HomeMy Public PortalAbout1991 PC MINUTES (2),!!� of Bwwwnt
ORAOER J$1, BEAUM CALIFOR
21MA1988 1�s. :u:,
Mr. Loren Bisel
1617 Calls Vaquero #205
Glendale, California 91206
Re:
Dear Mr. Bisel:
t
950 western Knolls
87- SNP -13.
This is to.advise you that at the Meeting of the
Planning Commission on March 15# 1988, the above re-
ferenced matter which was approved in error December 1,
1987, was r*inded pursuant to Section 17.60.015 (A) of
Title 17 which reads as follows:.
1. The zone classification of the land on which the
display is to be erected or maintained shall
specifically permit outdoor advertising displays.
2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
ordinance no outdoor advertising structure or
outdoor advertising display shall be placed in
the hereinafter described area in the incorporated
territory of the City of Beaumont. The area, or
areas, hereinabove referred to are described as
follows:
a. The areas extending five hundred (500) feet
on either side of the property line of,any
highway designated as a State Freeway or
County Freeway.
If you have any questions, please contact the Planning
Department at (714) 845 -1171.
Very truly yours,
.dt�
Cherry ayl
PC Se star
/ct
1
2
3i
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
v
r���
RYSKAMP AND ROBINSON
A Professional Corporation
6608 Palm Avenue'
Riverside, CA 92506
(714) 781 -1960
Attorney for Defendant and Respondent
CITY OF BEAUMONT, a,Municipal Corporation
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
LEONARD AND COMPANY, INC., )
Plaintiff and Petitioner,
VS. )
CITY OF BEAUMONT, a Municipal
Corporation, et al., )
Defendants and Respondents.
CASE NO. 192828
GENERAL CIVIL
DECLARATION BY STEPHEN
KOULES OPPOSING ORDER
TO SHOW CAUSE RE:
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Hearing: May 25, 1988
Time: 9:15 a.m.
Dept. No.: 10 °•
GTC Date: Sept. 8, 1988
I, STEPHEN KOULES, declare:
1. I am and have been the City's Community Development
Director since December 14, 1987. I am the duly authorized
custodian of the records of the City regarding file 87- SNP -13. I
have personal knowledge of each of the facts set forth in this
Declaration and can testify competently thereto except as to
those matters stated on information and belief, and as to such
matters I believe them to be true.
2. The City file contains the following information: A
a„niication by Leonard and Company, Inc. (Leonard).
1 dated October 27, 1987, for an outdoor advertising display. On
2 December 1, 19871 the Beaumont Planning Commission, upon
3 recommendation of the prior Planning Director, approved Sign
4 Permit 87- SNP -13. on. Deceinber 221 1987, the Beaumont Department
5 of Building and Safety issued Leonard a building permit to
6 construct,a sign. The billboard was to be located at 950 Western
7 Knolls Road, in an area zoned Commercial - General ( "C -G "), and is
8 within 500 feet of Highway 60.
9 3. On February 23, 1988, at 10:00 a.m., and again on
10 February 24, 1988, at 8:30 a.m., the Building Inspector, Paul
11 Turner, and I field- checked the subject site and discovered no
12 evidence of anv work on starting sign placement. The permit was
13 declared VOID since work was not commenced within the sixty (60)
14 day required period. Building permits "become void if work is
15 not commenced within sixty (60) days ". This clause is printed on
16 1 the face of the building permit and was agreed to by Leonard's
17 agent's signature r ....
18 4. On February 24, 1988, Leonard was notified by the City
19 Building inspector, by certified mail, that its Building Permit
20 was void and was directed to contact.the City before
21 contemplating any construction of said sign.
22 5. On March 41 1988, a letter was also sent, by myself,
23 notifying Leonard of the March 15, 1988 hearing to reconsider
24 87- SNP -13. On March 15, 1988, the Beaumont Planning Commission
25 reconsidered and rescinded 87- SNP -13.
26
27 / / ///
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is
true and correct.
Executed on May IJ► 1988, at Beaumont, California.
STEPHEN KOULES
1
2
3
4
51 6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Y
4" _.4
aF;&j 025MLZ F42LOL4 Kt .
0: I;IV'Q 14,E I
RYSKAMP AND ROBINSON
A Professional Corporation
6608 Palm Avenue
Riverside, CA 92506
(714) 781 -1960
Attorney for Defendant and Respondent
CITY OF BEAUMONT, a Municipal Corporation
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF'CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
LEONARD AND COMPANY, INC.r )
)
Plaintiff and Petitioner,
VS. )
CITY OF BEAUMONT, a Municipal
Corporation, et al. )
Defendants and Respondents.
CASE NO. 192828
GENERAL CIVIL
DECLARATION BY MOSES W.
JOHNSON, IV OPPOSING ORDER
TO SHOW CAUSE RE:
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Hearing: May 25, 1988
Time: 9:15 a.m.
Dept. No.: 10
GTC Date: Sept. 8, 1988
I, MOSES W. JOHNSON, IVr declare:
1. I am an attorney at law.duly admitted to practice before
all the courts of the State of California. I am the Defendant's
City attorney in this action and have - personal knowledge of each
of the facts set forth in this Declaration and can testify
competently thereto except as to those matters stated on
information and belief, and as to such matters I believe them to
be true.
I
M
-:
1 2. The City file contains the following information:'
2 a. On December It 1987, the Planning Commission, upon
3
recommendation of the prior Planning Director, approved Sign
4 Permit 87- SNP -13 (Exhibit "A "). On. December 221 1987, Leonard
5 and Company, Inc. (Leonard) was granted a building permit to
6 construct said sign (Exhibit "B "). The billboard was to be
7 located at 950 Western Knolls Road, zoned Commercial - General, and
8 is within 500 feet of Highway 60.
9 b. On February 23, 1988, and again on February 24,
10 1988, the City Building Inspector and the City Community
11 Development Director field- checked the subject site and witnessed
12 that no work had commenced on the construction of said billboard.
13 Building permits "become void if work is not commenced within
14 sixty (60) days ". This clause is printed on the face of the
15 building permit and was agreed to by Leonard's agent's signature
16 (Exhibit "C ").
17 c. On February 24, 1988, Leonard was notified, by
18 certified mail, that its Building Permit was void and was
19 directed to contact'the City before contemplating any
20 construction of said sign (Exhibit "D ",).
21 d. On March 41 1988, a letter was also sent notifying
22 Leonard of the March 15, 1988 hearing to reconsider 87- SNP -13
23 (Exhibit "E ").
24 3. On March 151 1988, the Planning Commission reconsidered
25 and rescinded 87- SNP -13 (Exhibit "F ")- on March 22, 1988, Notice
26 To Remove Illegal Outdoor Advertising Display was given by the
27 City Attorney by certified.mail, return receipt requested, to
L
''�,I
o J�Eaurrzont � .
`� of
oa "Waa 150, ee "December 7t 1987 OAS -1171
I
Mr. Loren Bisel
1617 Calle Vaquero 1205
Glendale, Ca. 91206
M '
P�
Re: 87- SNP=13, Request for
Billboard Sign Permit
at 950 Western Knolls
Rd.
Dear Mr. Bisel:
This is to inform you that the above referenced matter
was heard before the.Planning Commission on Tuesday,
December 1, you comply wwithpthevheight limitationnofn251
Also, that you comply
and comply with Title 17; subject to,Caltrans permit
issuance and that it be inspected by the Building &
Safety Department.
If you have any questions, please contact the Planning
Department at (714) 845 -1171.
Sincerely,
Veete /% la nn 2c, ,/ SectetaryT
/ct
����. dIYM��,,.��i �, �, rr
.,�..NNrd ,�.i �,Y�'i�
i dinN�r� �, n.nri
M1Vn, i
�,
44Ya
nr
i
�.�, �
nn
� i
,�
����I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
21
Leonard requesting that the display be removed by April 22, 1988
(Exhibit "G ")• '
4. During telephone conversations on March 23 and 25, 1988,
Mr. John Ladnier of Leonard informed me that he placed an order
for the sign to be fabricated on January 28, 1988 and on
a dav,i March 12, 1988, the sign was put up on the property
(Exhibit "H ").
5. Compliance with the Temporary Restraining Order and any
Preliminary Injunction would cause Defendant damage by allowing
an illegal outdoor advertising display to.be maintained.
6. Plaintiff has an adequate.remedy at law and will not
suffer great or irreparable injury by Defendant's conduct since
Defendant is solvent and is capable of responding to any judgment
for damages caused to Plaintiff by Defendant's conduct in an
action for inverse condemnation if Plaintiff can prove it
acquired vested property rights.
WHEREFORE, Declarant prays that this Court deny Plaintiff'.s
Order to Show Cause Re: Preliminary Injunction and Temporary
Restraining Order against the City.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is
true and correct.
Executed on May ,1,, 1988, at Riverside, California.
MOSNS W. JOHNSON, IV
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8,
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
w
}
y
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8,
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
e ' �t dill
r3 Fib
RYSRAMP AND ROBINSON
A Professional Corporation
6608 Palm Avenue'
Riverside, CA 92506
(714) 781 -1960
Attorney for Defendant and Respondent
CITY OF BEAUMONT, a Municipal Corporation
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
LEONARD AND COMPANY, INC., )
)
Plaintiff and Petitioner. )
)
VS. )
CITY OF BEAUMONT, a Municipal )
Corporation, et al. )
Defendants and Respondents. )
)
SASE NO. 192828
GENERAL CIVIL
OPPOSITION TO ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE RE: PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION AND TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER
Hearing: May 25, 1988
Time: 9:15 a.m.
Dept. No.: 10
GTC Date: Sept. 81 1988
To Plaintiff and Petitioner LEONARD AND COMPANY, INC. and to
Broad, Schultz, Larson 6 Wineberg,-its attorneys of record:
YOU AND EACH OF YOU will please take notice that at
9 :15 a.m. on May 25, 1988, or as soon thereafter as counsel may
be heard, in Department 10 of the above- entitled Court, located
at 4050 Main Street, Riverside, California, Defendant and
Respondent, City of Beaumont, will oppose Plaintiff's Order to
Show Cause Re: Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining
is
s
}
y
e ' �t dill
r3 Fib
RYSRAMP AND ROBINSON
A Professional Corporation
6608 Palm Avenue'
Riverside, CA 92506
(714) 781 -1960
Attorney for Defendant and Respondent
CITY OF BEAUMONT, a Municipal Corporation
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
LEONARD AND COMPANY, INC., )
)
Plaintiff and Petitioner. )
)
VS. )
CITY OF BEAUMONT, a Municipal )
Corporation, et al. )
Defendants and Respondents. )
)
SASE NO. 192828
GENERAL CIVIL
OPPOSITION TO ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE RE: PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION AND TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER
Hearing: May 25, 1988
Time: 9:15 a.m.
Dept. No.: 10
GTC Date: Sept. 81 1988
To Plaintiff and Petitioner LEONARD AND COMPANY, INC. and to
Broad, Schultz, Larson 6 Wineberg,-its attorneys of record:
YOU AND EACH OF YOU will please take notice that at
9 :15 a.m. on May 25, 1988, or as soon thereafter as counsel may
be heard, in Department 10 of the above- entitled Court, located
at 4050 Main Street, Riverside, California, Defendant and
Respondent, City of Beaumont, will oppose Plaintiff's Order to
Show Cause Re: Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining
is
1
2
3
4
5
6'
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
15
persons acting in concert or participating with them from:
t
Removing'or causing the removal of Leonard and Company, Inc.'s
outdoor advertising display located at 950 Western Knolls Road,
City of Beaumont, State of California. This opposition will be
based on this Opposition to Order to Show Cause, on the
Declarations of Stephen Koules and Moses W. Johnson, IV, on the
Memorandum of Points and Authorities served and filed herewith,
on the papers and records on file herein, and on such oral and.
documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing of the
Order to Show Cause and is made on the grounds that Plaintiff has
an adequate remedy at law.
DATED: May LL, 1988 .RYSKAMP AND ROBINSON
BY:
MOSES W. JOHNSON, IV
Attorney for Defendant and Respondent
CITY OF BEAUMONT$ a Municipal
Corporation
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
15
persons acting in concert or participating with them from:
a
Removing'or causing the removal of Leonard and Company, Inc.'s
outdoor a4yertising display located at 950 Western Knolls Road,
City of Beaumont, State of California. This opposition will be
based on this Opposition to Order to Show Cause, on the
Declarations of Stephen Kdules and Moses W. Johnson, IV, on the
Memorandum of Points and Authorities served and filed herewith,
on the papers and records on file herein, and on such oral and•
documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing of the
Order to Show Cause and is made on the grounds that Plaintiff has
an adequate remedy at law.
DATED: May &., 1988 •RYSKAMP AND ROBINSON
BY:��"
MOSES W. JOHNSON, IV
Attorney for Defendant and Respondent
CITY OF BEAUMONT# a Municipal
Corporation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MENFUJ79Tblawly •,
Leonard and "Company, Inc. ( "Leonard ") complains of
IL4e Y
substantial expenditures incurred in good faith reliance on its
sign permit. However, it is interesting to note that after
notice was given that Leonard's building permit was void, and
after notice was given of the Planning Commission's intention to
reconsider Leonard's sign permit, the sign was put up on the
subject property on the Saturday before the'Planning Commission's
hearing. Leonard failed to comply with the terms of the building
and sign permits and they were revoked. The subject billboard
does not comply with Title 17 of the Beaumont Municipal Code.
First, Leonard's billboard is located in a Commercial - General
( "C-G ") zone where outdoor advertising displays are not
specifically permitted. Second, the subject billboard is within
500 feet of State Highway 60 and thus does not comply. Lastly,
Leonard did not commence on -site construction within sixty (60)
days of receiving its building permits.
On October 27, 1987, Leonard submitted a Sign Permit
Application for an outdoor advertising display to be located at
950 Western knolls Road in an area zoned C-G on the north side of
State Highway 60 in the City of Beaumont, California. On
December If 1987, the Beaumont Planning Commission, per staff's
findings, approved Leonard's Request for Billboard Sign Permit.
On December 7, 1987, notice of approval was given to Leonard's
z
1 on December 22, 1987 the Beaumont Department of Building and
2 safety issued Leonard a building permit to construct a sign.
3 This permit states "this permit shall become void if work is not
4 commenced within 60 days ". On January 28, 1988 Mr. John Ladnier
5 of Leonard placed an order for the sign to be facricated. On
6 February 24, 1988 Leonard was given notice that its building
7 permit was void. On March 4► 1988 Leonard was also given notice
8 that on March 15, 1988 the Planning Commission would reconsider
9 its sign permit. However, on Saturdayr March 12► 1988, the sign
10 was put up on the property in a C-G zone within 500 feet of State
11 Highway 60. On March 15, 1988► the Beaumont Planning Commission
12 reconsidered and revoked Leonard's sign permit. On March 22, -
13 1988 a Notice to Remove an Illegal Outdoor Advertising Display
14 was issued by the City of Beaumont and was served on Leonard.
