Loading...
10/08/1987� I �— COUNTER COFY - PLEASF DO NOT REMOVE — FROM LIERARY COUNTER !! CITY COUNCIL A G E N D A CITY OF GRAND TERRACE REGULAR MEETINGS 2nd and 4th Thursdays - 5:30 p.m. October 8, 1987 Council Chambers Grand Terrace Civic Center 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace, CA 92324-5295 City Councilmembers Byron R. Matteson, Mayor Barbara Pfennighausen, Mayor Pro Tem Hugh J. Grant, Councilmember Dennis L. Evans, Councilmember Susan Shirley, Councilmember rhoma-; J. