the initial study
submitted by the applicant. Mr. Leja questioned the initial
study and commented that he had serious reservations about
anyone submitting an initial study for approval of a zone
change, have this kind of turn -out from the citizens, and
staff not recommend that an environmental impact report be
done.
Mr. Whittier in response to Mr. Laja's comments noted that if
he could have some commercial, R1 houses could be built.
Mr. Leja commented about the general plan and thought
perhaps it might need to be reviewed. He went on recapping
what he had heard from the audience, urging the planning
commission to vote this zone change down.
In response to questions regarding the public notice for a
postponement, COD Koules noted that if this project was
postponed it would be postponed to a , specific date.
Chairman Berg then closed the public hearing at 8:23 p.m.
turning the matter back to the commission for discussion.
PC Minutes of
September 18, 1990
Page 5
Mr. Koules also commented that the City Council adopted an
ordinance to protect the Deodora trees and a frontage road
would be needed on Beaumont Avenue in order to protect these
trees. Since there would be no access onto Beaumont Avenue,
access would have to come around through Brookside Avenue.
He also noted (according to a lady in the audience) that
Orchard Park is a subsidized housing project and is probably
the essence of the problems. In reference to Mr. Laja's
comments on the EIR, he (Koules) noted there is another
discretionary level of review of this project. You can do a
negative declaration now when the project comes in with a
specific project proposal which goes through discretionary
review by the planning commission and city council, then a
full impact EIR to identify the real impact of a specific
project proposed. You cannot do two EIR's for a single
project.
At this time the commissioners discussed the zone change
and felt they could not accept this re -zone. Chairman
Berg noted that possibly a Citizen's Advisory Committee should
be formed and have it stated in the motion to City Council.
On motion by Commissioner Prouty, seconded by Commissioner
Ring to recommend to City Council that Zone Change 90 -RZ-
4 and Negative Declaration 90 -ND -8 be denied, motion carried
unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Prouty, Ring and Chairman Berg,
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Kisling.
ABSTAIN: None.
COD Koules noted that this project has to be advertised prior
to being heard by City Council.
Recessed at 8:35 p.m. reconveyed at 8:40 p.m.
88 -PP -7 and 90 -ND -99 a proposed 48 unit apartment complex,
located at 13081 Allegheny. Applicant, Chuck Manley.
COD Koules requested this project be continued to October 16,
1990 due to delay in their submittals.
7. 89 -PP -4 and 90- ND -10, a proposed 28 unit apartment complex,
located at 752 Pennsylvania Avenue. Applicants, Nick
Saab /Victor Schiro (Allied Group, Inc.).
COD Koules presented the staff report noting that the
applicant did submit renderings showing what the building
would look like, height, etc., along with the landscape plan.
He suggested that on Staff's Conditions of Approval, No. 1,
"and shall submit Elevations Plans to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Director ", be added.
Chairman Berg then opened the public hearing at 8:45 p.m.
PC Minutes of
September 18, 1990
Page 6
Chairman Berg explained that this location was already zoned
Residential High Density.
Mr. Harley Lintz, 1773 Date Avenue, Beaumont, addressed the
commission opposing the project. Wanted the commission to
take note of the public pressure applied this evening to
apartments.
Chairman Berg then closed the public hearing at 9:01 p.m.
turning the matter back to the commission for discussion.
COD Koules explained that this project would not be served
sewer until the first phase of the sewer plant is in and thus,
the reason in the conditions of approval that 24 months was
given for development to commence instead of 12 months.
Chairman Berg then noted that the building permits would not
be issued until the sewer is capable of handling the
connections with COD Koules stating "that is correct and the
applicant is well aware of this ". Chairman Berg felt this
should be addressed as one of the conditions.
Mr. Jim Dotson, City Engineer, commented that every
development that is new will be paying for the treatment
plant and that obviously building permits would not be issued
when there is no sewer capacity.
Chairman Berg noted that his recommendation for this project
is that the block wall is to be constructed first and that
they provide adequate dust control during construction -
construction will be confined to the property.
City Engineer Dotson noted that the requirement for the
masonry walls to be constructed first is already contained
within Condition 4.03. This means that the existing
structure on the site shall not be removed until the walls are
up.
On motion by Commissioner Prouty, seconded by Commissioner
Ring to approve Plot Plan 89 -PP -4 and Negative Declaration 90-
ND-10, subject to the amended Conditions of Approval to read:
Condition No. 1: Added: "and shall submit Elevations Plans
to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director ".
Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Prouty, Ring and Chairman
Berg.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Kisling.
ABSTAIN: None.
SCHEDULED MATTERS:
PC-Minutes of
September 18, 1990
Page T
At this time Chairman Berg withdrew his appeal.
9. Appeal of 90- MPP -9, located at 960 Western Knolls Road, main
Street Lamp and Patio. Applicant, Robert E. Batt.
Mr. Robert Batt, 31842 Outer Highway 10, Redlands, addressed
the commission noting he had had problems with the Planning
Department and Caltrans - needs more space to be used
as display.
City Engineer Dotson informed the commission that Highway 60
is a divided highway not a freeway. He went on to explain the
reason Western Knolls Road was built:,was for an access road.
Also Caltrans does not want an increase in traffic and in the
not too far distance future there will be an overpass at which
time Western Knolls road will be closed.
Chairman Berg wanted to know how Mr. Batt could be provided
more outside storage with COD Koules noting this was an
ordinance requirement and any departure would be done through
a variance.
Chairman Berg then asked if there were other structures at
this location not utilizing their outside storage if Mr. Batt
in working with the other property owners could utilize their
additional space with COD Koules noting he did not think this
was the intent of the ordinance - the ordinance says that
storage shall be limited to accessory storage not to exceed
25% of the building area of commodities sold on the premises.
Ms. Emeline Schuelke from the audience questioned the display
for the RV Sales on 6th Street and the Auto Sales along 6th
and Pennsylvania. COD Koules noted that this was inhouse for
review.
COD Koules then commented that in fairness to Mr. Batt he
could recommend that the ordinance be changed with Chairman
Berg asking if Mr. Batt could go ahead and get his permit.
COD Koules in answer stated he couldn't anticipate if the
change would be approved; however, he could recommend giving
Mr. Batt a temporary six month business license on the proviso
that this represents a hardship to him.
Mr. Batt stated he did not think six months would be fair due
to costs he has to incur and noted that if he had a year he
could live with that.
Chairman Berg commented that "why couldn't we give him a year,
we've got existing facilities already here that has been
approved and the precedence is already set" with COD Koules
noting that the commission had this option but this would not
be his recommendation since a year has a sense of permanency
to it, and Mr. Koules would therefore withdraw his support for
a six -month temporary use.
PC Minutes of
September 18, 1990
Page 8
to be reviewed in six months, seconded by Commissioner Echlin.
Ms. Emeline Schuelke, addressed -the commission commenting that
she wanted to be clear on the temporary license and felt that
in all fairness it would be inappropriate (if the businesses
that have been granted their licenses are not under a
temporary business license), to single out this applicant to a
temporary business license when other businesses have a
finalized business license in their possession and have been
accommodated with display area to the full extent of their
property.
CDD Koules informed ms. Schuelke and the commission that if
licenses have been issued for several years he did not know
how to go back and pull them.
Ms. Schuelke stated that she knows of 2 or 3 businesses that
has obtained their license within the last couple of months
and this applicant applied for a minor Plot Plan the first
part of June and has been subjected to a very long process due
to incorrect information sent to Caltrans. ms. Schuelke
wanted City Council to know that the reason for the amendment
to the ordinance would be not specifically to accommodate this
use but to accommodate overall uses in the City.
Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Prouty, Ring and Chairman
Berg.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Kisling.
ABSTAIN: None.
There being no further agenda items to be discussed, the
meeting adjourned at 10:03 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cherry ylo
PC Sec start'
ci`^�
CL
�.��a
sovnL/ gaasr
7 UT
1 "s 90 -!?z -y AAO
/ v To �� g1CiS'Tjit z44J /1vl
_- ...�D /7�/�E�'�ibc.. �/�L . �'o �5�0�7uac. �r/ <dv�( .l�•!5'�11:
X19. U �t .A�- 6z�
I S�Sr— 1 1 fe
. `1•...._ �'fey.eie. z JQ!'''�/"iYl -/I/OSr%e^.,�. .
_/ /: J .�� +:-iai �n / %Gil. ✓� ... _ nl 7` 9
7�Z
< y - -u 30/ CyrYJ7��t sr..yS -73Yz-j
Ns--Y 3 4 4
Gp; S
ao. Sig ors G.�•'✓� . ��I s� -���
__ _.-
_.— .._.!�'/Z _.._, T</ E.._. U�( D�.. P. �" s�f %cL��D__��_....D..f�?J.,��,8.. -T...O ._ T•!z!E. __.._ _ _ ..
/ZE - zliiri�$-- ...._�:_.,7�i�E ..° O�7zT3'._ _a4T._..Tf1.....SoUT/f.- �iQc�✓" ._ .. -
u.�STijUcS- __.zo..
__..._..[myyjjg',2C�% .4?oV,,aev_ .TO. 4W_ruC O n4e.__.dy�.��5' /fJ/ ..._
_. - - --
- - - - -- - __._ -------
��h_e
-71
X2
a.
Oeov.a zw rnw
2
e Pew S -A �P� 4 7 W4 Od a,"
11 ft 42 ,(o F
P*.
Azw 17 6 f P- qyc— f/
K,-- 9ve, S-ya 11
Lke -, aa e., I ell
FC(
6 p 0 yy1 4a-
y3 3
176o7
/7G? P ., , . . - - 74., e 716
1773 AV-L 3 J.P,
1173
/CA&
sr
'T§4 5
. ....... —
-DO
r,
747.2
c9E�S`. -�o..
_g
tip, > ✓ra_t. y�yH�2__ ._ �s�z - � _ ._
/_ / .. _ 47e S
Aw
70 _ /239 �-71d7
Of—
P7 n A C
ill, RIF
ll� I �111
0*0
40
-no
-./ i et 1 /769
L.?
4d�,. y ... ...
r- 1 -7
- j .
9 4/S
k
I
q1b a . �Srle_
5
`76�%•S.�t CT .8�� /7o�vT LYE p222�
r
4 /47Y 3, v4S Z LC r-A.,' 9Y6--117?
IT
L% ��'���.!,�`c,,C�_,.5�c�3 9�%I9 ,G,a.vE x�°,�'e� (�e.. 9a�a3
ILI
IL
----------
7N"VX*'
77
� M
1+
. _ .�ves?�,z� rd e,Y.�v�� _. �x�S�- ..v�...... zoar • y �.� ... _
...... ..
_1w 2c_ .... 316/U_ 3r1? 5idc . tE 769 12 14 .__.
13tiC1e -. -...._ ,o-r
644"T 02(09
ALe» �cet.l3eccurr�or�`......_..5�5- 3.3.27 .._._.__-
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
OCTOBER 16, 1990
The Planning Commission Meeting was called to Order at 7:00 p.m.
On Roll Call the following commissioners were present.
Commissioners Echlin, Prouty, Kisling and Commissioner Ring. It
should be noted for the record that Attorney Ryskamp and City
Engineer Dotson were present.
The Affidavit of Posting was read.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. The Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of September
18, 1990, were approved as submitted.
At this time Commissioner Ring was elected Chairman and
Commissioner Donald Echlin was elected Vice Chairman to the
Planning Commission.
2. Oral Communications: None.
Director's Report: None.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
4. 89 -TM -3 (Tract 24039) for a proposed subdivision of the 176
acres, consisting of six - hundred (600) single family lots,
complying with prior approval of Specific Plan 86 -02 and
Environmental Impact Report EIR -88 -2. Project location is
bounded on the south and west by 8th Street and Interstate 10,
on the north by Florence Street and Marshal Creek and on the
east by Elm Avenue. Applicant, Three Rings Ranch /Premier
Homes.
COD Koules informed the commission that this item was
continued from the prior meeting and has been continued from
several other meetings in order to allow the applicant and
the City to work out accepted conditions of approval. This
has been done and is attached to the packets as Exhibit B. He
noted the applicant is in agreement with these conditions and
so is the City of Beaumont. He further explained the project
went before the commission in February 1989 as a specific plan
and the project was approved unanimously by the planning
commission with the provision that the minimum lot size be
7000 s.f. for each lot in the subdivision. It was also
approved unanimously by city council with this same
requirement. The EIR was certified as being complete, the
zoning was placed on the property and in time the property was
annexed to the City of Beaumont. There is a 20 acre park'
which is mostly on the Premier property; however, a portion of
it is on the adjacent parcel to the north which is the
Kirkwood Project. The applicant has satisfied the City
Engineer's conditions in laying out the street patterns and
the infrastructure and staff recommends approval of this
PC Minutes of
October 16, 1990
Page 2
Mr. Curt Ensign, 1787 W. Pomona Rd., Corona, addressed the
commission commenting there are 13 pages of conditions on this
project that are fairly extensive. The conditions have been
well thought out and tough, but feels they are fair and
implementable.
Mr. Brian Ross, General Manager of the Beaumont - Cherry Valley
Recreation and Park District, addressed the commission and
submitted a letter dated July 17, 1990, addressed to Mr. Roger
Berg (see attached). Mr. Ross then read this letter from
Best, Best & Krieger and further commented it was totally
their staff that had worked and prepared the concept plan and
conditions.
Ms. Billie Chapman, 1201 Olive Avenue, Beaumont, addressed the
commission wanting to know if Premier Homes' property which
backs up to her property will be cleared from weeds
eliminating, the snakes and gophers. Ms. Chapman also wanted
to know if the City could annex and pave one half of a block
on her street - the County has rejected it and the City has
not done anything about it.
CDD Koules noted that the Parks' concept was a different
concept expressed earlier. In the processing of this project,
the concept plan that was drawn with the applicant's proposal
was done by city staff and at city staff's suggestion the day
care center was provided as part of the Kirkwood project which
will be utilized for both projects. Mr. Koules felt that
since the City is going to grow, it should be the master of
its own destiny in terms of the Park situation and this is the
reason the conditions are written the way they are.