15 The Notice requires Leonard to remove the display by April 22,
16 1988.
17 B. ZONE DOES NOT SPFIFICALLY PERMIT DISPLAYS
18 The C-G zone, found at Beaumont Municipal Code Sections
19 17.40.300 through 17.40.325 (all references are to the Beaumont
20 Municipal Code unless specified), in which the sign was erected,
21 does = "specifically permit outdoor advertising displays ". The
22 only reference to signs is found in Section 17.40.325 -6 which
23 states, "Site Development Standards. Signs. The provisions of
24 Chapter 17.60 of this Ordinance shall apply". .:Examples of zones
25 specifically permitting advertising are Commercial -Light
26 Manufacturing, Section 17.50.105(B)(1)(oo), and Light
27 Manufacturing► Section 17.50.205(B)(1)(kk). These Sections state
r
L
1 "Permitted Uses.. Signs, on site advertising, pursuant to Section
2 17.60.0200. Thus, the C-G zone does not specifically permit
3 outdoor advertising displays as required by 17.60.015(A)(1) and
4 the display must be removed.
5 C. HIGHWAY 60 IS A STATE FREEWAY
6 The sign is located within 500 feet of State Highway 60,
7 which area is prohibited from having outdoor advertising displays
8 under Section 17.60.015(A)(2)(a). This Section specifically
9 provides that no outdoor advertising display sign shall be placed
10 within 0500 feet on either side of the property line of any
11 highway designated as a gate freeway or county freeway ". Former
12 Planning Director Valerie Beeler, in her report to the Planning
13 Commission on December 1, 1987, regarding 87- SNP -13, stated "Cal
14 Trans officially designates Highway 60 as a Primary Highway in
15 their letter of October 15, 1987. The sign ordinance only speaks
16 of restrictions in 'State Freeway or County Freeway'. Staff has
17 presumed that to be a reference to Interstate 10." I disagree
18 with the former Planning Director's presumption. Beaumont
19 Municipal Code Section 17.60.010(w) defines "freeway" as "a
20 divided arterial highway for through traffic with full control of
21 access and with grade separations at intersections ". State
22 Highway 60 has been designated as a Federal -Aid Primary Highway
21 by Cal Trans and fits within the definition of "freeway"-as
24 defined in Section 17.60.010(w). Thus, it is a State Freeway.
Y5 Because the sign is within 500 feet of a State freeway, it is
26 prohibited and must be removed.
27 1 / / ///
1
D. CITY Is NOT ISTOPPED FROM REMOVING SIGN
2 The City is not estopped from removing Leonard and Company's
3 billboard.. The City of Beaumont has not allowed other outdoor
4 advertising displays in the vicinity of Leonard's billboard.
5 Former Planning Director Valerie Beeler, in her December It 1987
6 report, regarding 87- SNP -13, to the Planning Commission stated,
7 *There is one other billboard located on the North side of
8 Highway 60. It appears to be East of Western Knolls Road,
9 towards the railroad tracks'. My understanding is that this sign
10 is a pre- existing non - conforming sign being abated under Section
11 17.60.200. This being the case, the City is not estopped from
12 removing Leonard and Company's sign. The power of a city to
13 revoke a building permit, once issued,,is limited. Mans- oceanic
14 oil Corn v Santa Barbara (1948) 85 Cal.App.2d 776. If the
15 holder of a building permit incurs material expense in reliance
16 on it, the holder then acquires a vested property right under the
17 permit and it cannot be revoked. Id. However, a city cannot
18 barter away its police power, even by express agreement. Thus,
19 where the city has mistakenly granted an invalid building permit
20 and the permit holder, relying on the permit, has constructed an
Y1 illegal sign, the city will not be estopped to destroy the sign.
22 Maguire v. Reardon (1919) 41 Cal.App. 596, aff'd 255 U.S. 271,
23 (1921) 41 S.Ct. 255. The cases cited by Plaintiff deal with
24 revocation of permits,after new ordinances are adopted, whereas
25 Maguire corresponds in all respects with the facts of this case.
__ F_ rTTV HAS AUTHORITY TO RESTRICT SIGNS
y an body of
1 follows: 'The governing y City ... may enact ... zoning
2 ordinances, imposing restrictions on advertising displays
3
adjacent to.any highway...." Business and Professions Code
4 Section 5231 provides as follows: "The governing body of a
5 City...may enact ordinances requiring...permits for the placing
6 of advertising displays in view of any highway, 'including a
7
highway included in ... the Federal -Aid Primary Highway System,
8 within its boundaries." These statutes give the City authority
9 to impose restrictions on outdoor advertising displays. The
10
intent of the California Legislature was to occupy the whole
11 field of regulation of outdoor advertising displays, except as
12 specified in Business and Professions Code Sections 5230 and
13 5231. The Ordinances of the City of Beaumont are thus not
14 preempted by State and Federal law. The letter dated October 15,
15 1987 from the State Department of Transportation in 87- SNP -13
16 states that "Route 60 is a Federal -Aid Primary Highway ". Thus,
17 Highway 60 would fall under the provisions of Business and
18 Professions Code Section 5231. There is no issue as to Leonard's
19 free speech rights under the First Amendment to the U. S.
20 Constitution and Art. I, Section 2 of the Cal. Constitution as
21 the sign is blank.
E ""' *�*ATION OF DD PROGE�S OR
22 F. EOUAT PROTECTION RIGHT&
olation of Leonard's due process rights.
23 There has been no vi
ve timely notice that Leonard's building
24 The Building Inspector ga
25 permit had become void. The Community Development Director gave
26 timely notice of reconsideration of the sign permit. where a
__ --&-A 4., violation of Title 17, it may be torn down and
c
P• I
1 removed without any judicial proceeding whatever. Maguire,
2 suipra. There has also been no violation of Leonard's equal
3 protection.rights. There is no evidence to show that Leonard is
4 being treated any different than other outdoor advertising
5 display companies seeking to construct outdoor advertising
6 structures in the City of Beaumont. As stated previously, there
7 is only one other billboard located in the same area, and to
8 my knowledge, it is a pre- existing non - conforming sign that is
9 being abated under Section 17.60.200.
10 G. REVOCATION OF PERMIT WAS PROPER
11 The revocation by the Planning Commission of the sign
12 permit, under which the permittee argues it acquired vested
13 property rights, does not constitute a taking of property in
14 contravention of U.S. Constitution Amendment 14 and Cal.
15 Constitution, Art. I, Section 13. Trans- Oceanic Oil Corn.,
16 supra. While the power of a city to revoke a permit which it has
17 issued is limited, if the permittee fails to comply with the
18 reasonable terms and conditions thereof, the proper authorities
19 may revoke it. Id. Leonard failed to commence work within sixty
Y0 (60) days of issuance of the building permit and it became void.
21 The ordering of the sign by Leonard is not "commencement ". Such
Y2 "work" cannot be verified by on -site inspections. Section
Y3 17.60.015(B)(1) states "if the erection of the outdoor
Y4 advertising display has not been completed pursuant to the
25 building permit within sixty (60) days after the date of its
�_ .... :a " T.nnnmrA Alan failed
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
r
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
NJ
did not acquire any vested property rights, and the revocation of
the permit and removal of the sign is not a taking under the
Constitution.
III. �ONGLUSION
Leonard did not acquire any vested rights to its permits
because it failed to follow the conditions stated therein.
Leonard has failed to comply with Title 17 of the Beaumont
Municipal Code. The'City granted the initial permit in error, an
error that was realized when a competitor attempted to obtain a
sign permit on the same location. The City is attempting to
correct this illegal action that Plaintiff wants to force on the
City. To allow this sign to remain would set a precedent for
competitors of Plaintiff to request more signs in the same area.
Because the balance of harm will have a greater effect on the
City (Plaintiff can use the blank sign elsewhere versus allowing
an illegal act) and because the City has shown that the sign
should be removed, the application for preliminary injunction by
Leonard should be denied.
DATED: May !`•, 1988 Respectfully submitted,
RYSFAMP AND ROBINSON
MOSES W. JOHNSON, IV
Attorney for Defendant and Respondent
CITY OF BEAUMONT
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
FOR COURT USE ONLY
TITLE OF CASE (Abbreviated)
LEONARD S COMPANY, INC. v. CITY OF BEAUMONT
ATTORNEY(S) NAME AND ADDRESS TELEPHONE
RYSRAMP AND ROBINSON (714) 781 -1960
A Professional Corporation
6608 Palm Avenue
Riverside, California 92506 -2344
ATTORNEY(S) FORS
HEARING DATE- TIME -DEPT
CASE NUMBER
Defendant and Respondent
5/25/88 -9:15 a.m. -10
192828
DECLARATION OF SERVICE
I, PATTI J. SEGAL declare that: I am over the age of.
eighteen years and not a party to the action; I am employed in the
County of Riverside, California, within which county the subject mailing
occurred; my business address is 6608 Palm Avenue, Riverside, California
92506 -2344; 1 am familiar with Ryskamp and Robinson's practice for
collection and processing correspondence for mailing with the United
States Postal Service and that all correspondence will be deposited with
the United States Postal Service the same day in the ordinary course of
business. I served the following document(s): ANSWER OF CITY BEAUMONT TO
by placing a copy thereof in a separate envelope for
each addressee named hereafter, addressed to each such addressee
respectively as follows:
John E. Rumel,
Broad, Schulz,
One California
San Francisco,
Esq.
Larson & i+ineberg
Street, 14th Floor
CA 94111 -5482
I then sealed each envelope and -placed each for collection and mailing
on _ May 18 , 19.x, following - ordinary business
practices.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
California that the foregoing is true and correct.
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION,
MINUTES OF
FEBRUARY 19, 1991
Meeting called to Order at 7:00 p.m.
Roll Call: Commissioners Echlin, Prouty and Chairman Ring.
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 January 22,
1990, were approved as submitted.
2. Oral Communication: None.
3. Director's Report: CDD Koules informed the commission that at
the last meeting the City Council approved Ehrlich's
Industrial subdivision with the City Engineer's recommended
deletion of Condition No. 2.07.01 which he had previously
recommended being included in the approval. Copies have been
distributed to the commission with both the page from the
original conditions as well as the City Engineer's letter
asking for the deletion. This parcel map will be heard at
the City Council meeting on Monday, FEbruary 25, 1991.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
4. 87- TM -8(R) Tract 231610 revision of a previously approved 201
lot subdivision 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, WOS Development.
COD Koules informed the commission that the applicant had
submitted a letter asking for a continuance to the next
meeting. Applicant is working with the Beaumont School
District on a Lot Line Adjustment to acquire some of the
school's land to accommodate the redesign of the easterly arm
of the subdivision.
On motion by Commissioner Prouty, seconded by Commissioner
Echlin, this item was continued to the meeting of March 19,
1991. Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Prouty and Chairman Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Kisling.
ABSTAIN: None.
5. SP -90 -3, EIR -90 -3 and 90 -RZ -99 a proposed zoning to Specific
Planning Area Zoning (SPA 4.1 dwelling units per acre) from
(PUD) Planned Unit Development on 155 acres proposed for 632
single family dwelling units and two acres of retail
PC minutes of
February 19, 1991
Page 2
On motion by Commissioner Echlin, seconded by Commissioner
Prouty, this item was continued to the meeting of March 19,
1991. Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Prouty and Chairman Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Kisling.
ABSTAIN: None.
6. 90 -PM -1 (PM 26229) and 91 -ND -2, a proposed subdivision of
17.66 acres into two (2) parcels (Parcel 1 is zoned C -G,
Commercial General, and Parcel 2 is zoned R -MF, Residential
Multiple- Family), located at the northwest corner of 14th
Street and Beaumont Avenue. Applicant, Allied Group /Nick
Saab.
COD Koules presented the staff report explaining that this
property was uniquely zoned (split zoned). To the east of the
drainage channel the property is zoned commercial, to the west
of the channel it is zoned Residential Multiple Family. He
noted you cannot split -zone a piece of property and expect to
use both halves; thus, the need for a parcel map in order to
split the property. Further, whenever the applicants wish to
develop either parcel, they would have to come in for a
plot plan and at that time the City can impose necessary
improvements.
Chairman Ring then opened the public hearing at 7:09 p.m.
asking ror proponents/ opponents from the audience wishing to
speak.
Ms. Vera McNealey, 211 14th Street, addressed the commission
concerned about the drainage channel and how water would be
furnished.
COD Koules explained that at this time the proposal is just to
split the parcel into two pieces. The property is already
zoned for apartments on the westerly side of the channel and
commercial on the easterly side; however, in order for either
parcel to development, it would have to be brought before a
public hearing.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Ring then
Closed the public hearing at 7 :13 p.m. turning the matter back
to the commission for discussion.
On motion by Commissioner Echlin, seconded by Commissioner
Prouty recommending approval by City Council of Parcel Map
90 -PM -1 (PM 26229), subject to the conditions of approval and
Negative Declaration 91 -ND -2, since there will not be a
significant impact on the environment. Motion carried
unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner
Echlin, Prouty
Kisling.
and Chairman Ring.
PC minutes of
February 19, 1991
Page 3
noted that the 40 acre piece of property immediately to the
west is zoned RMF; however, it is being processed as
residential single family.
Chairman Ring then opened the public hearing at 7:16 p.m.
asking for proponents/ opponents from the audience wishing to
speak.
Mr. Mike Chang, 3818 Glove Street, Torrance, addressed the
commission stating he felt it was to the interest of the City
of Beaumont to approve this project.
Mr. Richard Reeley, 11105 Sunnyslope, addressed the commission
informing the commission that this project was not compatible
to the property at the north because they have bigger lots and
feels that when this property develops their lifestyles will
change. Also their street is real narrow (191).
Mr. Barry Steele, 11168 Sunnyslope, addressed the commission
stating he doesntt want to see a lot of traffic, doesn't want
4 to 5 homes to the acre.
Mr. Ernie Finley, 11211 Sunnyslope, addressed the commission
questioning law enforcement, water and Marshal Creek.
COD Koules noted that the property is within Beaumont's Sphere
of Influence.
Mr. George Cummins, 39985 Mary Lane, addressed the commission
stating that Mary Lane was 15' wide - opposed to the
annexation.
Mr. Barry Steele, again addressed the commission stating he
felt that the commission already knew what they were going to
zone the property when they came in.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Ring then
closed the public hearing at 7 :31 p.m. turning the matter
back to the commission for discussion.
On motion by Commissioner Prouty, seconded by Commissioner
Echlin recommending approval by City Council of Annexation 91-
ANX-1, Zone Change 91 -RZ -1 and Negative Declaration 91 -ND-
1, since there will not be a significant impact on the
environment. Motion carried unanimously with the following
roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Prouty and Chairman Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Kisling.
ABSTAIN: None.
8. 91- ANX -2, 90 -RZ -6 and 91 -ND -3, a proposed preannexation zonin
of 16.36 + acres to C -HS (Commercial- Highway Service), APNI
414 - 090 -004, located at the south side of 14th Street and
along the easterly side of Interstate Highway 10. Applicant,
PC minutes of
February 19, 1991
Page 4
Mr. Kirk Evans, KSE Development, addressed the commission
noting that this was part of the project that was approved
about a month ago for KSE Development for single family homes.
With this project when a plan is brought in, it will include
the access which is needed by the City of Beaumont to connect
in with 14th Street through Three Rings Ranch as well as KSE
Development. Also this application will go along with the KSE
Development Application with LAFCO as well - will be looking
at it as one.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Ring then
closed the public hearing at 7:36 p.m. turning the matter back
to the commission.
On motion by Commissioner Echlin, seconded by Commissioner
Prouty recommending approval by City Council of Annexation 91-
ANX -20 Zone Change 90 -RZ -6 and Negative Declaration 91 -ND-
3, since there will not be a significant impact on the
environment. Motion carried unanimously with the following
roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Prouty and Chairman Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Kisling.
ABSTAIN: None.
Consideration of Development Agreement for the Deutsch
Specific Plan (SP -89 -1) which allows for the development of a
maximum of 4,716 dwelling units on 1162 acres proposed for
annexation, located between 8th Street and Brookside Avenue,
and between Cherry Avenue and Highland Springs Road.
Applicant, Deutsch Corp.
COD Koules presented the staff report noting that staff
received a letter from a Ms. Pam Alps stating she would like
to see parks and bicycle trails in this project (see
attached letter dated 2/6/91). He (Koules) continued
explaining that due to an administrative oversight this item
was not properly advertised at the last hearing and that
what is before the commission now is the exact same document
that was heard and unanimously approved at the last meeting
of 1/22/91. This action was necessary at the advise of legal
council.
Chairman Ring then opened the public hearing at 7 :38 p.m.
asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to
speak.
Mr. Richard Illingworth, 37303 Cherry valley Blvd., addressed
the commission concerning the blowdown facility and the main
line valve station. He informed the commission of the noise
that is generated by this blowdown facility on Highland
Springs. He also noted at the last meeting Mr. Taylor
indicated the valve station would be removed; however, there
has been no negotiation between the Gas Co. and the
corporation as far as moving the valve station and as far as
PC minutes of
February 19, 1991
Page 5
Ms. Jan Cummins, 39985 Mary Lane, addressed the commission
complaining of the dust and noise.
Ms. Martha Guerta, 40281 E. 8th Street, addressed the
commission noting that if density is reduced problems would be
cut.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Ring closed
the public hearing at 7:48 p.m. turning the matter back to
the commission for discussion.
COD Koules noted that what we are hearing tonight is the
Deutsch Development Agreement not the Deutsch Specific Plan.
The above concerns should be expressed to the city council.
On motion by Commissioner Prouty, seconded by Commissioner
Echlin recommending approval by City Council of Deutsch's
Development Agreement as amended per the meeting of January
22, 1991. motion carried unanimously with the following roll
call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin,
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Kisling.
ABSTAIN: None.
Prouty and Chairman Ring.
It was noted by the Commission that the next meeting would be
March 19, 1991.
There being no further items before the commission, the
meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m.
Respectfully / submitted,
Cherry aylo
PC Sec etary
t
! .F
R
as
�,�;� F. ^ l°1 �UµoK� /fl)39b Orrh�� •��a�,
Ll
or aEA�ip, . �� j M
't G CJ `J 7
I;
LY ,
IL: -I �� •'. '')0.-h ✓'a �..\ L "�.C. r _1 �u :� t .
pop
ILL 1=11 r1 ('I� f'l K (�LF'g S C
(,:Z L�JC� 4 -:.L �� (�� I ct;� -(mac �'c.."�11nw� o�.Itij,L i�.t✓vv.�o.a- .<,,(< ,
ll+il
: O-L.
�^t
—!> FrLtoM BRuOK.sipr—TO r —Aw Or H --S v� a
. ( J
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
MARCH 19, 1991
Meeting called to Order at 7:00 P.M.
Roll Call: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Prouty and Chairman
Ring.
The Affidavit of Posting was read.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. The minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of February
19, 1991, were approved as submitted.
2. Oral Communication: None.
3. Director's Report: None.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
4. 87- TM -B(R) Tract 23161, revision of a previously approved 201
lot subdivision 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.
COD Koules addressed the commission noting there had been a
request this project be continued to May 21, 1991, in order
to allow the applicant to negotiate with the school district
for a lot line adjustment between his property and the school
district's property.
On motion by Commissioner Prouty, seconded by Commissioner
Kisling to continue this matter to the meeting of May 21,
1991. Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Prouty and Chairman
Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
5. SP -90 -3, EIR -90 -3 and 90 -RZ -9, a proposed zoning to Specific
Planning Area Zoning (SPA 4.1 dwelling units per acre) from
(PUD) Planned Unit Development on 155 acres proposed for 632
single family dwelling units and two acres of retail
commercial. The project is located on the south side of
Highway 60 across from Western Knolls Road, and running
southerly for a distance of approximately 2,000 feet to a line
approximately 2,500 feet westerly of the west end of Fourth
Street and is identified as Rolling Hills Specific Plan.
Applicant, Robertson Homes.
COD Koules presented the staff report noting that a letter
from the Chambers' Group responding to comments regarding
PC minutes of
March 19, 1991
Page 2
practice was throughout
second issue involving20cu1 de - . Koules
sacs and where
there is a pie shaped lot the minimum frontage i's 45 feet.
Also any lots showing a side entry garage would have to follow
the existing standard setbacks.
Chairman Ring then asked for proponents /opponents from the
audience wishing to speak.
Mir. Dave Dodson, Planning Consultant from Newport Beach,
addressed the commission giving an overview of the project and
addressing the three issues as noted by CDD Koules.
Mr. Dodson commented they were providing a 25 foot
landscaped area adjacent to the project /freeway which will
consist -of a wall treatment along the property line with
mounds, landscapin@, etc., and which will be dedicated to the
City. He (Dodson) noted they have a plan to incorporate the
loop road system to access all the properties and to divide
Y it into different residential types, one for
,^ 5,000 6,000 and 7,000 sq. ft. properties. The 5,000 sq. ft.
lots have been located on the perimeter - these being the more
}� affordable housing complexes. The interior is 6,000 and 7,000
)' sq. ft. products. Mr. Dodson also noted there is a large
ravine running through the project they would like to
retain which has been incorporated within the park that will
run adjacent to the potential school site throughout the
project and then link up with another proposed park for open
space area that runs along the existing creek on the south
side of Fourth Street. The intention is to provide a park for
the community as well as the school and also to provide a link
since it is envisioned along the creek there will be some sort
of recreational trail. He noted they tried to create a
community that is self sufficient, thus, the reason 2 acres
will be a retail commercial corner. Mr. Dodson explained
there would be a 20 ft. rear yard setback for 2 story homes;
however, they do not have the setbacks for garages on lots
with sideyard entries with CDD Koules commenting that a corner
lot would require a side street setback of 15 feet. Mir.
Dodson then commented that their biggest concern is the 45
feet requirement on the street frontage for lots on cul-
de-sacs.
Commissioner Prouty wanted to know how fire access would occur
if there are trains blocking the tracks.
Mir. Wes Alson, County of Riverside Fire Dept. addressed the
commission stating the only access now is Fourth Street. They
are proposing a second access on Highway 60, however, the
applicant has not responded to the Fire Department's letter as
yet. The train blocking the access continues to be a problem.
Mr. Alson noted that 35 dwelling units be the maximum until
the accesses are completed. He explained that if they could
be assured of the access on Highway 60, they would be able to
get in on that side which would be about a 25 minute response
from the San Jacinto station. Also the Fire Department wanted
the project to have a 60 foot easement and 32 feet of pavement
-.. .. ... . _.. on Ll2- & -- -, ,1A cnlvo tha train nrohlem.
PC minutes of
March 19, 1991
Page 3
access road is not going to be sufficient for both projects.
Also she noted this access (which is the secondary road) is
something that is being allowed until the overpass on Highway
60 can be implemented with the other projects in the area.
Mir. Joe DiCristina, Vice President with Robertson Homes,
addressed the commission noting that the problem with the 35
homes is that they have gone to Caltrans on a preliminary
basis and all they can get at this time from Caltrans is a
preliminary discussion of the access point. Caltrans will not
respond until they are supplied with a tentative map and this
is the reason they cannot guarantee to the City they will have
an appropriate access at that point. To hold them up with a
35 home limit is a hardship. Mr. DeCristina commented that he
understood the need for the access point and was willing to
work with the adjacent landowner to pay for the access and the
pavement for the road; however, if they are held up it will
kill the project.
Mr. Wes Alson, Riverside County Fire Department, stated that
some type of guarantee was needed to hold the developer to his
obligation in putting in the secondary access.
COD Koules noted that possibly this was a more appropriate
issue to be discussed at the tract map submittal rather than
the specific plan approval. There is no intention in letting
this property develop beyond the parameters that are
satisfactory to Riverside County Fire Department.
Mr. Dave Dodson addressed the commission again noting they are
willing to agree with staff on the setbacks for 2 story with
20 feet and conditions of 15 feet on the side yard except;
however, they are still questioning the radius of the cul-
de -sacs.
COD Koules stated that staff's concern is that when you place
a house on a cul -de -sac pie shaped lot, your driveway width is
going to be two car widths so you take up 20 feet of that pie
and there is needed a flow where visitors and tradesmen would
have places to park their cars. He further noted that the
City Engineer and he would like to defer this question to the
tract map stage because certain cul -de -sacs would prompt one
type of layout and others might differ.
There being no one else wishing to speak from the audience,
Chairman Ring closed the public hearing at 8:35 p.m., turning
the matter back to the commission for discussion.
.Mir. Tom Ryan, Chambers Group, addressed the commission noting
that the Scrub Oak Woodland in its present location would not
be retained. They have proposed that in the park area on
the southern part of the project, it would be possible to re-
established some of the Scrub Oak. The ravines would need
some fill since they would not be able to retain their
habitats. The riparian associated vegetation on Cooper's
Creek would be retained in a natural condition.
PC meeting of
March 19, 1991
Page 4
2. Find that changes or alteration 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 -9 prezoning 155 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 -90 -3 (Rolling Hills Ranch Specific
Plan SP- 90 -3), allowing a maximum of 632 residential
single family units. Also, recommend an amendment thereto
to require a minimum rear yard setback of 20 feet for any
proposed two story residential structure. Furthermore,
any residential side entry garage development units on
corner lots shall provide 15 ft. side street setback on
5,000, 6,000 and /or 7,000 square foot lots either for
single and /or two story structures.
S. Recommend approval of the mitigation Monitoring and Report
Plan as attached No. 91- MMP -3.
Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Prouty and Chairman
Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
6. 90 -RZ -7, 91 -GP -1, and 91 -ND -4, a request to change the General
Plan designation from Rural Residential (2 dwellings per acre)
to General Commercial and to change the zoning from R -A
(Residential Agricultural) to C -G (Commercial General) on
approx. 11.82 acres APN# 418- 310 -004 and 418 - 310 -005, located
at the southeast corner of First Street and Beaumont Avenue.
Applicant, The Beaumont Partners /Beaumont Land Fund X.
CDD Koules informed
location at one of
Beaumont. Since the
requirement that the
parcels can be joine
plus acre parcel.
the commission that this is a unique
the gateway entrances to the City of
project site has two parcels, there is a
applicant file a parcel merger so the two
d and developed comprehensively as an 11
Chairman Ring then opened the public hearing at 7:42 p.m.
asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to
speak.
Mr. John Carvelli, addressed the commission informing the
commission that he was here to answer questions.
Mr. Jim McGillvray, Sanborn & Webb Engineering, 795 E. 6th
Street, addressed the commission noting he would be happy to
�n �.ior niiattinns_
PC meeting of
March 19, 1991
Page 5
2. The requested plan /zone amendment is reasonable for this
site and a logical extension of the commercial plan and
zoning designation existing immediately adjacent to the
west.
3. The proposed general plan amendment and zoning
reclassification will not have a significant impact on the
environment.
4. The 11.82 acre site would allow flexibility in introducing
a development proposal which could.serve as an enhancement
to a gateway entry into the City of Beaumont. Any
development proposal for this E#ty ould oe subject to
Planning Commission review and approva_„yC.-
Recommendation:
1. Recommend approval of 90 -RZ -7 zoning 11.82 acres (APN#
418 - 310 -004 and 418- 310 -005 to C -G (Commercial- General)
zoning.
2. Recommend *approval of 91 -GP -1 changing 11.82 acres (APN#
418- 310 -004 and 416- 310 -005 from General Plan designation
of Rural- Residential to Commercial General.
3. Approve Negative Declaration 91 -ND -4. The above actions
will not have a significant impact on the environment.
4. Recommend that the applicant file a parcel merger, merging
APN# 418- 310 -004 and APN# 418 - 310 -005 within 30 days after
City Council action on the General Plan and zoning (per
applicant's attached letter).
Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Prouty and Chairman
Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
91 -PP -1 and 91 -ND -6, a proposed 22,000 sq. ft, metal
commercial building as office space and for coating
re- enforcing steel, located on the south side of "B" St.
between Viele Ave. and Elm St. Applicant, Western Coating.
CDD Koules addressed the commission noting that staff received
a revised letter from Riverside County Fire Department dated
March 18, 1991 which has been distributed to the commission.
He further noted he would like to make an amendment to staff's
Conditions of Approval No. 4, inserting the march 18, 1991
date.
Chairman Ring then opened the public hearing at 7:47 p.m.
asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to
sneak_ There beino none. Chairman Ring then closed the public
PC Meeting of
March 19, 1991
Page 6
"Applicant should comply with the Riverside County Health
Department requirements to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Director."
On motion by Commissioner Prouty, seconded by Commissioner
Kisling approving Plot Plan 91 -PP -1 with the amended
conditions of approval and recommending, approval of Negative
Declaration 91 -ND -6 by City Council, since 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 and Chairman
Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
8. 91 -PP -2 and 91 -ND -7, a proposed 441 unit mini - warehouse with
manager's residence, located on the north side of Sixth,
between Illinois and American Avenues and immediately east of
the Rusty Lantern Restaurant. Applicant, Aware Development
formerly Jasper Stone Development (87- PP -11).
COD Koules addressed the commission
recently received a letter from
Department dated March 18, 1991, whit
No. 14 in the staff report. Also it
some changes to the March 18th
Department.
noting that staff had
Riverside County Fire
:h will change Condition
is understood there are
letter from the Fire
Chairman Ring then opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m.
asking for proponents/ opponents from the audience wishing to
speak.
Mr. Jim McGillvray, Sanborn & Webb Engineering, addressed the
commission commenting the applicant was concerned about the
condition on the general roadway from the city engineer which
was clarified as Item 1.33.
Ms. Jolene Weiss, represents the applicant for Aware
Development, 6377 Riverside Avenue, Riverside, addressed the
commission stating she wanted to clarify Condition 1.33,
they would not be doing any relocation of power poles or
fire hydrants on the westerly portion of the property.
City Engineer Dotson then made a point of clarification
stating the conditions of approval require them to improve
(pointing to the map), down pass the Rusty, pass
Jimmy's to the intersection of Illinois. This improvement
requires existing curb and gutter in front of the Rusty and
Jimmy's be removed and replaced. Behind it are some power
poles and the intention is to replace the curb and
gutter only. The poles cannot be removed since there is
no right -of -way behind them. The condition does apply
in another area which effects one pole and it was Mr. Dotson's
feeling, it will not have to be relocated. Also the fire
hydrant will not be required to be removed.
PC meeting of
March 19, 1991
Page 7
know if these bonds can be applied to the new plot plan fees.
City Engineer Dotson stated he concurred and felt that the
condition should be stricken entirely.
Ms. Jolene Weiss then questioned Condition No. 6.04 (e) For
Various Fees.
City Engineer Dotson stated that he recommends this condition
remain since it is a matter that the city manager and city
council wishes to deal with; however, this condition can be
appealed.
Mr. Charles Ware, owner of the project, 6377 Riverside Avenue,
Riverside, addressed the commission commenting he did not
understand the last comment.
City Engineer Dotson again noted that you have the right to
appeal anything approved or disapproved by this commission.
COD Koules commented that it should be pointed out that at the
present time, the City is in the process of establishing
mitigation fees and that any forthcoming fee system would be
applied in a fair and equitable manner.
Mr. Charles Ware then asked that in his situation could he pay
the fees when the building permit is pulled instead of just
leaving them undetermined. Mr. Ware also commented about the
parking spaces. He wanted to know if he could be given credit
for parking in front and in aisleways along side of the
buildings. He mentioned they were only using 40 percent of
the property and did not want to take and eliminate the
building behind the manager's quarters for parking whenever
they have 3 1/2 acres to park. Mr. Ware went on commenting
that he also needed financial help in putting the off -site
improvements in.
COD Koules corrected Mr. Ware's statement regarding "40
percent usage of the site" indicating that the site is
proposed to be built to the maximum without any room left for
any additional building and that Mr. Ware's statement is
totally misleading.
Chairman Ring then closed the public hearing at 8:13 p.m.
turning the matter back to the commission for discussion.
Ms. Karen Cudney, Fire Department, Riverside County, addressed
the commission noting items to be read into the record. Item
No. 4 Minimum Width is 24 feet in lieu of 38, also Item No. 15
is to be deleted in reference to Gate Entrances.
On motion by Commissioner Kisling, seconded by Commissioner
Prouty to approve Plot Plan 91 -PP -2, subject to the amended
conditions of approval and also recommend approval of Negative
Declaration 91 -ND -7 by City Council, since this project will
not have a significant impact on the environment. Amendments
ArP as fnllnws:
PC Meeting of
March 19,1991
Page 8
Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Prouty and Chairman
Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
9. 89- TM -B(R) and 91 -ND -8, a proposed project consisting of 73
lots of single family homes, located on the southeast corner
of Beaumont Avenue and Cougar Way. Applicant, Thomas Shelton.
COD Koules addressed the commission informing them that the
applicant and City Engineer needed to get together and work
out mutual acceptable approaches in preparing a tract map,
therefore, it is requested that this item be continued to the
meeting of May 21, 1991 so the applicant can work with the
City Engineer.
Mr. Tom Shelton, 11622 Seacrest Drive, Garden Grove, addressed
the commission questioning the turn - around and access from the
Fire Department's requirements. He strongly recommended that
the channel be maintained along its present line.
On motion by Commissioner Prouty, seconded by Commissioner
Echlin to continue this project to the meeting of May 21,
1991. Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Prouty and Chairman
Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
10. 91- ANX -3, 91 -RZ -2 and 91 -ND -5, a proposed pre- annexation
zoning from Riverside County R -1 (One Family Dwellings) to RSF
(Residential Single Family) on 6.15 acres, APN# 406 -181-
001, located on the south side of Brookside Ave, starting at
120 ft. west of Maureen Drive, and then westerly for approx.
415 ft. to Orchard Height Ave. Applicant, Allied, Group,
Inc. /Nick Saab.
COD Koules presented the staff
for an annexation, noting that
backing onto the Deutsch
further explained that this
development proposal.
report explaining the process
this property would be piggy -
Property annexation and
was not a tract map nor a
Chairman Ring then opened the public hearing at 8:28 p.m.
asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to
speak.
Mr. Nick Saab, speaking from the audience commented that Mr.
Koules had explained the project well.
PC Meeting of
March 19, 1991
Page 9
Mr. Dick Reeley, 1105 Sunnyslope Ave., Cherry Valley,
addressed the commission commenting that it wasn't true that
the City of Beaumont does not take in property that doesn't
want to come into Beaumont - gave an example of American
Avenue. Also he said he understood that the County would no
longer keep you if you were an island.
Mr. Jack Shresspury, 11036 Maureen Dr., Cherry Valley,
addressed the commission in reference petitions that had to
be gotten in order to kill annexations.
Ms. Lora King, 11027 Maureen Dr., Cherry Valley, addressed the
commission commenting that the land had already been divided
into lots with COD Koules stating the City had no evidence
that this property has been subdivided, he noted that the
record shows this to be one lot of 6.15 acres.
Mr. Darrell Barbarick, 40675 Norman
addressed the commission stating that at
his property you had to have an acre
would like to see this maintained.
understanding that Cherry Valley is
incorporating and some of the property
proposed to the County for incorporati
Rd.,' Cherry Valley,
the time he purchased
in order to build -
Also, it is his
in the process of
in question has been
on to Cherry Valley.
Ms. Andy Sheridan, 11066 Maureen Dr., Cherry Valley, addressed
the commission concerned as to who would help in the event of
an emergency, also questioned the flooding of Brookside.
Ms. Michelle Cushing, 40585 Lincoln Dr., Cherry Valley, again
addressed the commission with the question to Mr. Saab as to
why he wanted to annex this property to the City of Beaumont -
wants to keep a rural area.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Ring then
closed the public, hearing at 8:48 p.m. turning the matter back
to the commission for discussion.
On motion by Commissioner Prouty, seconded by Commissioner
Echlin, recommending approval by City Council of Annexation
91- ANX -3, Zone Change 91 -RZ -2 and Negative Declaration 91-
ND-5, since there will not be a significant impact on the
environment. Motion carried unanimously with the following
roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Prouty and Chairman
Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
There being no further items for hearing, the meeting
adjourned at 8:411 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
A$
•
ambers Group,
1
�/►Sar:_ °r.z. -x.52705
! l5 lvj L 0 V 'G 261 - -950
Rf i- 261 -5414
Inc. MAR 4 199) luJ
Clry OF BEAUMONT
PANNING DEPT.
March 1, 1991
(61530)
Mr. Doug Fazekas
City of Beaumont
550 West Sixth Street
Beaumont, CA 92223
Subject: Addendum to the EIR Response to Comments for Rolling.Hills Ranch Specific
Plan
Dear Mr. Fazekas:
The purpose of this correspondence is to provide clarification of.certain points in the
response to the Riverside County Waste Management's written and follow�up comments on
the EIR.
As a matter of clarification, the applicant agrees to implement all of the specific project
conditions listed by County Waste Management in their letter of January 31,1991 (which
is included in the Response To Comments volume in Section 3). All of these conditions
have been incorporated into the proposed Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the project.
The County Waste Management's earlier letter of December 189 1990, is also included in
the Response To Comments volume and is responded to in detail since this letter
constitutes the formal EIR comment letter from the agency. The written response to this
letter includes information on the results of the applicant's January 1991 meeting with
County Waste Management which established the framework for the conditions contained
in the January 31, 1991 letter. On Page 2 -2, first partial paragraph of the "Response To
Comments volume, there is a reference to an existing settlement agreement, executed in
January of 1990. The reference to this settlement agreement is correct in this context
since it was the January 1990 settlement agreement that established that Riverside County
would be responsible for the cost, maintenance and periodic monitoring of the required
methane monitoring wells. However, the January 1990 settlement agreement is further
clarified by the conditions to be imposed as reflected in the County's January 1991 letter.
Mr. Doug Fazekas
March 1, 1991
Page 2
0
The essence of these requirements are discussed in the respons
County Waste Management is December 18, 1991 letter (on Page
within the Mitigation Monitoring Plan.
Sincerely,
CHAMBERS GROUP, INC
Thomas C. Ryan
Director of Environmental Planning
TCR/tsc
cc: Mr. Joe DiCristina, Robertson Homes
t�
ra
,w
t:
S3.
SENT BY:Xerox Te!ecopier 7021 ; 3-15-91 ;10:45AM
0-62 -_L
Jnu f A2FW045
!�,'. � , 0- ooi fe e-
LA JOLLA PACIFIC-, 1000;4 1
0
LA JOLLA PACIFIC EQUITIES. INC
711 W. SEVENTEENTH SMET SLATE 9-6
COSTA MESA, CA 9=7
714/64640" t.4-*-4ttla
Fo,y. 154R -9119
Na of PACP!6 7,r
GLEN J. NEWMAN
FIRE CHIEF
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
210 WEST SAN JACIN,TO AVENUE • PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370
(714) 657 -3183
TO: City of Beaumont
ATTN: Planning Department
RE: 91 -PP -2
March 18, 1991
MAR 1 L59 199,
Q' y OF
PL4BEAU
NNING OED t
With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above
referenced plot plan, the Rire Department recommends the follow-
ing fire protection measures be provided in accordance with
Riverside County Ordinances and /or recognized fire protection
standards:
1. The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow
for the remodel or construction of all commercial building
using the procedure established in Ordinance 546.
2. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of
delivering 1750 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual
operating pressure, which must be available before any
combustible material is placed on the job site.
3. A combination of'on -site and off -site super fire hydrants,
on a looped system (6 "x4 "x2 1/2 "x2 1/211), will be located
not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion
of the building as measured along approved vehicular travel
ways. The required fire flow shall be available from any
adjacent hydrant(s) in the system.
GATE ACCESS ge
4. Minimum width is l3 feet. Gate access must be equipped
with emergency power back up. Gate pins must be rated with
shear pin force, not to exceed 30 foot pounds. Control
shall be "F" frequency. Approval is required prior to
purchase.
i
v
h
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
210 WEST SAN JACIN,TO AVENUE • PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370
(714) 657 -3183
TO: City of Beaumont
ATTN: Planning Department
RE: 91 -PP -2
March 18, 1991
MAR 1 L59 199,
Q' y OF
PL4BEAU
NNING OED t
With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above
referenced plot plan, the Rire Department recommends the follow-
ing fire protection measures be provided in accordance with
Riverside County Ordinances and /or recognized fire protection
standards:
1. The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow
for the remodel or construction of all commercial building
using the procedure established in Ordinance 546.
2. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of
delivering 1750 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual
operating pressure, which must be available before any
combustible material is placed on the job site.
3. A combination of'on -site and off -site super fire hydrants,
on a looped system (6 "x4 "x2 1/2 "x2 1/211), will be located
not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion
of the building as measured along approved vehicular travel
ways. The required fire flow shall be available from any
adjacent hydrant(s) in the system.
GATE ACCESS ge
4. Minimum width is l3 feet. Gate access must be equipped
with emergency power back up. Gate pins must be rated with
shear pin force, not to exceed 30 foot pounds. Control
shall be "F" frequency. Approval is required prior to
purchase.
3
Re: 91 -PP -2 Page 2
5. The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in
the permit process to reflect changes in design, construc-
tion type, area separation or built -in fire protection
measures.
b. Applicant /Developer shall furnish one copy of the water
system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall
conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing,
and the system shall most the fire flow requirements. Plans
shall be signed /approved by a registered civil engineer and
the local water company with the following certifications
"I certify that the design of the water system is in accord-
ance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside
County Fire Department ".
7. Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings
requiring a fire flow of 1500 GPM or greater. The post
indicator valve and fire department connection shall be
located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrantp and a
minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement that
the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinkled must
be included on the title page of the building plans.
S. Install a supervised water flow monitoring fire alarm Sys
tem. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for.
approval prior to installation. Fire Alarm System must be
supervised by an UL or FM certified receiving station. UL
or FM certificate must be provided at time of fire depart-
ment inspection.
9. In lieu of fire sprinkler requirements, building(s) must be
area separated into square foot compartments, approved by
the Fire Department, as per Section 505 (e) of the Uniform
Building Code.
10. A statement that the building will be automatically fire
sprinkled must appear on the title page of the building
plans.
11. Occupancy separation will be required as per the Uniform
Building Code, Section 503.
12. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained
as fire lanes.
13. Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of
2A -10BC. Contact a certified extinguisher company for
proper placement of equipment.
i
Re: 91 -PP -2
Page 3
14. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant /de
veloper shall be responsible to submit a check or money
order in the amount of $558.00 to the Riverside County Fire
Department for plan check fees.
GATE ENTRANCES
15. Gate entrances shall be at least two feet wider than the
width of the traffic lane(s) serving that gate. All gate
providing access from a road to a driveway shall be located
at least 30 feet from the roadway and shall open to allow a
vehicle to stop without obstructing traffic on the road.
Where a one -way road with a single traffic lane provides
access to'a gate entrance, a 40 feet turning radius shall be
used.
SIGNS IDENTIFYING TRAFFIC ACCESS LIMITATIONS
16. At the intersection preceding the traffic access limitation,
and no more than 100 feet before such traffic access limit-
ation.
17. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are
reviewed in the Building and Safety Office.
All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be re-
ferred to the Planning Division staff.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire/ Department Planner
By
Karen Kiefer - Cudney
Fire Safety Specialist
KKC:ml
cc: Chief Wurzell
Charles Ware
City of Beaumont
File
GLEN J. NEWMAN
FIRE CHIEF
TO: City of Beaumont
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE • PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370
(714) 657 -3183
March 18, 1991 n N F R
JV lvU.11 a # (5
MAR 19 199, D
ATTN: Planning Department CITY OF a - � ANT
RE: 91 -PP -1
With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above
referenced plot plan, the Fire Department recommends the follow-
ing fire protection measures be provided in accordance with
Riverside County Ordinances and /or recognized fire protection
standards:
1. The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow
for the remodel or construction of all commercial building
using the procedure established in Ordinance 546.
2. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of
delivering 3500 GPM for a 3 hour duration at 20 PSI residual
operating pressure, which must be available before any
combustible material is placed on the job site.
3. A combination of on -site and off -site super fire hydrants,
on a looped system (6 "x4 "x2 1/2 11x2 1/211), will be located
not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet-from any portion
of the building as measured along approved vehicular travel
ways. The required fire flow shall be available from any
adjacent hydrant(s) in the system.
4. The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in
the permit process to reflect changes in design, construc-
tion type, area separation or built -in fire protection
measures.
5. Applicant /Developer shall furnish one copy of the water
system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall
conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing,
and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans
shall be signed /approved by a registered civil engineer and
the local water company with the following certification:
� a
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE • PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370
(714) 657 -3183
March 18, 1991 n N F R
JV lvU.11 a # (5
MAR 19 199, D
ATTN: Planning Department CITY OF a - � ANT
RE: 91 -PP -1
With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above
referenced plot plan, the Fire Department recommends the follow-
ing fire protection measures be provided in accordance with
Riverside County Ordinances and /or recognized fire protection
standards:
1. The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow
for the remodel or construction of all commercial building
using the procedure established in Ordinance 546.
2. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of
delivering 3500 GPM for a 3 hour duration at 20 PSI residual
operating pressure, which must be available before any
combustible material is placed on the job site.
3. A combination of on -site and off -site super fire hydrants,
on a looped system (6 "x4 "x2 1/2 11x2 1/211), will be located
not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet-from any portion
of the building as measured along approved vehicular travel
ways. The required fire flow shall be available from any
adjacent hydrant(s) in the system.
4. The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in
the permit process to reflect changes in design, construc-
tion type, area separation or built -in fire protection
measures.
5. Applicant /Developer shall furnish one copy of the water
system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall
conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing,
and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans
shall be signed /approved by a registered civil engineer and
the local water company with the following certification:
Re: 91 -PP -1
Page 2
"I certify that the design of the water system is in accord-
ance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside
County Fire Department ".
b. Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings
requiring a fire flow of 1500 GPM or greater. The post
indicator valve and fire department connection shall be
located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and 'a
minimum of 25 fleet from the building(s). A statement that
the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinkled must
be included on the title page of the building plans.
7. Install a supervised water flow monitoring fire alarm sys
tem. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for
approval prior to installation. Fire Alarm System must be
supervised by an UL or FM certified receiving station. UL
or FM certificate must be provided at time of fire depart-
ment inspection.
S. A statement that the building will be automatically fire
sprinkled must appear on the title page of the building
plans.
9. Occupancy separation will be required as per the Uniform
Building Code, Section 503.
10. Install panic hardware and exit signs as per Chapter 33 of
the Uniform Building Code. Low -level Exit Signs, where exit
signs are required by Section 3314 (a).
11. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained
as fire lanes.
12. Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of
2A -10BC. Contact a certified extinguisher• company for
proper placement of equipment.
13. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant /de
veloper shall be responsible to submit a check or money
order in the amount of $558.00 to the Riverside County Fire
Department for plan check fees.
14. Building shall comply with any construction limitations set
forth per 1988 Uniform Building Code, Chapters 5 and 9 based
on occupancy.
15. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are
reviewed in the Building and Safety Office.
� t
i
Re: 91 -PP -1 Page 3
All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be re-
ferred to the Planning Division staff.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
By /is►�
Karen Kiefer - Cudney
Fire Safety Specialist
KKC:ml
ccs Sanborn Webb
Western Coating
Chief Wurzell
File
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 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:
89- ANX -19 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 55 acres of parks /trails.
The project is bounded on Brookside Avenue to the north,
Highland Springs Avenue to the east, 8th Street to the south,
and Cherry Avenue to the west. Applicant, Deutsch
Corporation.
COD 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
description under the initial subject heading of the project
PC minutes of
December 18, 1990
Page 2
is being proposed with boundary landscaping and setbacks
form the street.
Ms. Gina Glock, 1365 E. Bth 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 Pablos Yucaipi, representating
Southern California Gas Company, addressed the commission
stating there is a 30" transmission line which traverses the
property southerly of the Edison Power 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. 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 sliould 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.
Mr. Brian Ross, Beaumont - Cherry Valley Recreation and Park
District, addressed the commission submitting a letter 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
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 the Gas Company in terms of the dba. This is not a problem
thaf. rannnt he overcome.
PC minutes of
December 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 8th 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.
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, 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 so that if you live in Beaumont you can get off at
14th Street, Beaumont, Avenue, Cherry Avenue, American Avenue
and Highland Springs. Cherry Avenuys will not be the main
artery and 8th Street will be approximately the 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 to speak, Chairman Ring closed
the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. turning this project 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 who reviewed and considered the information
contained therein prior to recommending approval of the
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 -11, a proposed Industrial Center consisting
of thirteen (13) separate structures having a total of 206,735
sq. ft. on 12.45 acres, located at Viele 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 -111 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 231609 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), 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.
PC minutes of
December 18, 1990
Page 5
10.
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 sLcceed 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.. motion carried unanimously
with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Kisling, Prouty and Chairman Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Echlin.
ABSTAIN: None.
88 -PP -3, 88 -V -4 and 88- ND -14, request for a one year
gxtension (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 -140 request for a one year
extension for a proposal to construct a 4,100 sq. ft.
manufacturing building addition to an existing 210000 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
Stamping, Inc. /Peter Gailing.
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.
Respectfully submitted,
Chrr a
e ylo
PC Se retar
[3eaumcnt
Noble Creek Community Center
38800 Fourteenth Street
July 27, 1989
Mr. James E. Taylor
Urban Assist,
3151 Airway Ave., Bldg. A -2
Costa Mesa, CA 92620'
Re: Deutsch Specific Plan
Dear Mr. Talyor:
i
,r.
P.O. Box 480 Beaumont'
Calif. 82223 (714) 845.8555
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
nark 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
a park of suitable size near, but not adjacent, to the proposed
Deutsch Initial Study
Page 2
.1il1.
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 High to the larger
cask'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
suoolies. 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
BP.R/ s 1
C. C.
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
JANUARY 22. 1991
Meeting called to Order at 7:12 p.m.
Commissioners Echlin and Prouty were reappointed by the City
Council at their meeting of January 141 1991, and Mayor Connors
conducted their swearing in on this date with terms expiring
December 31, 1994.
Roll Call: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Prouty and Chairman
Ring.
The Affidavit of Posting was read:
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. The Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of December
18, 1990, were approved as submitted.
2. Oral Communication: None.
3. Director's Report: None.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HERRING:
4. 87- TM -8(R) Tract 231619 revision of a previously approved 201
lot subdivision 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.
CDD Koules informed the commission that the applicant and City
Engineer needed to work out some design problems and requested
that this matter be continued to the meeting of February 19,
1991.
On motion by Commissioner Prouty, seconded by Commissioner
Echlin, this item was continued to the meeting of February l9,
1991. Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
Commissioners
Ring.
NOES:
None.
ABSENT:
None.
ABSTAIN:
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Echlin, Kisling, Prouty and Chairman
S. SP -90 -3, EIR -90 -3 and 90 -RZ -9, a proposed zoning to Specific
Planning Area Zoning (SPA 4.1 dwelling units per acre) from
(PUD) Planned Unit Development on 155 acres proposed for 632
single family dwelling units and two acres of retail
commercial. The project is located on the south side of
Highway 60 across from Western Knolls Road, and running
southerly for a distance of approximately 2,000 feet to a line
a enn P--& ♦n..lv ..P fha woof. and of Fourth
PC Minutes of
January 22, 1991
Page 2
extensively with the City Engineer in order to work out the
drainage, circulation patterns and grading of the site. Mr.
Koules also noted that the applicant had questioned Condition
No. 7.05(e) and the applicant would also like to add Condition
4.06 to the City Engineer's recommended conditions whereby
the applicant would be reimbursed by adjacent property
owners at some point and time. Also, it was noted by Mr.
Koules that Revised Conditions of Approval from the City
Engineer had been distributed to the commission.
Chairman Ring then opened the public hearing at 7:24 p.m.
asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to
speak.
Mr. Bill Ehrlich, 6700 Stanton Avenue, Buena Park, addressed
the commission stating his only concern is Section 7.05(e)
whereby the City Engineer has requested they agree to pay any
fees for purposes in amounts not yet determined nor
established by the City Council. He noted that the State Map
Act has certain conditions which they operate under which
appear to be in conflict with this condition. The Map Act
requires that a tentative map approval can only be based on
standards in effect when the application is complete.
Additionally, Section 66483 which is the ,fee portion in
Article 5 in the State Map Act allows that any local ordinance
may impose fees for storm drainage, sanitary sewers and off -
site improvements as long as the ordinance has been in effect
for a period of at least 30 days prior to filing of the
tentative map. His understanding is that the only fees that
can be applied to him are those that are in effect that have
been approved by the City of Beaumont for at least 30 days
prior to this hearing. Requests that this condition be
amended or deleted.
Mr. Jim McGillvray, Sanborn & Webb, 600 E. Tahquitz Way, Palm
Springs, addressed the commission stating he had researched
the fee basis and presented copy to commission (see attached).
Mr. Dave Sumner, Sanborn & Webb, 795 E. Sixth St., Beaumont,
addressed the commission stating this project would definitely
clean -up this end of town since it is a very viable project.
Mr. Jim Dotson, addressed the commission informing
them that 7.07 of his conditions is recommended being
deleted because at the time he had not received the
preliminary title report nor soils report. Also he felt that
7.08 was appropriate to add to the conditions since it says
that the City and Mr. Ehrlich will form a reimbursement
agreement for expenses incurred in constructing the storm
drain since the applicant is creating a storm drain for
developments around his project and wants to be reimbursed for
the expense. Requested that the revisions be accepted by the
commission.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Ring then
closed the public hearing at 7 :32 p.m. turning the matter back
PC Minutes of
January 22, 1991
Page 3
7.03.a. 6) Corrected. Public Utility Easement for storm
drains through Lots 7 and 9.
7.07 Deleted. For lack of a thoroughly adequate
Tentative Map illustrating all proposed
improvement; for lack of a Preliminary Title.
Report; and, for lack of a Preliminary
Geotechnical Report, other conditions may be
imposed by the City Engineer during the Plan
Review process.
7.08 with Added. City iofnBeaumont which document shall set
forth terms and conditions whereby Applicant may
be partially reimbursed for expenses incurred in
constructing storm drain facilities which will
benefit other nearby and future developments.
Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Prouty and Chairman
Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
90 -PP -3 and 90- ND -12, a proposed Industrial Center consisting
of thirteen (13) separate structure having a total of 206,735
sq. ft. on 12.45 acres, located at Vials and "B" Streets.
Applicant, Bill Ehrlich.
COD Koules presented the staff report commenting that the
project meets all the zoning requirements in the M -L zone,
feels it is a high quality project and further noted there
were some changes in the Planning Department's conditions of
approval.
Chairman Ring then opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m.
asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to
speak.
Mr. Bill Ehrlich, 6700 Stanton Avenue, Buena Park, addressed
the commission wanting it to be noted for the record that he
was requesting that Section 2.07 in the Engineer's report
(which is included in the Parcel Map) be deleted on the
plot plan. Mr. Ehrlich went on to explain his project stating
that if someone wanted two buildings they could merge lots and
that building size would be from approximately 9,000 to 36,000
sq. ft. Also the conditions do allow changes and in the event
a tenant or buyer has a particular use then they would
resubmit a new plot plan within the slot structure from
this plot plan and seek approval. The building styles
have to be compatible and if it is changed then it would have
to come back before the planning commission.
else wishing to speak, Chairman Ring then
I - I. - - i.. -4-- +ho mai- t.wr
PC minutes of
January 22, 1991
Page 4
Planning Department's Conditions:
Condition No. 5. Corrected. Applicant shall comply with
Riverside County Fire Department's
requirements dated December 19, 1990, as
attached.
Condition No. 11. Addition. Applicant shall improve parking
spaces to the satisfaction of the Planning
Department. Parking is not permitted
within the required setback areas as
defined by Section 17.50.215(6) of the
Zoning Ordinance. ,,
Condition No. 20. Correction. All trash bins and /or
refuse collection areas shall conform to the
setback requirements and shall be completely
screened by a solid fence or wall, or shall
be enclosed within a building. Also,
applicant shall follow approval of Inland
Disposal requirements dated in a letter of
August 29 1990 (see attached).
Condition No. 24. Deleted. All roof mounted equipment shall
be at least six- inches (611) lower than the
parapet wall or top of equipment well and
shall be painted to match the building.
Evidence of compliance shall be included in
building plans.
Correction. Page 2 of the Conditions of
Approval should read "Project shall commence
development within twenty -four (24) months"
not twelve (12) months. 1.
Revised City Engineer's Conditions:
1.01 Correction. All On -Site rough grading, all utility and
storm drain improvements, all curbs and gutters and at
least a single layer of asphalt roadway paving shall be
completed prior to the commencement of any buildings'
or On -Site improvements are constructed.
1.06 Correction. Along that portion of the westerly boundary
that is adjacent to RSF Zoned property, construct 6'-
high masonry screen wall, said wall to be designed for
20 psf lateral wind load. The footings for said screen
wall shall be constructed wholly within the boundaries
of the Site or within easements provided for that
purpose.
1.10 Corrected. All on -site drainage shall be directed to
entrances to each lot and no drainage shall be directed
from one lot to another, except as, specifically
provided for on Tentative Parcel map No. 26100 relative
+n int Nns. 9 and 13. Where required and appropriate,
PC minutes of
January 22, 1991
Page 5
Sewer Facilities Fees
Water Facilities Fees
Public Facilities Fees
Drainage Facilities Fees
Parks & Recreation Fees
Wastewater Reclamation Facilities Fees
Notion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Prouty and Chairman
Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
SCHEDULED MATTERS:
8. Letter from Mitzi Adams appealing denial of Sign Permit No.
90- SNP -16, proposed location northwest corner of Beaumont
Avenue and First Street. Applicant, Mitzi Adams, Adams
Advertising, Inc.
COD Koules presented the staff report explaining that the
applicant filed for an Outdoor Advertising Billboard on the 84
Lumber site and there is presently an existing billboard
across the street on the westerly side of Beaumont Avenue and
within 500 feet of the proposed location of this billboard.
The Ordinance reads in Section 17.60.015(a)4, that each
display shall be at least 500 feet from any such display
unless in a particular zone a different interval shall be
specified in which event the minimum distance between such
displays shall be not less than such interval. Mr. Koules
further noted that staff's reading " is 500 feet in any
direction and believes the applicant's position, is that 500
feet should be measured in a lineal line along Beaumont
Avenue. He (Koules) also checked with City Attorney Ryskamp
and based on the ordinance, the recommendation is that of
denial.
Ms. Mitzi Adams, 19081 Rocky Road, Santa Ana, addressed 'the
commission stating she felt there was a discrepancy in the way
the ordinance was interpreted and she then distributed
material numbered 3 through 23 (see attached) to the
commission. She went through this material outlining items on
each page to the commission. Ms. Adams then showed various
documents from a binder that she passed to each of the
commissioners (no copies distributed) elaborating on the
lawsuit between Leonard Sign Company and the City of Beaumont,
noting that the City settled this case and the sign is
standing at Western Knolls.
COD Koules noted that the Leonard billboard was erroneously
approved by the City before he came here. He discovered
that this billboard was in violation of the ordinance and that
34- taaQ nnf in the orooer zone which is the M -C. Letters were
PC minutes of
January 22, 1991
Page 6
Attorney Ryskamp then noted that Ms. Adams had reviewed
extensively all of the previous sign applications and had
spent a number of hours going through the permit applications
and files available to her to which she acknowledged in the
affirmative.
There being no further discussion, Commissioner Echlin made a
motion to uphold the denial of 90- SNP -16, seconded by
Commissioner Kisling. motion carried unanimously with the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Prouty and Chairman
Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
Consideration of Development Agreement for Deutsch Specific
Plan (SP- 89 -1).
