The future of growth in Beaumont and whether the city should limit the number of homes to be built each year was the topic of discussion at a Feb. 24 city workshop.
Beaumont city council members, along with planning director Rebecca Deming, acting city manager Elizabeth Gibbs and city attorney John Pinkney, were present.
Close to 100 people attended the meeting. Other speakers included attorney Robert Patterson, of the Palm Springs-based law firm Slovak, Baron, Empey, Murphy and Pinkney, along with Beaumont’s interim financial adviser, Urban Futures CEO Michael Busch.
The initial slow-growth proposal was introduced in Nov. 2015 by Beaumont residents John Dyson, Sam Patalano and Mike Ballenger, who asked that the city limit the number of homes built annualy to 350.
During the November meeting, Dyson told the council that the initiative was proposed to allow time for the city’s infrastructure to “catch up” with the population, in regards to transportation, roads, schools, water, sewers and protective services.
According to Pinkney, the initiative would need signatures from 10 percent of Beaumont’s registered voters and be filed with the Riverside County Registrar of Voters by April 20.
The city council could then either adopt the ordinance or submit the proposed initiative to be placed on the November election ballot.
Deming outlined the history of single-family home permits in Beaumont, citing that 2,295 were issued in 2005, which was the highest number of permits. The lowest number was 169 in 2011.
In 2015, there were 157 permits issued. Deming said the city is estimating that 500 new home permits will be issued in 2016 because of a new home builder in Fairway Canyon.
Patterson, a real estate attorney for the past 25 years, said growth control is a complex issue.
“In California, growth control ordinances have been approved by the courts,” he said.
The first major case involving growth management was in the city of Petaluma, Patterson said.
Patterson said that there needs to be a balance between the need for development and protecting the community’s right to live “somewhere beautiful, with a quality of life.”
Growth control ordinances should be used to further a legitimate interest of the city, such as preserving its small-town character, open space, protecting the environment, and a balance between different types of housing, such as multi-family and single-family homes.
“Individuals also have the right to travel and work in cities where they can find the best jobs and standards of living,” Patterson said.
Busch, of Urban Futures, then spoke about the fiscal impact of growth management.
Among the seven elements included in a growth management plan are: land use, housing, open space and circulation.
Controlled growth allows for more density development, he said.
Impact fees are charged for new facilities and a reduction of one-time revenue would hurt the city dramatically as it is working through its solvency issues.
“Most cities in California, before Prop. 13 was put into place, were either very small cities, not growing very large and the tax rates were frozen at that point,” he said.
Beaumont’s tax rate is 12 cents on the dollar, Busch said.
He said that when there is a master annexation agreement and property is annexed into a city, the county retains most of the money. The cities make up the difference by charging Community Facilites District (CFD).
Without the revenue, it’s hard for cities to move forward with providing services and facilities, he said.
Some cities in Riverside county are proposing a 5 percent increase annually in CFDs to cover the costs, Busch said.
“I would make the fiscal element a required element of all general plans,” he said.
Urban Futures is currently working on a seven-year plan for solvency in Beaumont, Busch said.
Following the presentation, council member Brenda Knight asked Deming how much it would cost to update the general plan.
Deming said a comprehensive update would start at $350,000. A majority of the cost is environmental documentation required by the general plan.
Mayor Pro-tem Lloyd White said he believed that the general plan has to be updated every 10 years. Deming said usually every 10 to 15 years.
The last time Beaumont’s general plan was updated was in 2007.
Council member Mark Orozco then asked about impact fees. Busch said that if there was a $600,000 general plan at $50 per unit, it would take 12,000 units to reach that cost.
Busch said he thinks that $50 is too low to charge for impact fees.
Every year, development costs go up and impact fees need to be constantly updated to maintain operations.
Busch said a city should do this a minimum of every three years, but ideally, every year.
Deming said that all developers pay the current rate impact free.
“We do need to revisit our general plan,” Orozco said.
Busch advised the city council that a general plan committee needs to be formed and provide recommendations to the council.
Council member Della Condon said she appreciates that developers are invested in the community, but is concerned that infrastructure needs to keep up with the quality of building projects.
She said that the initiative is a “symptom of the concern” among homeowners in Beaumont.
“It’s people saying, “We don’t want to be taxed with more infrastructure,” she said.
Condon said that seniors and young families do not need to be burdened with more taxes.
Mayor Mike Lara said he would like to see the tax rate be updated to 15 cents on the dollar.
Knight said she does not support the initiative because of the costs involved and the potential lawsuits could hurt the city financially.
June Lindsey, Facilities Director for the Beaumont Unified School District, said that their master plan was updated in 2013 and is constantly evolving.
Any change in the city’s general plan will affect the school district, too, Lindsey said, in regards to school designs, site locations, and projected enrollment.
Resident Jack Vander Woude said he has been developing property in Beaumont for 36 years, primarily residential development.
Vander Woude said that Beaumont has a high-family income compared to surrounding communities. If Beaumont goes forward with limited growth, he said that neighboring cities are willing to develop more homes. There are 7,000 new homes proposed for an area between Calimesa and Cherry Valley Boulevard.
Resident Steve Mehlman said that current infrastructure can’t provide services for the current community.
He questioned whether the community will have a say in the future of Beaumont, or whether it would be up to the developers and the city council.
Jeff Chambers, with Pardee Homes, said that his company also works with the school district and that Pardee owns the rights to build another 1,800 homes in Beaumont.
Homes are becoming unaffordable, the median household income has doubled in the past 14 years and the median price of homes have doubled.
Home ownership has increased from 54 percent in 2000 to 76 percent in 2014.
Bart Hollander, of Rich Development Company, said his company has a commercial project underway near Highland Springs Avenue and Second Street.
Potential retailers would be concerned about a limited growth initiative because it would mean fewer households shopping and living in Beaumont.
There is a correlation between population and retail demand, Hollander said.
Bruce McDonald, of the Dahl Property Group, said that none of the developers has the experience needed in recovery and is looking toward other cities for guidance.
Sean Balingit, a member of the city’s standing financial committe, said he is against the initiative. He recommended that the council not adopt the initiative and let it gather enough signatures to go on the November ballot.
Staff writer Julie Farren may be reached at
jf*****@re***********.net
.