City Engineer Dotson also commented that this is more than a
city park and within the confines besides the day care center,
there will also be a rather large facility - sewage treatment
plant. Also there is a flood channel which is the
responsibility of the City which will be improved as part of
the Park. It is conceived that the City will be getting into
the Wastewater Reclamation business and this Park will be
irrigated by it. Part of the new Sewer Treatment facility
will have a composting plant where the sludge will be taken
that is created in the treatment plant, mixed with shredded
shrubs in the soil and made into fertilize, then taken back
and used as fertilize for this area. City Engineer Dotson
stressed that the Park means a great deal to the City for much
more than merely a playground, it is very much of a
functioning area for several aspects of what has been planned.
Mr. Dotson also informed the commission that this is not in
anyway related to the prior plan. The landscape architect
took off from his own concept and this plan bears no
relationship to the previous plan whatsoever. The two should
be separated - we didn't even see the Parks and Recreation
District's plan and this plan has been designed around certain
other facilities that is important to the city, flood control,
PC Minutes of
October 16, 1990
Page 3
the City of Beaumont rather than the Park District who had
done all the work in developing the conceptual plan and in
arranging the conditions with the Park developer.
Mr. Ross further explained that when they first started
working with the developer, the City of Beaumont, Mr. Koules
indicated they had no interest in Parks in this area. If they
had not gone forward at that particular time there would be no
Park. They developed with Coscan /Stewart a conceptual plan
and ask that a Memorandum of Understanding be adopted. The
developer did see that this was a necessary Park, so it was
changed from a very basic open space area with natural
terrain, no flood control channels (plan accepted by the
City) to a full functioning neighborhood Park. When they came
back to put this into effect, the name of the City was
substituted for all the work they had done and they object to
this. The other Parks that are being referred to are not part
of the Three Rings, they are part of the Kirkwood Ranch. All
of the concepts proposed as far as the Three Rings portion of
this Park were developed by the Park District.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Ring
closed the public hearing at 7:28 p.m. turning the matter back
to the commission for discussion.
Commissioner Prouty then asked City Attorney Ryskamp if
there were any legal ramifications pertaining to the agreement
that the City had with the Parks District with Attorney
Ryskamp commenting that the agreement provides that if the
City of Beaumont or the County of Riverside enact policies or
issue discretionary land use approvals which substantially
conflict with the Stewart / Coscan or the District's ability to
comply with all or any portion of the Memorandum, that they
may mutually agree to excuse performance. The City has had a
a Parks' program functioning long before the existence of the
Park & Recreation District and the City has the legal option
to provide Parks within its City and to accept the dedication
from any and all developers. The Parks' District at this
point has an area that covers as a district, it provides
services for that area, but it is not an exclusive grant.
On motion by Commissioner Prouty, seconded by Commissioner
Echlin recommending approval by City Council of 89 -TM -3 (Tr.
24039), subject to the attached conditions of approval and to
the following findings:
1. The project is compatible with the approved Specific
Plan and with the allowable density. The requirement of a
minimum lot size of 7,000 sq. ft. as recommended by the
Planning Commission and approved by the- City Council has
been met.
2. The creating and subsequent dedication of a 20 acre
nark to be shared by this project and the adjacent project
PC Minutes of
October 16, 1990
Page 4
5. 88 -PP -7 and 90 -ND -99 a proposed 48 unit apartment complex,
located at 13081 Allegheny Avenue. Applicant, Chuck Manley.
COO Koules informed the commission that this project is
located in the RHD zoning, is a 2 1/2 acre site and proposes
48 units which is slightly under 20 units to the acre. This
proposal has met the parking requirements, open space
requirements and would be dedicating a street to the City
which divides the property in half.
Chairman Ring then opened the public hearing at 7:38 p.m.
asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to
speak.
Mr. Chuck Manley, lives across the street from this project,
addressed the commission and stated that this project will be
nicer than anything the City has, and pursuant to a question
from the commission, Mr. Manley noted that the apartments
would not be for adjusted income tenants.
Mr. Dave Sumner, Manager of Sanborn & Webb Engineering,
addressed the commission stating they are offering the City
the dedication of the street which will eventually open up
into 7th Street.
Mr. Jim Guerra, 799 Allegheny, addressed the commission
stating he lives in the apartments adjacent to the proposed
apartments by Mr. Manley. He enumerated the problems with the
Syamore Apartments (e.g. when someone in another apartment
flushes the toilet you hear the water running down the wall;
kitchen cabinets stick out too far causing you to bang your
head; parking, trash, etc.).
Mr. Chuck Manley, addressed the commission again stating that
the Syamore Apts. in the past has been run poorly; however,
this past year it has been run well and feels the City has
done a lot since this project was built to alleviate some
of the problems. Mr. Manley further commented that his
apartment complex would be different in that what has been
found in apartment management is that if you have smaller
complexes, you have less people and it is easier to control
when not congested.
There being no one else to speak from the audience, Chairman
Ring closed the public hearing at 7 ;47 p.m. turning the matter
back to the commission for discussion.
After discussion by the commission, Commissioner Echlin made a
motion to approve Plot Plan 88 -PP -7 and Negative Declaration
90 -ND -9, since this project will not have a significant
impact on the environment, subject to the conditions of
approval, seconded by Commissioner Prouty. Motion carried
unanimously with the followng roll call vote:
PC Minutes of
October 16, 1990
Page 5
north, Elm Street to the east, Marshal Creek and Florence
Avenue to the south, and Noble Creek and Interstate 10 to the
west and is identified as the Kirkwood Ranch Specific Plan.
Applicant, Kirk Evans /KSE Development.
CDD Koules informed the commission that LAFCO requires that
property be pre -zoned before they will consider annexing the
property to the City. He noted that staff did received one
letter of protest to the multi - family unit proposed.
Chairman Ring then opened the public hearing at 7;51 p.m.
asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to
speak.
Mr. Kirk Evans, 4699 Jamboree Rd, Newport Beach, addressed the
commission stating that the staff report was very complete.
In regards to the Park Plan it was Coscan /Stewart and himself
who paid for the plan that has been drawn up and that this
Park Plan was developed jointly with City staff. They are now
looking for direction from the City as to whether or not it
becomes a City Park or County Park, but has designed the
facility right now to be a City Park.
Mr. Roger Berg, 1164 Euclid Avenue, Beaumont, addressed the
commission stating he is not opposed to the single family
homes but is opposed to the multi - family homes and the reason
is it doesn't fit in with the area. '
Mr. William S. Broyles, 38584 Florence, Cherry Valley,
addressed the commission stating this the area where he lived
was Cherry Valley and if he has anything to say about it it
will not be Beaumont - felt Cherry Valley was being infringed
on.
Mr. Brian Ross, Manager of Parks 8 Recreation District,
addressed the commission reading a letter into the record
opposing this project (see attached letter - copy is in EIR).
Mr. Gary MacNeilage, 1747 Vasili Lane, Beaumont, addressed the
commission commenting that apartments are coming up often at
the meetings and felt that this should be looked at and ask if
this is what we want for our city.