COD Koules informed the commission that Mr. Ryskamp would make
a brief presentation of what a Development Plan is and noted
there were some corrections he would like to offer which are:
Page 5 - should read "maximum of 4,716 residential units"
instead of "minimum of 4,851 ". Also at the close of
the paragraph it should read 114.1 d.u. ac" instead of
114.211. Exhibit "E" (benefits to the City) replaces
the blank page of Exhibit "E ".
Page 9 - at the bottom starting with "Notwithstanding" delete
& 10 all four lines as well as the next 3 lines at the top
of Page 10 and substitute the following:
11. General Development of the Project
11.1 Project. Page 9 last sentence:
As part of the tentative'subdivision map review, the
applicant shall submit architectural drawings showing
building treatment, elevations, material samples, and
landscaping as part of the review and approval
process for the residential portions of the Project.
Attorney Ryskamp %xplained the Development Plan Agreement to
the commission stating that in 1979 the Government Code was
amended to allow the City to enter into development
agreements. It is a contract between the City and the
developer about how this particular project is going to be
developed and it gives the developer the opportunity to
freeze most of the rules and regulations governing zoning,
building and the general development of the project. When a
project takes 15 to 25 years to develop, it gives the City
consistency throughout the project and a set of rules for the
developer that will remain intact during this time period. It
is valuahle from the Citv's Doint of view in that the City is
PC minutes of
January 22, 1991
Page 7
although new types of fees cannot be imposed, the rates are
not locked in so that 25 years from now they will not be
paying the same amount for sewer connections they are
currently paying. There are aspects of developing law that
will change and will allow for changes that are positive and
this is spelled out.
There being no further discussion, Commissioner Prouty,
seconded by Commissioner Echlin recommended adoption of the
Development Agreement for Deutsch Specific Plan (SP -89 -1) by
City Council. motion carried unanimously with the following
roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Prouty and Chairman
Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
There being no further items before the commission, the
meeting adjourned at 8:48 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cherry ylor/J'
Secret y U
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
MAY 21, 1991
Meeting called to Order at 7:00 p.m.
Mr. Michael Burch was sworn in as a commissioner by mayor Connors.
Roll Call: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Burch, Prouty and
Chairman Ring.
The Affidavit of Posting was read.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. The Minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of March 19,
1991 were approved with the following corrections to Page 2
and 5 as follows:
"three sq. ft." be deleted form page 2, third paragraph, line
seventeen.
"City" be deleted and "site" inserted on page 5, number 4,
fourth line.
2. Oral Communication: None.
3. Director's Report: At the City Council's meeting of may 13,
1991, Rolling Hills Specific Plan was approved by a vote of 3-
2 at its second reading; however, a council member has ask for
reconsideration of the second reading and the item will again
be placed on the June 10, 1991 City Council agenda.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
4. 89- TM -B(R) and 91 -ND -B, a proposed project consisting of 73
lots of single family homes, located on the southeast corner
of Beaumont Avenue and Cougar Way. Applicant, Thomas Shelton.
This item was continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of
June 18, 1991.
5. 87- TM -B(R) Tract 23161, revision of a previously approved 201
lot subdivision 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 Planning Commission Meeting of
June 16, 1991.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
6. 90 -TM -1 (Tract 25272), 91 -MND -1 and 91- MMP -4, for a proposed
subdivision of 37.65 acres, consisting of 159 single family
lots, located on the northside of Cougar Way, approximately
2,000 ft. east of its intersection with Beaumont Avenue.
Applicant, Charles Ware.
PC Minutes of
May 21, 1991
Page 2
Mr. Charles Schultz, Reid & Hellier, 3880 Lemon Street,
Riverside, addressed the commission commenting he was
representing Mr. Charles Ware and that they are in agreement
with all the proposed conditions of approval but they would
however, like to have a couple of clarifications on the
conditions.
Mr. Bill Gable, Gable, Cook & Beckland, 547 N. Main St.,
Riverside, addressed the commission stating they would lose
about 5 lots in this tract if held to the 45' frontage. Also
that up until the council meeting last month, they had a
concensus among themselves that this tract would be alright
with the 40' frontage. However, in laying out the final map
they would attempt to make the 40' lots wider but doesn't feel
that every lot can be 451.
Chairman Ring noted that some lots were less than 40' wide
with COD Koules commenting that awhile back he and the
developer were talking about 40' wide lots, but then Rolling
Hills project ,came up and prior to the final revision, he
indicated by memo form to Jim Dotson he would like to see 45'
wide lots.
City Engineer Dotson addressed the commission explaining the
cul -de -sac lots and the curb face, right of way and setbacks.
Mr. Charles Schultz noted that the intent of the design is to
ensure that there is enough room for the 16' driveway and the
parking of one vehicle. He also noted that the map and the
application indicate there are 159 lots however there are
154 lots with two remainder parcels which could result in a
total of 156 lots.
Mr. Charles Schultz went on commenting about the purpose of
the two remaining lots (at the end ofthe Flood Control
Channel), that they were attempting to get their adjoining
neighbor to the north to agree to do a Lot Line Adjustment.
This way you would have a straight lot with the design
remainder adjacent to lot 114 and 113 which would become a
square lot with the remainder piece of this triangle becoming
an additional lot. He wanted clarification when and if these
would ever become legal lots and would they be acceptable in
two years as legal lots based on their design.
Commissioner Prouty questioned what the City's point of view
was concerning the two lots with COD Koules noting he did not
see how one could give any warranty as to whether they will be
considered legal a couple of years from now.
Mr. Charles Schultz explained their intent was to square off
these two lots as the adjoining property owner comes in and
does a Lot Line Adjustment and they in turn exchange
three one hundredths of an acre on one and square off the
other. Mr. Schultz wanted to know if the property owner never
develops are they to remain "remainder lots" which are empty
nr rin fhov infonrofo Thom infn fho man - iiiaf hnw mmilri fhov
PC Minutes of
May 21, 1991
Page 3
Mr. Schultz went on to question Condition No. 8 and Condition
1.06. He wanted it clarified that on Condition No. 8
(agreement with Cherry Malley Parks for fee) that this
language does not call for an additional park fee by the City.
Also does not need language pertaining to the twenty -four
month approval. On Condition No. 1.06 for bond improvement,
he noted that some of the conditions of approval on Tract
23646 are also contained on this tract map and doesn't feel
the bond should be dupkicative - doesn't want to double bond.
City Engineer Dotson explained that Condition No. 1.06 states
that on Tract 23646 the words "SHALL NOT" be offered to and
shall not be accepted by the City as sufficient security to
guarantee completion of required improvements within Tract No.
25272 was very clear. This protects the City from the
applicant subdividing the parcel.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Ring closed
the public hearing at 7:40 p.m., turning the matter back to
the commission for discussion.
Commissioner Echlin asked about the status on Tract 23646 with
City Engineer Dotson commenting that the plans are near
completion; however, there is a critical document known as the
Marshall Creek Improvement Agreement which is the agreement
that binds six properties to mutually fund and construct this
Cougar Crossing and the Marshall Creek Improvement. It is a
complicated document and it too is nearing completion.
On motion by Commissioner Prouty, seconded by Commissioner
Kisling recommending approval by City Council of 90 -TM -1
(Tract 25272), Mitigating Negative Declaration 91- MND -1, since
there will not be a significant impact on the environment,
Mitigating Monitor Plan 91- MMP -4, subject to the Conditions of
Approval, with the amendment that the fourteen (14) lots that
is presently designed to be 40' or less at the right of way,
be increased to a minimum of 42' at the right of way /property
line. Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin,
Chairman Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
K15ling, Burch, Prouty and
7. 91 -PUP -1 and 91 -ND -9, a proposed 1,560 sq. ft. temporary
classroom building addition to an existing church complex
located at 1252 Beaumont Avenue. Applicant, Calvary Baptist
Church.
COD Koules presented the staff report noting that the
applicant is proposing a recreational building to the rear
which will be two double wides placed together. He noted
there is a drainage problem in the rear but felt that the use
is reasonable and pertinent to the church which will be used
PC meeting of
May 21, 1991
Page 4
COD Koules noted that in the conditions of approval there is a
time limit since the Public Use Permit is a special pprivilege
and this project will be subject for review five (5) years
from date of approval.
Commissioner Prouty questioned the standards and asked if this
modular is held to the standards of the UBC as far as its
electrical grounding, etc. with CDD Koules commenting that the
building inspector would have to inspect and make sure that it
complies with the UBC. Commissioner Prouty commented that the
UBC does not require specific type of grounding of these types
of units which has been hazardous.
On motion by Commissioner Echlin, seconded by Commissioner
Prouty recommending approval by City Council of Public Use
Permit 91 -PUP -1 and Negative Declaration 91 -ND -9, since there
will not be a impact on the environment, subject to the
conditions of approval with an amendment to Condition No. 8 to
read as follows:
Before occupancy of the temporary classrooms the applicant
shall meet with a representative from the Building and
Safety Department to meet all required regulations and
standards and to pass the 25 OHMS Meg test.
Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Burch, Prouty and
Chairman Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
B. 91 -PM -1 (PM 27045) for a proposed subdivision of 176 acres,
consisting of five (5) parcels (each greater than 20 acres).
Project 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. This project has
previously received tentative tract map approval (89 -TM-
3) (Tract 24039) for 500 single family lots, complying with
prior approval of Specific Plan 88 -02 and EIR 88 -2. The
applicant now seeks to phase the project by proposing a five -
lot overlay on the prior approval of 89 -TM -3. Applicant, LNC
Properties LTD, No. 27 /Premier Homes.
COD Koules presented the staff report noting the prior
approvals and stating that the applicant is now requesting to
overlay a parcel map on top of the tentative tract map
approval in order to phase the project and possibly have the
option of offering a portion of it to merchants. This does
not undermine or negate the conditions of approval on the
tract map or the EIR or the specific plan.
Chairman Ring then opened the public hearing at 7 :56 p.m.,
asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to
PC meeting of
May 21, 1991
Page 5
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Ring then
closed the public hearing at 8:01 p.m., turning the matter
back to the commission for discussion.
On motion by Commissioner Kisling, seconded by Commissioner
Prouty recommending approval by City Coun,cil of Parcel map 91-
Pm -1 (Pm 27045), subject to the conditions of approval.
Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin,
Chairman Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
Kisling, Burch, Prouty and
Next meeting tentatively scheduled for June 18, 1991.
There being no further items before the commission, the
meeting adjourned at 8:02 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cherry aylo
PC Sec etary Pl�
attachments
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
,a
JUNE , 1991
Meeting called to Order at 7:00 p.m.
Roll Call: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling,
Chairman Ring.
The Affidavit of Posting wis read.
Burch, Prouty and
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. The Minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of may 21,
1991, were approved as submitted.
2. Oral Communication: None.
3. Director's Report: COD Koules noted that at the June 10, 1991
Council meeting, Councilmember McLaughlin withdrew his motion
to reconsider Rolling Hills Specific Plan; therefore, the
plans stand approved per recommendation.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
4. 89- TM -8(R) and 91 -ND -8, a proposed project consisting of 73
lots of single family homes, located on the southeast corner
of Beaumont Avenue and Cougar Way. Applicant, Thomas Shelton.
This item was continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of
July 16, 1991, pursuant to applicant's request.
5. 87- TM -B(R) Tract 23161, revision of a previously approved 201
lot subdivision 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 Planning Commission Meeting of
July 16, 1991, pursuant to applicant's request.
PUBLIC HEARING:
6. 90 -TM -1 (Tract 25272), 91 -MND -1 and 91- MMP -4, for a proposed
subdivision of 37.65 acres, consisting of 159 single family
lots, located on the northside of Cougar Way, approximately
2,000 ft. east of its intersection with Beaumont Avenue.
Applicant, Charles Ware. (This item was heard at the Planning
Commission Meeting of May 21, 1991 but is being rescheduled
due to applicant's error in public notification).
CDC Koules presented the staff report noting that this item
was heard at the May 21, 1991 meeting, but to an error in the
public notification, the information provided to staff did
not show the 300' radius out far enough to cover the whole
project; therefore, staff had to legally readvertise and re-
hear this item. Mr. Koules also noted that the only change
made since the May 215t hearing is Condition No. 11, which has
PC minutes of
June 18, 1991
Page 2
Mr. Bill Gable, Civil Engineer with Gable, Cook &'Beckland,
representing the applicant, addressed the commission stating
he is in agreement with the staff report; however, he wanted
to make one thing a matter of record and that is the
"designated remainder lots" which was discussed at the meeting
of may 21, 1991. He would like to have the two designated
remainder lots be eligible for two building permits - feels
these two lots meets the minimum sizes and dimensions of legal
lots; they are being called designated remainders because they
are unable at this time to do a Lot Line Adjustment with the
owners to the north because of some legal problems they have.
Mr. Gable feels they should have the option between now and
the time the final map is prepared to have these numbered lots
included in the map without coming back to the commission.
City Engineer Dotson explained that the reason for two
designated lots being considered as one designated lot is
to prevent any building. It is hoped that when this
development does come in that it will be straightened out and
the lots will then be consistent. If building permits are
allowed you will preclude any adjustment and will be
projecting the problem on into the next subdivision; thus
his recommendation is to leave it as a single designated
remainder which in effect says if you went to go ahead and
build one house on it fine.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Ring then
closed the public hearing at 7 :13 p.m. turning the matter back
to the commission for discussion.
There was lengthy discussion by the commission with
Commissioner Prouty asking if there was someway that a park
could be mandated for this area.
CDD Koules noted that staff has shown that in larger projects
they have been sensitive to the open space and park
requirements; however, due to the cost of improving the
channel it might be an unreasonable burden on this applicant.
Mr. Bill Gable, again addressed the commission commenting they
had discussed parks with staff and it was part of the
environmental review package which is part of the report and
as Mr. Koules' stated because of the flood control channel,
it was suggested that they meet with the County Noble Creek
District and make an agreement with them to mitigate the park
issue. The developer is making a cash donation of $40,000.
to go into a fund the District has for their Regional Park
issue on this project - this is how they have addressed the
park issue.
CDD Koules then noted that staff has a standard condition that
is in all reports whereby applicant meets with the City of
Beaumont and the Parks & Recreation District to determine fees.
Mr. Gable noted their agreement with the Park District is for
$200. per lot. He went on saying that the discussions they
had in their ETR nror.ess was this nrniert. was not larne
PC minutes of
June 18, 1991
Page 3
is a potential of something like 800 residential units and
another 140 apartment - would a 5 acre park be sufficient for
900 family units?
Commissioner Prouty stated that the Park would serve all the
surrounding areas. The commission then decided that more than
one community park would be needed ranging in size from 2 to 5
acres.
Mr. Greg Barker, 1099 Pennsylvania Avenue, Beaumont, addressed
the commission commenting that what the commission is asking
is unjust and a financial burden on this development. He felt
that instead of another park, the money should go to help the
Parks & Recreation District finish some of their plans for
more park area which has been in the works for sometime.
