Planning Commission approves 15-unit AEGIS Beaumont plot plan, flags utility pole waiver for council review

The Beaumont Planning Commission on March 26 approved Plot Plan PP20230591 for the 15-unit AEGIS Beaumont apartment project at 1360 East Sixth Street and recommended support for a potential waiver to keep an existing western utility pole in place while requiring undergrounding of remaining frontage wiring.

Planning staff said the application, submitted July 17, 2023, requests construction of a two-story apartment building with nine three‑bedroom units and six one‑bedroom units on a vacant 0.6-acre parcel in the Sixth Street mixed‑use residential zone. Planning staff also advised the commission that the project qualifies for a Class 32 infill categorical exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act. Jillian Fountain, planning staff, presented the project and the conditions of approval compiled from planning, building, public works, wastewater and police departments.

Project details in the staff report show the site requires 26 parking spaces and the applicant is proposing 26, 14 of which would be covered. The staff report states a downtown multifamily open‑space standard of 100 square feet per unit applies to projects under 20 units, yielding a total minimum open‑space requirement of 1,500 square feet; the presentation described the proposal as providing "18 25" square feet of usable open space (transcript phrase ambiguous) including a recreation area, community barbecue, patio and tot lot, and private patios or covered balconies for each unit.

Daryl Moore, the project manager for the applicant, asked the commission to allow relief from one portion of the condition requiring undergrounding and relocating a nearby Southern California Edison pole. Moore said undergrounding the service lines is acceptable, but moving the pole is costly, uncertain and time consuming because Edison will not provide pricing until after permits are finalized and because relocation requires consent from an adjacent property owner (identified in the record as an Extra Space Storage property). Moore said moving a single pole can cost far more than a district undergrounding and described operational delays and long Edison lead times since the COVID‑era.

Planning staff responded that the pole requirement reflects the municipal code and that a waiver or variance route exists for "unnecessary hardship" tied to topography, street configuration or underground obstacles; staff said the waiver process and the appeal routes would be handled at the city level and that an appeal of planning commission conditions would be heard by City Council. Commissioners discussed options for proceeding while allowing the applicant to continue permitting work.

Commission discussion emphasized support for undergrounding the service and communications lines along the frontage while acknowledging the applicant's concerns about the cost and uncertainty of relocating the single western pole. One commissioner said the pole appears to be a minor distribution/junior pole and expressed sympathy for an appeal to council or for processing a waiver if the property's frontage length qualifies. Commissioners noted that the municipal code change that instituted single‑pole requirements occurred while the applicant's plans were under review.

The commission moved and seconded a motion to approve Plot Plan PP20230591 as recommended by staff, and to note the commission's support for pursuing a waiver under the municipal code provision applicable to properties with frontage less than 300 feet to maintain the western pole while undergrounding the remaining lines to the east. The roll call vote was unanimous: Commissioner Cooley — yes; Commissioner Koblen (recorded in roll call) — yes; Commissioner Cueva — yes; Vice Chair Smith — yes; Chairman Satterlund — yes. The motion passed.

Staff noted several implementation steps remain: the applicant must satisfy the attached conditions of approval in the staff report (including public works, building, wastewater and police conditions), pay applicable transportation mitigation and development impact fees, and coordinate electrical design and vault work with Southern California Edison. Planning staff said there is an appeal window following the planning commission decision; any appeal or formal variance/waiver application would be handled by City Council or by staff according to municipal procedures. The commission closed the public hearing and advanced the matter to the next administrative steps.

The commission moved on to general planning manager comments after the vote; no further substantive items were taken on this application during the meeting.