Mr. Kirk Evans, again addressed the commission, explaining
they feel they are in the middle between the City wanting to
establish a Parks District and the County which has an
established Parks District. He noted they had met with the
City regarding Park facilities and the letter that Mr. Ross
read is a part of the EIR and was responded to. Regarding
the R -3 zone, the property does not adjoin-any single family
homes and does not adjoin any existing single family
residential zoned property. At this point all that is being
done is pre- zoning the property for annexation into the City
of Beaumont. They would like to tie their Parks system into
PC Minutes of
October 16, 1990
Page 6
Mr. Kirk Evans explained that apparently Mr. Berg hasn't seen
their specific plan. This project is 4.1 units to the acre
and this is certainly not high density and the single family
lots near Marshal Creek are 7000 sq. ft. lots. The area where
R -3 is presently shown is no impact to Marshal Creek
whatsoever. It is a site that at best will allow 3 acres of
buildable land.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Ring then
closed the public hearing at 8:15 p.m. turning the matter back
to the commission for discussion.
In response to Commissioner Echlin's question pertaining to
schools COD Koules noted that the fees that are paid at
building permit time would be the fees that would mitigate the
impact of this project on the schools.
On motion by Commissioner Prouty, seconded by Commissioner
Echlin recommending approval by City Council of staff's
recommendation as follows:
1. Recommend that the attached final EIR be certified as
having been completed in compliance with the California
Environment Quality Act and was presented to your
Commission who reviewed and considered the information
contained therein prior to recommending approval of the
project.
2. Find that changes or alterations have been required in and
incorporated into the project which mitigate or lessen the
significant environmental effects thereof as identified in
the environmental impact report.
3. Recommend approval of 90 -RZ -5 prezoning 128 acres to
Specific Planning Area (SPA) 4.1 dwelling units to the
acre.
4. Recommend adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval
for Specific Plan SP -89 -3 (Kirkwood Ranch SP- 89 -3),
allowing a maximum of 470 residential single family units
and 60 multiple - family units.
Motion carried with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Prouty and Chairman Ring.
NOES: Commissioner Kisling.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
There being no further agenda items to b-e discussed, the
meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
A i
17%90 13:1i '$Tll 882 054 B B & K
BEST, BEST Sc KRIEGER
tawreris
u.ram+un�mv�w.w.
PAMOtvc OCV=
wOIMLUNOWA
CS✓DIQ6FlC.,VM
a�a„�w.uxs
VAYMG W'NSMU �
a-, EN
10'LCA6NON
0"Ct -vw"
Tw07WIKSCUM
pump-W4 1Ca
.. 1
.vw0006Ci,NaFN A
July 17, 1990
bL. Roger Berg
Chairman, Planning Commission
City of Beaumont
550 East Sixth Street
Beaumont, California 92223
Re: Three Rings Ranch
Tract Ho. 24039
Dear Chairman Berg:
lei uv2
40014LMONSOUA C
9750UNN61WWAVC/UC
POSTOPP=5"106S
R1VOMM OAUFORN"rZoa
TF3QNONEV4464"30
TO,iLOP1OO
OW 666- OOLi•fF�6Q
O/COONiC.
.O�NCC6.C:N67CN
NCNNIOACL�wt,-
seoNwr.Rma«
POiiO.L./.TNONAS . iR
•,ewTmwoa�cwN�r.
ww�e�wsmw.sNe.arr
PALM QWRA6 ovmjz a l
*W wMOC(ialai6QP1
O+*.w00W owaeae.
pnowq
OCT I G 1990
CITY OF BEAUMONT
PLANNING DEPT.
We are the lawyers for the Beaumont- Cherry Valley
Recreation and Park District. we have been asked by our
client tb call to your attention certain concerns regarding
the proposed subdivision of Tract No. 24039, currently titled
Three Rings Ranch, which will be considered for approval at
You-- Planning Commission meeting on July 17, 1990.
It has only recently come to our attention that Three
Rings Ranch property has been sold to Premier Homes. At this
time, we wish to voice the grave concerns of our client about
the manner in which Tract No. 24039 is proposed to be
conditioned, particularly as'it relates to park and recrea-
tion improvements.
The District, after years of laborious negotiations on
behalf of the District and taipayers of the City of ,Beaumont,
executed a Memorandum of IInderstanding with the Coscan%
Stewart Partnership on March 22, 1989 (see- attached copy).
In that agreement, the District and Coscan agreed that the
District would acquire, maintain and operate community park
and open space areas .within the Three Rings Ranch develop-
ment- An extensive park plan was developed between the
1J :18 711 882 0731 B B & S
Of►Ic CS of
:ST & KRIEGER
Mir _
Jul y
Pag
eRoger Berg
17, 1990
Two
... - - -- 9003
It is our understanding that Coscan /Stewart has now
sold this subdivision to Premier Eomes, and that the
recommended conditions of approval on the subdivision may
which apply to park and recreation services and which were
prepared by our client have *been modified without notice to
our client, or even the courtesy of a phone call, to now
refer to the City of Beaumont as the provider of these
services. The content of these conditions (Conditions No.
8.02. through 8.04) was never discussed or even conveyed to
our client. in fact, the District only discovered the
changed ownership conditions through its owe investigation of
Planning Department records. Our client has worked for years
with Coscan /Stewart to finalize this park plan. As a result,
the District has incurred' considerable financial costs
related to planning, legal and administrative esoenses to
complete its agreement with Coscan /Stewart. Additionally,
the District relied on this Memorandums of Understanding in
planning for the provision of future park service_.
The District wishes to cooperate with the City and the
Planning Department in any way it can. However, neither the
City nor the Planning Department has made any effort to
involve or even notify the District of its plans for Three
Rings Ranch. we therefore request that no. further actions
are taken with regards to the subdivision of Three Rings
Ranch until mutually acceptable conditions can be negotiated
between the District and the City which propeily reflect the
Memorandum of Understanding.
Yours truly,
. fV6) Li • toef-W.tj /Pi-c:.
John E. Brown
of Best, Best & Kreiger
General Counsel �t
Beaumont- Cherry vailL i
Recreation and Park District
Mo:ams
Enclosure
ueaumcnteCherryWley Recreation & park District
Noble Creek Community Center
38900 Fourteenth Street
April 18, 1990
Mr. Kirk Evans:
4699 Jamboree Road
Newport Beach, CA 92660
RE: KIRKWOOD RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN E.I.R.
P.O. Box 490 Beaumont
Calif. 92223 07141 845 -9555
Dear Mr. Evans:
The Beaumont- Cherry Valley Recreation and Park District must BCV
oppose the adoption of the Kirkwood Ranch Specific Plan as RPD
currently represented in the E.I.R. due to a number of inaccura-
cies, mis- statements and a general failure to properly address
' and /or mitigate impacts upon the District's provision of services
and facilities for present and future community residents.
INACCURACIES
1. Noble Creek Park, owned and operated by the Beaumont- Cherry BCV
Valley Recreation and Park District, is listed as a County of RPD
Riverside facility. The open space requirements compared and
cited do not apply (and are substantially less) than those 2
actually in effect for neighborhood parks as mandated by both the
County and the District. In addition, the County does not
Ioperate neighborhood and community parks.