Commissioner Prouty then commented that the financial burden
would be spread to all areas that would be benefitted from the
parks.
Mr. Charles Ware, owner of the project, addressed the
commission stating he has been 3 years trying to get before
the planning commission to get this map approved and doesn't
feel it is fair at this time to ask him to wait for the City
to do an analysis to see if they want to take some of his
property for parks. Noted there is a high school across the
street.
COD Koules stated there is a real value in small parks since
people with families use these parks and if this can be done
in a fair and equitable manner it would be beneficial. He
noted that direction is needed from the commission and city
council and staff will 'negotiate parks as best they can.
Mr. Dotson explained the financial arrangements whereby the
residents who will be benefitting will pay for the facilities.
He noted however, that the real problem will come from the
development that has already occurred before this Park Master
Plan was designed.
On motion by Commissioner Prouty, seconded by Commissioner
Echlin, the commission voted to defer this project for 60 days
to August 20, 1991, until the small parks issue is studied as
to where locations should be within this project (if any) as
well as future projects in the area. Motion failed for lack
of a majority with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin and Prouty.
NOES: Commissioner Burch and Chairman Ring.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Kisling.
This matter was again discussed at length by the commission
with City Engineer Dotson stating they need instructions
in terms of time and felt that 60 days would be an adequate
amount of time for this issue to be studied.
PC meeting of
June 18, 1991
Page 4
Chairman Ring stated he personally felt that this developer
should not lose acreage for a park after he has already gone
through the process - also what would the delay serve? Also
he would like to pass on to City Council the suggestion they
make lot sizes in the future no less than 45 feet widths on
cul -de -sac lots.
In response to Commissioner Burch's comment, Mr. Ware stated
he did not understand the significance of him saying yes and
further, he had already signed an agreement with the Parks
District.
In response to Chairman Ring's comment, City Engineer Dotson
commented that it would allow time to report back on the
feasibility or the possibility of getting a site somewhere
in the neighborhood that would satisfy concerns. He also
noted they may come back with five 2 acre parks sprinkled all
around in the area - move the parks a little closer to the
areas of population rather than concentrate on a single 10
acre parcel.
Mr. Greg Barker, again addressed the commission stating that
these questions should have come up a long time ago for this
project. Comes a time when developer's cannot afford to keep
waiting and keep being put off 60 or 90 days or whatever the
time period is that you are asking.
Mr. Charles Ware, again addressed the commission wanting to
know how he could help the planning commission or city council
if his project is postponed and a site is recommended
somewhere else.
Commissioner Prouty noted that the only benefit he sees is if
the study came up that this project happens to be part of the
project.
Ms. Jolene Weiss, Aware Development, addressed the commission
commenting that they have to do significant improvements in
this project one of which is Cougar Crossing which is going to
be about $250,000 and the channel has to be put in which is
about a $1,000,000 - the amount of money that has to be
invested in this project is enormous. Doesn't feel it is fair
that Mr. Ware suffer for any planning that may or may not have
happened. Ms. Weiss also noted that should the planning
commission defer this project, she would like for them to be
very specific on what they are asking the city planning and
the city engineer to review, what boundaries are they going to
look at for these parks.
On motion by Commissioner Prouty, seconded by Commissioner
Echlin, the commission voted to recommend deferring this
project for 60 days until August 20, 1991, in order to allow
staff to study the issue of providing park /open space areas in
the general area from Cougar Way to Brookside Avenue. Motion
carried with the following roll call vote:
PC meeting of
June 18, 1991
Page 5
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Burch, Prouty and
Chairman Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
There being no further items on the agenda, the meeting
adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
fh rry aSe retary
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
AUGUST 20, 1991
Meeting called to Order at 7:00 p.m.
Roll Call: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling,
Chairman Ring.
The Affidavit of Posting was read.
Burch, Prouty and
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. The minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of June 1B,
1991, were approved as submitted. The secretary read into the
record a change on the date for the heading of the minutes to
read "Beaumont Planning Commission minutes of June 18, 1991.
2. Oral Communication: None.
3. Director's Report: COD Koules informed the commission that
City Engineer Jim Dotson and Associate Planner Doug Fazekas
would be making most of the presentations since he had been on
vacation.
PUBLIC HEARING:
4. Parks /Open Space Area Study for the general area from 14th
Street to Brookside Avenue and from Beaumont Avenue to Cherry
Avenue. Applicant, City of Beaumont.
COD Koules informed the commission that at the meeting of June
18, 1991, staff was directed to prepare a park concept for the
northerly portion of the city. The planning department, city
engineer and the landscaping consultant working together have
done so and have called this "The North City Park Concept
Plan ".
Chairman Ring then opened the public hearing at 7 :05 p.m.
asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to
speak.
City Engineer Dotson then read verbatim to the audience the
"Report to Planning Commission Regarding Providing of Parks
with New Residential Developments Vicinity Cougar Way and Palm
Avenue ", dated August 20, 1991, as well as displaying
exhibits on this issue.
Mr. John Hart, Attorney with Reid & Hellyer, 3880 Lemon
Street, Riverside, addressed the commission stating they had
no comment to the concepts presented in the report but wanted
to address the applicant's participation on Tract 25272 in
funding some of these mini parks. They would have an
objection to this participation for the legal reason that it
is illegal and inappropraite as well as too late in time for
the commission to come forward now seeking the contribution of
+k;- A-11e111.1 Tho nnnl;ranf.Ic narltane and aoolication
Minutes of PC Meeting
August 20, 1991
Page 2
Commissioner Echlin then asked (pursuant to Dotson's report),
if the City may be able to acquire the Edison easement for
free and wanted to know how this could be checked on. CE
Dotson noted that Mr. Shelton's tentative map has to include
the 100' wide strip in one of the conditions of approval (in
the packets) and is labeled Lot 69 and Mr. Shelton is required
to deed this to the City in fee title.
There was discussion as to the location of the parks and
Edison's easement as a park with COD Koules noting that the
easement was meant as a riding trail and the concept was to
use the easement, the drainage channel, open space on large
projects to connect the whole horseback riding trail around
the city. CE Dotson noted that riding trails could fit very
nicely since there would have to be access roads.
CE Dotson went on explaining that the City Council
should get involved now and for the commission to request them
to ratify their action and then city council can bring in
consultants and create whatever park plan they feel is the
most desirable. He also explained that Deutsch Specific Plan
utilized the 400' easement for all sorts of parks.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Ring then
closed the public hearing at 7:35 p.m.
On motion by Commissioner Burch, seconded by Commissioner
Prouty requesting an expansion of the current report by City
Council, presented by the City Engineer on the parks /open
space issue and that they consider all alternatives in greater
detail. Motion carried unanimously with the following roll
call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Burch, Prouty and
Chairman Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
5. 87- TM -B(R) (Tract 23161), a revision of a previously approved
201 lot subdivision 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.
COD Koules informed the commission that the way the City
Engineer's Report reads is that you are looking to affirm the
North City Park Concept, consequently, items that will be
affected should be continued.
On motion by Commissioner Prouty, seconded by Commissioner
Burch to continue Items 5, 6, and 7, due to the parks /open
space issue. Motion carried unanimously with the following
roll call vote:
Minutes of PC meeting
August 20, 1991
Page 3
7. 90 -TM -1 (Tract 25272), 91 -MND -1 and 91- MMP -4, for a proposed
subdivision of 37.65 acres, consisting of 159 single family
lots, located on the northside of Cougar Way, approximately
2,000 ft. east of its intersection with Beaumont Avenue.
Applicant, Charles Ware.
Continued when Item 5 was called.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
8. 89 -PP -2, Am. 11, and 89 -ND -79 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.
Associate Planner Fazekas presented the staff report outlining
the project and noting that Condition No. 19 had been added.
COD Koules noted that it had been the practice in the past to
not go beyond the second extension and pursuant to
Commissioner's Prouty question, he further noted that the
commission could indicate to the applicant of their desire not
to have this extended another time.
On motion by Commissioner Prouty, seconded by Commissioner
Kisling, approving the second extension for Plot Plan
69 -PP -2, Am. #1 and Negative Declaration 69 -ND -7 and notice
being given to the applicant that this would be the last
extension for his project. motion carried unanimously with
the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Burch, Prouty and
Chairman Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
89 -TM -6 (Tr. 23646) and 89 -ND -9, a request for a one year
extension for a proposed 50 lot subdivision, located at the
north side of Cougar Way about 1800 ft. east of its
interesection with Beaumont Avenue. Applicant, Aware
Development.
Associate Planner Fazekas presented the staff report noting
that Mr. Ware's letter was asking for an extension of 24
months; however, only one year extension are allowable.
Chairman Ring opened the public hearing at 7:46 p.m. asking
for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to speak.
Mr. John Hart, Attorney with Reid & Hellyer, 3880 Lemon
Street, Riverside, addressed the commission stating they do
endorse the recommendation of staff and understands that it
should be a twelve month extension.
Minutes of PC meeting
August 20, 1991
Page 4
Mr. Hart continued to speak regarding Tract 25272 commenting
they were not prepared to waive nor extend this project.
Commissioner Prouty noted the commission had already made a
motion which was recorded and will go to City Council
for further review.
Mr. Hart stated the Government Code prohibits the commission
from attaching additional conditions on approvals for the
conditions that have already been recommended by staff.
Commissioner Prouty commented that this project was never
officially approved - was null and void due to the
notification.
Mr. Hart noted the applicant is in agreement with all the
conditions recommended by staff including participation with
the local parks group for contributions to local parks;
however, they object to the addition of new park requirements
that have been imposed subsequent to this application's
filing since at the time it was deemed complete. Government
Code Section 66474.2 states: "The local agency (commission or
city council) shall apply only to those ordinances, policies
and standards in effect at the date the local agency has
determined that the application is compatible or complete
pursuant to Section 65943 of the Government Code ".
Mr. Hart went on commenting that the statute prohibits the
creation of additional conditions and it is inappropriate to
add new conditions since it is a new issue proposed or
attempted to be proposed upon this applicant after the
application was deemed complete. The applicant has reached an
agreement with the Beaumont Parks District to exchange
mitigation fees in lieu of parks space.
COD Koules commented that he felt we were co- mingling this
Item 9 with the other previous item that was continued and
felt that Commissioner Prouty was right in stating action had
already been taken on Item 7.
Chairman Ring then closed the public hearing at 7:58 p.m.
asking staff for comments.
On motion by Commissioner Echlin, seconded by Commissioner
Prouty recommending approval by City Council of a one (1) year
extension of Tentative Map 89 -TM -6 and Negative Declaration
B9 -ND -9. Motion carried unanimously with the following roll
call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Burch, Prouty and
Chairman Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
There being no further items on the agenda, the meeting
AHimirnaH at 0:00 o.m.
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
SEPTEMBER 17, 1991
Meeting called to Order at 7:00 p.m.
Roll Call: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Burch, Prouty and
Chairman Ring.
The Affidavit of Posting was read.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. The minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of August 20,
1991, were approved as submitted.
2. Oral Communication: None.
3. Director's Report: COD Koules noted to the commission that
the minute Order, dated August 26, 1991 by City Council,
pertaining to the Open Space Study Area was included in their
packets.
CON'T PUBLIC HEARINGS:
4. 90 -TM -1 (Tract 25272), 91 -MND -1 and 91- MMP -4, for a proposed
subdivision of 37.65 acres, consisting of 159 single family
lots, located on the northside of Cougar Way, approx. 2,000
ft. east of its intersection with Beaumont Avenue. Applicant,
Charles Ware.
COD Koules informed the commission that this item had been
continued several times, it does propose 159 single family
homes and all are of minimum lot size of 6,000 sq. ft. with an
average lot size of 6,600 sq. ft. The proposal does meet the
zoning for the area, the general plan and the applicant has
worked extensively with the City Engineer to set up a street
network as well as the improvement of the drainage channel.
Chairman Ring then opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m.
asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to
speak.
Mr. Bill Gable, Civil Engineer, representing Aware
Development, addressed the commission stating they had read
the conditions of approval and takes no issue with the
conditions.
Commissioner Burch ask if the map showing the 42 ft. frontages
for the cul -de -sacs had been redrawn with Mr. Gable stating
"yes, they have been changed and are to scale ".
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Ring then
closed the public hearing at 7 :07 p.m. turning the matter back
to the commission for discussion.
Commissioner Burch then asked City Engineer Dotson if the
n..._ -- - --4- -a hl -.. Fnn ri ... i r,r 4e l
Minutes of PC meeting
September 17, 1991
Page 2
Tract map 90 -TM -1 (Tr. 25272), mitigating Negative Declaration
91 -MND -1 and mitigating Monitor Program 91- MMP -4, subject to
the conditions of approval. Motion carried with the following
roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Burch, Prouty and Chairman
Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Kisling.
5. 89- TM -B(R) and 91 -ND -89 a proposed project consisting of 73
lots of single family homes, located on the southeast corner
of Beaumont Avenue and Cougar Way. Applicant, Thomas Shelton.
COD Koules noted that this item had been continued and that
minimum lot size is 6,000 sq. ft. Also the City Engineer has
incorporated several conditions similar to those on properties
in this general area.
Chairman Ring then opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m.
asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to
speak.
Mr. Thomas Shelton, 11622 Seacrest Dr., Garden Grove,
addressed the commission stating he had a problem with
Conditions No. 3.03 and 4.01. Stated he was
willing to drill a well but would like credit for the cost of
the well. He commented that if these two issues can't be
resolved then he would like for his project to be continued.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Ring then
closed the public hearing at 7:17 p.m. turning the matter back
to the commission for discussion.
City Engineer Dotson responded to Mr. Shelton's comments
stating he would advise Mr. Shelton to withdraw his statement
asking for a continuance since he can request an appeal from
city council for these two conditions at the time of that
public hearing. He noted that this commission is in no
position to know all the ramifications that surround the
water issue. Mr. Dotson then read part of the conditions
from WDS Tract 23161 4.01(3) which says that drainage will
be underground.
On motion by Commissioner Prouty, seconded by Commissioner
Burch recommending approval by City Council of Tentative
Tract Map B9- TM -8(R) and Negative Declaration 91 -ND -8, subject
to the conditions of approval. Motion carried unanimously
with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Burch, Prouty and
Chairman Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
Minutes of PC Meeting
September 170 1991
Page 3
Chairman Ring then opened the public hearing at 7:22 p.m.
asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to
speak.
Those speaking in opposition were:
Mr. Paul Coppage, 10011 Jonathan St., Beaumont, addressed the
commission commenting he was a baseball coach at Beaumont High
School and stated that at this point they have the only
regulation size grass infield and baseball field in the City
of Beaumont and that he is here tonight to protect something
that is used by the youth in the community. He noted that the
contractor informed him that the field could be relocated
because they wanted to put a street through right field which
means the school would be giving up 60 feet of their field.
The school district did have a proposal whereby they would
try to relocate the field and the contractor was in some sort
of an agreement with this. The last thing he (Coppage) heard
concerning this relocation was that it cost too much money so
the project was dropped.