2. The State of California "Clearing House" review form states BCV
I that the Kirkwood project will have a 20 acre park. Only three RPD
(3) acres is shown in the specific plan. g
3. The District's programs and facilities and its status as the BCV
I recreation provider for residents of the area is not accurately RPD
portrayed. No picture is presented of the myriad services
offered by the District. No mention is made of several park 4
I
Kirkwood Ranch - Page 2
facilities, including a ten acre .
area, two softball fields, and a
though their location is adjacent
report also neglects listing our
minutes drive of the project.
picnic and grassed activity
full size baseball field even
to the proposed project. The
second community center within
4. No mention is made of the 100 acres of park facilities
dedicated to the District as conditioned in the Oak Valley
Specific Plan or of other parks required of nearby projects
were listed in a comparison chart in the E.I.R. Even the
proposed park at the Three Rings Ranch Project is not taken
consideration although it shares a common boundary.
to be
that
into
MIS - STATEMENTS
1. The Kirkwood Specific Plan estimates that 5 to 6 acres of
park land would be necessary as a mitigation measure which the
project plan admits can not be mitigated on site. in actuality,
approximately eight (B) acres of park land would be required
based on currently planned housing units and county averages of
the number of persons per household.
2. The proposed park in Kirkwood Ranch is listed as offsetting
three (3) acres of required park. However, the correct total is
less than one (1) acre of usable land. The major portion of the
proposed park is in the middle of Marshall Creek. ,Even to use
this acreage would require extensive flood control facilities as
Marshall Creek drains street runoff from as far away-as one mile.
In event of rain the park would be inundated and a severe safety
hazard.
3. In proposing the park (and child care center) to serve the
residents of the project the planners chose to site the park at
the extreme end of the project at maximum distance from the
highest densities and least affluent future residents.
4. The soil of the proposed park is silt and riverbed rock and
sand. Extensive and expensive amending of the soil would be
required before it could support efficient plant growth.
5. No consideration was given to the question posed by the
District as to how the proposed park would affect the park site
in the adjacent Three Rings Ranch project. J
6. No consideration was given to the question of how a
maintenance assessment district might reduce project impacts.
FAILURE TO MITIGATE ADVERSE IMPACTS
8CV
RPD
b
BCV
RPD
8
BCV
RPD
7
BCV
RPD
8
BCV
RPD
9
BCV
RPD
10
BCV
RPD
11
1. Future residents of Kirkwood will make extensive use of BCV
District facilities at Noble Creek Park. Particularly the
multiple family units just across the street, but indeed all of RPD
the future home owners are within easy walking distance of Noble 12
Creek Park. Access to the park's community center, ballfields,
Kirkwood Ranch - Page 3
tennis courts, equestrian arena, picnic and activity areas, all
developed at considerable cost to existing residents, is a stones
throw away. However, the developers.proposed conditions (i.e.
951 and i52) do not address any mitigation of the impacts of new
residents on the high quality recreational services, classes,
programs and facilities offered by the District. Clearly the
major burden of this new development will fall upon the already
strained facilities and services of the District.
The Beaumont- Cherry Valley Recreation and Park District, due
to the inadequacy of the Kirkwood Ranch.E.I.R. to address and
fairly present the impacts upon the District, urges the developer BCV
to reassess the above referenced impacts. The District asks that RPD
the developer meet with the District to discuss incorporating 13
sufficient measures into the project plan to avoid the adverse
impacts upon the District's provision of high quality recreation-
al activities for the children and adults of the Beaumont
community.
Very truly yours,
Brian A. Ross
General Manager
BAR /nw
c.c. Mr. Douglas Fazekias, Assistant Planner, City of Beaumont
Mr. Todd Chambers, STA Planning, Inc.
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
"I MINUTES OF
DECEMBER 18P 1990
Pi,.eting called to Order at 7:00 p.m.
Roll Call: Commissioners Killing, Prouty and Chairman Ring.
Commissioner Echlin was excused.
The Affidavit of Posting was read:
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. The Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of October
16, 1990, were approved as submitted.
2. Oral Communication: None.
3. Director's Report: COD Koules informed Commissioner Prouty
(Commission Echlin was absent) that he and Commissioner Echlin
were both up for re- appointment by City Council by the and of
this calendar year. Also a letter had been sent by the City
Clerk informing them they have till January 10, 1990 at 5:00
p.m. to re -apply for the commission positions. The City
Council is expected to make three appointments for the
commission at their meeting of January 14, 1991.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
4. 89- ANX -1, SP -89 -1, EIR -90 -2 and 90 -RZ -8, a proposed pre -
annexation zoning to Specific Planning Area Zoning (SPA 4.1
dwelling units per acre) from County of Riverside (A -1
Agricultural) on 1162 acres proposed for annexation to allow a
maximum of 4716 residential dwelling units, including 540
multi - family units, six schools, one library, one fire
station, 15 acres of commercial and 65 acres of parks /trails.
The project is bounded on Brookside Avenue to the north,
Highland Springs Avenue to the east, Bth Street to the south,
and Cherry Avenue to the west. Applicant, Deutsch
Corporation.
CDD Koules presented the staff, report noting that the
landscaping needs of Highland Springs Avenue have been
addressed. Also staff has. been working with representatives
from the City of Banning to come up with a landscaping theme
for Highland Springs Road.
Chairman Ring then opened the public hearing at 7 :08 p.m.
asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to
speak.
Mr. Jim Taylor, representative for the Deutsch Corporation
addressed the. commission noting that their planning team was
here at the meeting to answer any questions that the
commission might have regarding the project. One
clarification that he wanted to make was that in the
_ _ ,. ._,ii_• ._..fit -.L 6..- a,.,.. .,f 4-ho nrniant
Minutes of
December 18, 1990
Page 2
is being proposed with boundary landscaping and setbacks
form the street.
Ms. Gina Glock, 1365 E. 8th Street, Beaumont, addressed the
commission stating her concern is if this annexation goes
through what is to become of the strip that is presently an
island in the County.
CDD Koules commented that it is his understanding that LAFCO
will leave the island and it will not be annexed into the
City.
Ms. Gina Block, continued speaking expressing her concern for
the environment and ask that the commission think about the
water availability, air quality and power lines that will be
placed through the center of the field and the cancer risk
this line might pose to the people living in.this area. Also,
Ms. Block felt that 4 homes to the acre is too many.
Mr. Michael Edson, 35240 San Pablo, Yucaipi, representating
Southern California Gas Company, addressed the commission
stating there is a 3011 transmission line which traverses the
property southerly of the Edison Powet Lines in a eastwest
direction. Also east of Highland Springs Road there is a
blowdown facility and a main line valve station. This main
line valve station has to be blowndown and it takes
approximately 2 and 1/2 hours. This can reach a noise level
of about 140 - 150 decimals which is not a pleasant sound if
you do not have ear protection. Mfr. Edson also is concerned
that when this project is built as the proposed plan indicated
with the residences on both east and west on Highland Springs
Road, there will be additional problems such as on re -sales
since new owners will not be aware of this noise factor. He
further stated that Deutsch sHould mitigate this noise level
by installing a blowdown or adapter which will muffle the
sound down to 95 decimals which is the technology today that
the noise can be reduced to. To move the valve station is
not a solution.
Mir. Brian Ross, Beaumont- Cherry Valley Recreation and Park
District, addressed the commission submitting a letter dated
July 27, 1989 (sae attached) and mentioned that hopefully they
will be working with the City to look, at the impacts on the
District.
Mfr. Jim Taylor, addressing the commission again responding to
statements made noting that the blowdown facility is addressed
in the environmental impact report. The Deutsch Company is
not interested in moving the blowdown facility off the Deutsch
property but feels there is a possibility - of moving the
facility 200 - 300 - 400 lineal feet but -still within the
Deutsch property. Mr. Taylor assured the commission that
Deutsch will meet the requirements that are identified in the
environmental impact report which meet or exceed the requests
by fho naa rmmnanv In forma of fho Hha_ Thia im.nnf a nrnhlam
Minutes of
ecember 18, 1990
Page 3
There will also be private trails linking every part of the
project to the major trail.
Mr. Everett Moore, 1547 East Bth Street, Beaumont, addressed
the commission wanting to know about the sewage. He does not
have access to the sewer and wanted to know if this project
would alleviate the sewage problem.
Koulas be mancomprehensiveglookh at the w treatment
whole city sewer
treatment system.
Mr. Howard Heneler, 1230 Pennsylvania, Beaumont, addressed the
commission wanting to know what is going to happen to Cherry
Avenue and the drainage ditch.
Mr. Jim Dotson, City Engineer commented that the ditch would
be removed because of the underground storm drains. He
explained the retention basis which allows water to actually
stack up because further down stream; crossing under the
freeway is a channel (which is only so big) and the way it is
handled is to let the first peak flow back up and be stored so
the channel can then handle it. He explained the ramps to be
built noting that down Pennsylvania Avenue the ramps will be
eliminated Beaumont ou can got off at American Avenue
and artery a
nd n8th Springs.
treet willebeyapproxi atelylthet main
same width as
Beaumont Avenue.
Mr. Erwin Reeves, Sandra Drive, Cherry Valley, addressed the
commission asking for discussion regarding the proposed City
of Cherry Valley which is claiming all the area down to Cougar
Way and what will happen to this project if and when Cherry
Valley becomes a City?
COD Koules noted that the property in question is in the
City's Sphere of Influence and doesn't see the proposed City
of Cherry Valley infringing upon this area.
There being no one else wishing
the public hearing at 7:55 p.m.
the commission for discussion.
to speak, Chairman Ring closed
turning this project back to
City Engineer Dotson noted that the City of Beaumont would be
supplying the water to this project.
On motion by Commissioner Kisling, seconded by Commissioner
Prouty, recommending approval of this project by City
Council as follows:
1. Recommend that the attached final EIR —'be certified as
having been completed in compliance with the California
Environment Quality Act and was presented to the
Commission who reviewed and considered the information
contained therein prior to recommending approval of the
nrnianf-
PC Minutes of
December 18, 1990
Page,4
allowing a maximum of 1966 single family units, and 2208
patio homes and 540 townhomes /condos for a total of 4716
units.
Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Kisling, Prouty and Chairman Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Echlin.
ABSTAIN: None.
5. 90 -PP -3, 90- ND -119 a proposed Industrial Center consisting
of thirteen (13) separate structures having a total of 206,735
sq. ft. an 12.45 acres, located at Viola and "B" Streets.
Applicant, Bill Ehrlich.
This item is to be re- advertised for the meeting of January
22, 1991.
6. 90 -PM -29 90- ND -11, a proposed Industrial Subdivision of 12.45
acres divided into thirteen (13) parcels, located at Viele and
"B" Streets. Applicant, Bill Ehrlich.
This item is to be re- advertised for the meeting of January
22, 1991.
7. 87- TM -8(R) (Tract 23161)9 revision of a previously approved
201 lot subdivisiorf on 63.01 acres in order to allow a lot
redesign of the easterly, arm of the project, located at 14th
and Palm Avenue. Applicant, WDS Development.
This item was continued to the meeting of January 221 1991 per
request of the applicant.
8. Revision of Section 17.40.325(8), of the Commercial General
(C -G) Zoning, Outdoor Merchandise Displays, to allow outdoor
displays.
CDD Koules presented the staff report noting that staff looked
at other ordinances from other cities - the City of Banning
allows displays only within closed buildings with the
exception of nursery or auto sales type of operation in their
commercial zones; however, in their downtown redevelopment
area they do not allow even this. This zoning ordinance
would not permit outdoor displays without some level of city
approval and the amount of display would be subject to city
review.
Chairman Ring then opened the public, hearing at 8 :02 p.m.
asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to
speak. There being none, he then closed the public hearing at
8:03 p.m. turning the matter back to the commission for
discussion.
rC minutes of
December 18, 1990
Page 5
northeast corner of Cougar Way and Sunnyslope Avenue,
Applicant, Darrel W. Coffman (former Applicant, Ronald
Hemsley).
COD Koules commented that the State Subdivision map Act allows
a tentative tract map to be approved for 24 months and also it
does allow under Section 66452.6 of the State map Act an
additional period of time not to succeed twelve months.
It is a common practice that an applicant seek a one year
extension and staff feels this is a reasonable request for
this project and recommends this tract map be extended for
another twelve (12) month period.
On motion by Commissioner Kisling, seconded by Commissioner
Prouty recommending approval by City Council of a twelve (12)
month extension for this project.. Notion carried unanimously
with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Kisling, Prouty and Chairman Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Echlin.
ABSTAIN: None.
10. 88 -PP -3, 88 -V -4 and 88- ND -14, request for a one year
gxtensI n (2nd time) for a proposed 60 unit Travelodge Motel
and a. Variance to allow a 200 sq, ft. sign at a height of 55
ft. on 1.51 acres, located on the south side of Fourth Street
about 300 feet east of Beaumont Avenue. Applicants, Daniel
Tsai and Sam Lee.
COD Koules commented that this was a well received project
when it came in and it would be ill served for this project to
start since the overpass would block their business - staff
feels this is a reasonable request.
On motion by Commissioner Prouty, seconded by Commissioner
Kisling recommending that City Council approve'this extension
per applicant's request. Motion carried unanimously with the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Kisling, Prouty and Chairman Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Echlin.
ABSTAIN: None.
11. 89- CUP -2, Amend. B and 89- ND -149 request for a one year
extension for a proposal to construct a 4,100 sq. ft.
manufacturing building addition to an existing 21,000 sq. ft.
manufacturing /warehouse complex and the construction of a new
parking lot adjacent to the existing building on the adjacent
east lot. Project located at the southeast corner of 6th
Street and Egan Avenue with the parking lot at the northwest
corner of 5th Street and Grace Avenue. Applicant, Precision
PC minutes of
December 18, 1990
Page 6
Chairman Ring announced that the next meeting would be January
22, 1991.
There being no further projects before the commission, the
meeting adjourned at 8 :10 p.m.
u
Respectfully submitted,
Chrr a
e yl
PC Se retar
EeaumenteCher
oble Creek Community Center
8800 Fourteenth Street
July 27, 1989
Mr. James E. Taylor
Urban Assist
3151 Airway Ave., Bldg. A -2"
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Re: Deutsch Specific Plan
.
Dear Mr. Talyor:
P.O. Box 480 Beaumont-tr.