Mr. Bob Jones, 306 Tenth Place, Beaumont, addressed the
commission stating he was the principal at Beaumont High
School and commented that the developer came to the school
district with a plan to put in six or seven additional lots.
They (the school) had no problem with that so long as their
primary responsibility to provide for the education and well
being of their students were met. Apparently the contingency
plan developed by the district was not adequate or cost too
much money or simply did not meet whatever prerogative that
WDS had so they (WDS) decided to circumvent that and come
directly to the commission in an attempt to annex school
property to get these additional lots. The simple fact of the
matter is that relocating a high school baseball field is not
a matter of simply moving the bases, chalking new base -
paths and then starting up again. It is a very extensive
process. It is generally acknowledged throughout the De
Anza League of which Beaumont High School has been an active
participate for many years, that it is the single best, the
premier baseball field in that league. They are attempting to
protect the property rights and the current good conditions
they now enjoy.
Mr. Corky Cloud, 1114 Radke Avenue, Beaumont, addressed the
commission stating he was the high school varsity basketball
coach and the assistant baseball coach and commented that the
school is growing and if you take land away from the
field it would be a shame - it's the best field in the DeAnza
League. Feels there are some things that can be worked out
but they have to work within the concept —that if they're
giving something they have to get something in return. Have
to look at the options.
Mr. Matt Russo, 700 Birchwood Dr., Beaumont, addressed the
commission stating he was a concerned citizen and this field
Minutes of PC meeting
September 17, 1991
Page 4
Mr. Robert Guillen, 126 W. 5th St., Beaumont, Assistant
Superintendent of Business, addressed the commission stating
they had been working with WDS in the past on this matter. A
letter was sent on May 21, 1991 to Mr. James L. Dotson but
they had no response. In this letter, however, they stated
the initial cost of restructuring the baseball facility.
Their staff believes that the direct alignment of Cedar View
Drive does provide a benefit to WDS by allowing additional
lots to be developed and by releasing the potential homeowners
from obligation of an annual assessment to pay for storm drain
improvements - so there is a cost savings to WDS. He stated
they have not received a response from this letter from
anyone. Mr. Guillen ask that this not be approved and that it
be continued for further discussions.
City Engineer Dotson was then asked to comment on this project
and read the first page of his conditions for the audience.
He noted that this tract was originally approved by city
council in its entirety on May 23, 1988 and because the
developer opted to complete the subdivision in phases, special
conditions for Phase I were prepared pursuant to the
Provisions of the Map Act. Prior to the council approving the
original map in 1988 and continuing until now he has had
severe concerns about developing the most easterly portion of
this tract which resembles and will be called "Panhandle ".
In early 1988 the developer was encouraged and did attempt to
give the panhandle property to the adjacent Beaumont High
School - which offer was rejected. There are three maps which
depicts different roadway alignments and he (Dotson) proceeded
to place them on the wall explaining each calling them Version
1 through 3. The city council insisted that Version 1 was to
be adopted because it was desired to have a connection between
Palm Avenue and Cherry Avenue (Dogleg Version). Both Version
1 and 2 presented problems and the only reason that a
tentative map for Phase 2 of Mr. Simonian's tract is before
the commission is because he (Dotson) ask for it. Mr.
Simonian did not ask and was content to do whatever the city
said. Mr. Dotson went on to say he was here now because he
believes Version 3 which takes off a sliver of ground from the
baseball field is the most preferable to the city. Version 3
however, presents some difficulties which the commission must
consider, but it will in its completion alleviate the flooding
of 14th Street since as it has been pointed out Mr. Simonian
would have to put in a storm drain which would pick up the
water coming from the high school. Mr. Dotson noted that
three of the school people here tonight said that the school
had prepared some sort of a plan for the high school baseball
field to be remodeled - the high school made no such plan,
instead Mr. Simonian paid for and hired Roger Deutschman a.
Landscape Architect to make such a plan and, the high school
baseball field to be rotated according to this plan for
$112,000. Mr. Dotson went on to say that two of the school
people from the audience said that the applicant has appeared
here tonight as a means of circumventing and that is not
correct. The applicant is here tonight because he (Dotson)
__I_ iI_ ___..__1 l.l_ ___,]___a 2 _ . _t l l l__ a_ ____..— ...t a4.
Minutes of PC Meeting
September 17, 1991
Page 5
Chairman Ring then asked why the school district did not take
the property from Mr. Simonian in the first place with Mr.
Dotson stating he did not know.
Mr. Simonian commented from the audience that he had a letter
from the school district, which Mr. Dotson read: "The purpose
of this letter is to inform you that upon review by the
District, the District does not desire that you dedicate any
property in your tentative tract 23161 to the Beaumont Unified
School District, Sincerely, John Thornsley ".
Mr. Robert Guillen, addressed the commission again commenting
that the Office of Local Assistance (OLA) has to approve where
sites relating to schools can be located. They cannot locate
too many sites near power lines. To take this land the OLA
has to give their permission which would require studies to
see if it is a healthful environment.
Mr. Dotson commented that he would be very willing to sit down
again with the school and with Mr. Simonian; however, he is a
little reluctant to do so when the school says give and they
(the school) don't give.
Mr. Matt Russo, again addressed the commission commenting that
it may be that the school district people do not have an
engineer working for them with Mr. Dotson stating "they have
several ". Mr. Russo didn't think the school district had
really taken a look at the whole issue and suggested that this
be given a little more time which would be best for
everybody to look at again.
Attorney Ryskamp stated the testimony of Mr. Guillen was not
clear in his mind as to whether or not the school district
actually asked OLA to review the site or respond to it.
Mr. Robert Guillen, again approached the commission stating
they had looked at other elementary sites farther down and OLA
has said no to those sites.
Attorney Ryskamp noted to Mr. Guillen's statement that the
district decided that OLA would say no to this request so no
request was made.
City Engineer Dotson then asked Mr. Guillen what would be
their preference if the land was given to them - would you
want it? Mr. Guillen commented they would have to research
this at this point.
Mr. Bob Jones, wanted to know what requirements would be
placed upon the district if this land was accepted with Mr.
Dotson stating the city is not in the business of dictating to
anybody that owns land that they have to do something with it.
Mr. Guillen commented that the district has always been
willing to discuss this matter.
Minutes of PC Meeting
September 17, 1991
Page 6
Mr. Dotson commented that the former council with the
exception of one council member, insisted that this road be
carried through.
On motion by Commissioner Kisling, seconded by Commissioner
Echlin to continue this project to the meeting of November 19,
1991, in order to give the school district, Mr. Dotson and Mr.
Simonian time to discuss this matter at greater length.
Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners
Chairman Ring.
NOES:
None.
ABSENT:
None.
ABSTAIN:
None.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Echlin, Kisling, Burch, Prouty and
7. 91- PUP -2, 91 -U -1, and 91- ND -10,
setback variance from 25 feet to
narthex consisting of 480 sq.
existing church complex, and a
church complex, located at 1234
Gorgonio Catholic Church.
a request for a front yard
10 feet for a proposed front
ft. as an addition to an
Public Use Permit for the
Palm Avenue. Applicant, San
COD Koules presented the staff report explaining the narthex
and the variance which the applicant is seeking.
Chairman Ring then opened the public hearing at 8:00 p.m.
asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to
speak.
Mr. Ray Strebe, 666 West Gilman, Banning, addressed the
commission stating he is the project architect and they had
worked with staff and concurs with the conditions of approval.
Mr. Manuel Baldi, Member of the Parish, addressed the
commission commenting he had worked with staff and concurs.
Ms. Zela Narem, 12th and Palm, Beaumont, addressed the
commission speaking from the audience wanting some
clarification as to where this building would be and if was
going to be three stories high.
Mr. Manuel Baldi clarified her concerns.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Ring closed
the public hearing at 8:04 p.m. turning the matter back to the
commission for discussion.
On motion by Commissioner Prouty, seconded by Commissioner
Burch to approve Public Use Permit 91- PUP-2, Variance 91-
V-1 and Negative Declaration 91- ND -10, subject to the
conditions of approval. Motion carried unanimously with the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Burch, Prouty and
Minutes of PC meeting
September 17, 1991
Page 7
These two items were discussed at length by the commission
with Commissioner Burch commenting there is a need to have
larger lot sizes since lot sizes seem to be getting smaller
rather than larger which will eventually create problems. He
commented that he wanted to start the process of increasing
the lot size of single family dwellings as well as reviewing
residential high density zoning and general plan designations.
Attorney Ryskamp wanted to know if all residential single
family units built in the city are to be nothing smaller than
7,000 sq. ft. with Commissioner Burch stating "that's what I
prefer ".
The specific plan zoning was then discussed with Mr. Ryskamp
pointing out that you are dealing with about 4 different areas
and types of zoning in a specific plan. He further noted that
our Title 17 does not have any requirements on specific plan's
- they are created for each individual specific plan and a
specific plan has to have a density declared.
COD Koules explained that when a specific plan comes through
for processing then the zoning ordinance Title 17 is put on
hold. It is possible that even if you adopt the 7,000 sq. ft.
minimum lot size for the zoning ordinance there could be the
latitude of allowing a smaller lot size in the specific
plan. He further commented that he felt it would not be wise
to take the latitude away from the specific plan.
Attorney Ryskamp brought to the commission's attention that
with this increased lot size you would eliminate a lot of the
flexibility that currently exists in the trade off such as
park developments, etc. He (Ryskamp) noted that he felt the
question should be asked if a subdivision with 5200 sq. ft.
lots with affordable housing is more desirable than using this
same land for multiple density housing.
Mr. Matt Russo, speaking from the audience, commented that he
did not think 6,000 sq. ft. lots were unreasonable for
single family zoning. The key is to find those developers who
want larger lots but yet leave the bottom -end open since
anything below 6,000 sq. ft. needs to be approved by the
commission and city council.
COD Koules in response to Commissioner's Burch's concern over
the high density residential zoning outlined the various
densities on the zoning map and commented that he would look
at the areas zoned high density residential which are vacant
and then come back with a report evaluating those vacant areas
of high density and come up with a proposal. He would also
look at lot sizes and come up with a tentative revision of the
zoning ordinance to indicate the options available to the
planning commission.
COD Koules informed the commission there would be a Special
Meeting held on October 8, 1991 and these items would be
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF (SPECIAL MEETING)
OCTOBER So 1991
Meeting called to Order at 7:00 p.m.
Roll Call: Commissioners Echlin, Burch, Prouty and Chairman
Ring. Commissioner Kisling was excused.
The Affidavit of Posting was read.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
The minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of September
17, 1991, were approved as submitted.
2. Oral Communication: None.
3. Director's Report: COD Koules informed the commission that at
the City Council Meeting of September 239 19919 they (Council)
discussed the recommended 45' minimum lot width requirement
for cul -de -sac and knuckle residential lots; however, the City
Council favors a 55' minimum lot width. Mr. Koules stated
that at this time his recommendation would be that action be
deferred until some design input from the City Engineer and
others interested in the practicality of a 55' minimum width
requirement be received. He (Koules) also noted that he felt
55' minimum width would create lots that would be 13,000,
14,000, and 15,000 sq. ft. and this would discourage the
developer to layout land use with cul- de- sacs.
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
4. Minimum lot size requirement of 70000 square feet in the
Residential Single Family (RSF) zone.
COD Koules explained to the commission that the way the Zoning
Ordinance, Title 17 is now written under the Residential RSF
zone it does allow the imposition of a 7,000 or 8,000 sq. ft.
lot minimum if that is the desire of the Planning Commission
and City Council. He commented he had checked this
interpretation with the City Attorney, George Ryskamp and he
concurs that you do have the latitude to do this. He
cited the Three Rings project when it came before the
Planning Commission and although it was a specific plan with
its own zoning in the specific plan text, the action of the
Planning Commission was to impose the same standards as the
RSF zone but with the 7,000 sq. ft. minimum lots. He noted
he is trying to offer the greatest latitude to both the
Planning Commission and City Council since there might be
times to go with the 6,000 sq. ft. lots. Also there might be
certain instances when you want to trade -off for a small
park or other use or even a change of zoning from high zone to
single family zone. His (Koules') recommendation would be at
the present time to leave the zoning ordinance for single
family as it now stands since it does not take away the
Minutes of PC Meeting
October 8, 1991
Page 2
Existing Residential High. Density (RHD) zoned areas and High
Density Residential General Plan designation areas within the
City.
COD Koules presented to the commission a land use map of the
high density (RHD) zoned area that he prepared through a
field -check of the area. He outlined the areas that were
built -out and those that were vacant land. He (Koules) also
pointed out to the commission that there should be no pre-
judgment of any vacant pieces of land that might be before
them in the future for consideration.
After lengthy discussion, COD Koules noted that the general
plan is currently being updated by consultants retained by the
city and that the state mandates that zoning be brought into
compliance with the general plan. He further noted that any
such actions would have to be advertised for public hearings
and the commission should indicate their concerns so that at
the time of the general plan update all the land within the
city that is designated residential high density be reviewed
at that time.
On motion by Commissioner Burch, seconded by Commissioner
Prouty recommending that at the time of the general plan
review, the residential high density areas that exists in the
city be reviewed and any changes be taken at that time.
Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Burch, Prouty and Chairman
Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Kisling.
ABSTAIN: None.
Chairman Ring announced that the next meeting would be
November 19, 1991.
There being no further items for discussion, the meeting
adjourned at 7:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cherry ay
PC Se retA
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
NOVEMBER 19, 1991
Meeting called to Order at 7 :00 p.m.
Roll Call: Commissioners Kisling, Prouty and Chairman Ring.
Commissioners Echlin and Burch were absent.
The Affidavit of Posting was read.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. The minutes for the Special Meeting of the Planning
Commission of October B, 1991, were approved as submitted.
2. Oral Communication: None.
3. Director's Report: COD Koules distributed the Project Status
sheet to the commission identifying approved, pipeline and
pending projects as of November 1991. He (Koules) reminded
the commission that next Monday, November 25, 1991, the City
Council would be swearing in the new Council members and
electing a Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
4. 87- TM -B(R) (Tract 23161), a revision of a previously approved
lot subdivision 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.
COD Koules informed the commission this was a project approved
back in 1987 with over 200 lots, 75 of which have been built
out. After several continuances and negotiations with the
school district, the applicant (see attached letter) requested
withdrawal of his application.
On motion by Commission Kisling, seconded by Commissioner
Prouty to accept the letter of withdrawal from WDS
Development, Tentative Map 87- TM -B(R). Motion carried
unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Kisling, Prouty and Chairman Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioners Echlin and Burch.
ABSTAIN: None.
PUBLIC HEARING:
5. 89- CUP -2, Amend. B. and 89- ND -14, one year extension of time
for a proposal to construct a 4,100 sq. ft, manufacturing
building addition to an existing 21,000 sq. ft.
manufacturing /warehousing complex and the construction of a
new parking lot adjacent to the existing building on the
adjacent east lot. Project located at the southwest corner of
.... -. _.. ___. r___ n..__.._ ..: at. a4, .. .... .. 1.: .. .. I-4- �+- +hc