Calif. 82223 (714) 848.8555
Initial Study,
Thank you for this opportunity to offer preliminary comments on
the Deutsch Project Initial Study. We will be looking forward to
the future D.E.I.R. and F.I.S. as it relates to the Beaumont-
Cherry Valley Recreation and Park District's concerns for
mitigation of impacts on recreation programs and services and
park development.
The District has a standard of five, (5) acres of parkland per
thousand population as allowed by state legislation. A rough
calculation of the units and type of construction shown* in your
study indicates approximately 12,000 plus future residents in
this 1,162 acre project. There is an approximate equivalence in
the amount of park acreage indicated and the corresponding Park
District standard for land dedication,
We note the favorable dispersion of park sites (and adjacent
schools) in relation to higher density housing areas. However,
due to the extremely small scale of available maps, it was
difficult to ascertain exact acreage of the depicted parks. We
would also appreciate a definition of "patio home" in order to
refine demographic projections.
As indicated in earlier discussions, there is a critical need for
a large (15 -20 acre) "active use" park to alleviate overcrowding
of athletic facilities. It was suggested that this type of park
be located adjacent to a Junior or Senior High School. There is
Deutsch Initial Study
Page 2
Adt".
from the school. It appears that both parks (and two adjacent
schools, including the Junior high school) could be connected by
a short linear greenbelt /parkway along the edge of a patio home
area which separates the larger park from the Junior High site.
This small connector would provide a linking of two parks and two
schools and allow access from the Junior Higki,to the larger
park's athletic areas as initially recommended.
We concur in your plan to use portions of the Southern California
Edison easement as a link to the countywide trail system. We
would suggest consideration of additional, separated bikeways
along major thoroughfares to provide safe transportation for•
biking school children and other bicyclists riding to park /school
sites.
We feel that the study errs in stating that "the proposed project
will not impact on the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities ". Another concern is the availability
of water without overdrafting existing underground water
supplies. A final concern is that designated parks be a minimum
of five (5) acres (and preferably seven (7) acres) in size.
We would be glad to meet with you to further clarify our
comments. Again, thank you for this opportunity to review your
exciting project.
Very truly yours,
Brian A. Ross
General Manager
BAR /s1
C. C.
I
�1
Deutsch Initial Study
Page 2
Adt".
from the school. It appears that both parks (and two adjacent
schools, including the Junior high school) could be connected by
a short linear greenbelt /parkway along the edge of a patio home
area which separates the larger park from the Junior High site.
This small connector would provide a linking of two parks and two
schools and allow access from the Junior Higki,to the larger
park's athletic areas as initially recommended.
We concur in your plan to use portions of the Southern California
Edison easement as a link to the countywide trail system. We
would suggest consideration of additional, separated bikeways
along major thoroughfares to provide safe transportation for•
biking school children and other bicyclists riding to park /school
sites.
We feel that the study errs in stating that "the proposed project
will not impact on the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities ". Another concern is the availability
of water without overdrafting existing underground water
supplies. A final concern is that designated parks be a minimum
of five (5) acres (and preferably seven (7) acres) in size.
We would be glad to meet with you to further clarify our
comments. Again, thank you for this opportunity to review your
exciting project.
Very truly yours,
Brian A. Ross
General Manager
BAR /s1
C. C.
I
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
DECEMBER 189 1990
t
7:00 P.M. Ring.
meeting called to Order e and Chairman
Call: Commissioners Kisling, Prouty
Roll
Commissioner Echlin was excused.
The Affidavit of Posting was read:
The Pledge of al observed.
legiance to the Flag was
1 for the Planning
Commi
The Minutes ssion Meeting of October
16, 1990, were approved as submitted.
Z, oral Communication: None.
Commissioner Prouty
Report: COD Koules informed the and of
3. Director's P City Council by was (Commission Echlin re -aPPo ntment by i and Commissions the City
were both wP ear. also a letter had been sent by
this calendar g them they have till January 101 1990The at City
Clerk informing Positions.
P.M. to re -apply for the commission P ointments for the
commissions expected theirto meetingthroof appointments
149 1991.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
4. 89- ANX -1, Sp -89 -11 EIR -90 -2 and 90 -RZ 8j - a�^p;oposedpApre-
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
DECEMBER 18, 1990
Meeting called to Order at 7:00 P.M.
Roll Call: Commissioners Kisling, Prouty and Chairman Ring.
Commissioner Echlin was excused.
The Affidavit of Posting was read:
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. The Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of October
16, 1990, were approved as submitted.
2. Oral Communication: None.
3. Director's Report: COD Koules informed Commissioner Prouty
(Commission Echlin was absent) that d Commissioner l end
both up for re- appointment by City
this calendar year. Also a letter had been sent by the City
Clerk informing them for they issionanpositions 1990The City
p.m. to re -apply ointments for the
Council is expected to make three appointor 14, 1991.
commission at their meeting of
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
4. 89- ANX -1, SP -89 -1, EIR -90 -2 and 90 -RZ -8, a proposed pre -
annexation zoning to Specific Planning Area Zoning (SPA 4.1
dwelling units per acre) from County of Riverside (A -1
Agricultural) on 1162 acres proposed for annexation to allow a
maximum of 4716 residential dwelling units, incluodrieng fire
multi - family units, six schools, one library,
station, 15 acres of commercial and 65 acres of parks /trails.
The project is bounded on Brookside Avenue to the north,,
Highland Springs AAvenuenutoo the ewest,Bth Street
APPlicant the Deutsch
and Cherry
Corporation.
Koules lanndscaping needsntof Highland
addressed. Avenue 9 have
t been the
addressed. Also staff has been working with representatives
from the City of Banning to come up with a landscaping theme
for Highland Springs Road.
Chairman Ring then opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m.
asking for proponents/ opponents from the audience wishing to
speak.
Mr. Jim Taylor, representative for the Deutsch Corporation was
addressed the. commission noting that their u Planning that the
here at the meeting to answer any 9 One
commission might have regarding the project.
clarification that he wanted to make was that in the
A.mm ri ntton under the initial subject heading ofQ taan pm�ltit
PC minutes of
December 18, 1990
Page 2
is being proposed with boundary landscaping and setbacks
form the street.
Ms. Gina Glock, 1365 E. Ith Street, Beaumont, addressed the
oncern is if this annexation goes
commission stating her c
through what is to become of the strip that is presently an
island in the County.
CDD Koules commented that it is his understanding that LAFCO
will leave the island and it will not be annexed into the
City.
Ms. Gina Block, continued speaking expressing her concern for
the environment and ask that the commission think about the
water availability, air quality and power lines that will be
placed through the center of the field and the cancer risk
this line might pose to the people living in this area. Also,
Ms. Block felt that 4 homes to the acre is too many.
Mir. Michael Edson, 35240 San Pabloaddresseip the rcommission
Southern California Gas Company,
stating there is a 30" transmission line which traverses the
proerty direction southerl yeast the
of Highland power therest s
is a
blowdown facility and a main line valve station. This main
line valve station has to be blowndown and it takes
approximately 2 and 1/2 hours. This can reach a noise level
of about 140 - 150 decimals which is not a pleasant sound if
you do not have ear protection. Mr. Edson also is concerned
that when this project is built as the proposed plan indicated
with the residences on both east and west on Highland Springs
Road, there will be additional problems such as on re -sales
since new owners will not be aware of this noise factor. He
further stated that Deutsch should mitigate this noise level
by installing a blowdown or adapter which will muffle the
to 95 sounnoise n can be decimals which Tios the
ove the technology
valve station is
the not a solution. Park
Mr. Brian Ross, District, addressed a then valley
commission sub Recreation a i letterd dated
July 27, 1989 (see attached) and mentioned that hopefully they
will be working with the City to look at the impacts on the
District.
Mr. Jim Taylor, addressing the commission again responding to
statements made noting that the blowdown facility is addressed
in the environmental impact report. The Deutsch Company is
not interested in moving the blowdown facility off the Deutsch
property but feels there is a possibility of moving the
the
facility - 300 M 400
0Taylor lineal assured but-still that
Deutsch property. r
Deutsch will meet the requirements that are identified in the
environmental impact report which meet or exceed the requests
by the Gas Company in terms of the dba. This is-not a problem
PC minutes of
December 16, 1990
Page 3
There will also be private trails linking every part of the
project to the major trail.
Mr. Everett Moores 1547 East 8th Street, Beaumont, addressed
the commission wanting to know' about the sewage. e does not
e.
have access to the sewer and wanted t'o know if this project
would alleviate the sewage problem.
COD Koules commented that along with the new treatment plant
there will be a comprehensive look at ,the whole city sewer
treatment system.
Mr. Howard Heneler, 1230 Pennsylvania, Beaumont, a rtasCherry
commission wanting to know what is going to happen
Avenue and the drainage ditch.
Mr. Jim Dotson, City Engineer commented that the ditch would
be removed because of the undergrouhd storm drains.
He
explained the retention basis which allows water to actually
crossing under the
stack up because further down stream
freeway is a channel (which is only so big) and the way it is
handled is to let the first peak flow back up and be stored so
the channel can then handle it. He explained the ramps to be
built noting that down Pennsylvania Avenue the ramps will be
eliminated so that if you live in Beaumont you can get off at
and Street, Beaumont, Avenue, Cherry venuys Avenue, notAmerican
be athe Avenue
main
and Highland Springs.
artery and 8th Street will be approximately the same width as
Beaumont Avenue.
Mr. Erwin Reeves, Sandra Drive, Cherry Valleys addressed the
commission asking for discussion regarding the proposed City
of Cherry Valley which is claiming all the area down to Cougar
Way and what will happen to this project if and when Cherry
Valley becomes a City?
COD Koules noted that the property in question is in the
of Sphere of Influence and
infringing upondthistareae the proposed City
they public9 hearing at wishing to
turning t Chairman urning project g closed
back to
the commission for discussion.
City Engineer Dotson noted that the City of Beaumont would be
supplying the water to this project.
On motion by Commissioner Kisling, seconded by Commissioner
Prouty, recommending approval of this project by City
Council as follows:
1. Recommend that the attached final EIR -be .certified as
having been completed in compliance with the California
Environment Quality Act and was presented to the
Commission twho ain Orior to
eV drecommending approval of information considered the
4-, the
PC minutes of
December 18, 1990
Page.4
patio1homesmandm540otownhomes /condosmfor an total a 0
of 4716
units.
Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Kisling, Prouty and Chairman Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Echlin.
ABSTAIN: None.
5. 90 -PP -3, 90- ND -11, a proposed Industrial Center consisting
sq.t ft teon (12 45 separat
located eath Vi le aandtotal
B° f O
Streets.
Applicant, Bill Ehrlich.
This item is to be re- advertised for the meeting of January
22, 1991.
6. 90 -PM -2, 90- ND -11, a proposed Industrial Subdivision of 12.45
acres divided into thirteen (13) parcels, located at Vials and
"B" Streets. Applicant, Bill Ehrlich.
This item is to be re- advertised for the meeting of January
22, 1991.
7. 87- TM -8(R) (Tract 23161)9 revision of a previously approved
201 lot subdivisiorf on 63.01 acres in order to allow a lot
redesign of the easterly, arm of the project, located at 14th
and Palm Avenue. Applicant, WDS Development.
This item was continued to the meeting of January 22, 1991 per
request of the applicant.
8. Revision of Section 17.40.325(8)9 of the Commercial General
(C -G) Zoning, Outdoor Merchandise Displays, to allow outdoor
displays.
COD Koules presented the staff report noting that staff looked
at other ordinances from other cities - the City of Banning
allows displays only within closed buildings with the
exception of nursery or auto sales type of operation in their
commercial zones; however, in their downtown redevelopment
area they do not allow even this. This zoning ordinance
would not permit outdoor displays without some level of city
approval and the amount of display would be subject to city
review.
Chairman Ring then opened the public hearing at 8:02 p.m.
asking for proponents/ nov he then closed to
f ethe public hearing
speak. The e being ne
at
8:03 p.m. turning the matter back to the commission for
discussion.
by Commissioner
PC minutes of
December 18, 1990
Page 5
northeast corner of Cougar Way and Sunnyslope Avenue.
Applicant, Darrel W. Coffman (former Applicant, Ronald
Hemsley).
CD Koules aOttentativectractt map ttotbeh approved 5for i24s months pand t allows ommened also it
does allow under Section 66452.6 of the State map Act an
additional period of time not to applicant lae one nyear
It is a common practice that an
extension and staff feels this is a reasonable request for
this project and recommends this tract map be extended for
another twelve (12) month period.
On motion by Commissioner Kisling, seconded by Commissioner
Prouty recommending approval by City Council of a twelve (12)
month extension for this project. motion carried unanimously
with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Kisling, Prouty and Chairman Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Echlin.
ABSTAIN: None.
10. 88 -PP -3, 88 -U -4 and 88- ND -14, request for a one year
gxtension (2nd time) for a proposed 60 unit Travelodge Motel
ft. onU1.51nacres,a located 2on0 the south side ofaFourt Fourth Street ariace to
about 300 feet east of Beaumont Avenue. Applicants, Daniel
Tsai and Sam Lee.
COD Koules commented that this was a well received project
when it came in and it would be ill served for this project to
start since the overpass would block their business - staff
feels this is a reasonable request.
On motion by Commissioner Prouty, seconded by Commissioner
Kisling recommending,that City Council approve'this extension
per applicant's request. motion carried unanimously with the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Kisling, Prouty and Chairman Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Echlin.
ABSTAIN: None.
11. 89- CUP -2, Amend. B and 89- ND -141 request for a one year
extension for a proposal to construct a 4,100 sq. ft.
manufacturing building addition to an existing 21,000 sq. ft.
manufacturing /warehouse complex and the construction of a new
parking lot adjacent to the existing building on the adjacent
east lot. Project located at the southeast corner of 6th northwest
Street and Egan Avenue with the parking lotth Precision
corner of 5th Street and Grace Avenue. Applicant,
Stamping, Inc. /Peter Galling.
PC minutes of
December 18, 1990
Page 6
Chairman Ring announced that the next meeting would be January
22, 1991-
There being no further projects
meeting adjourned at 8:10 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Chrr a
e ylo
PC Se retar
before the commission, the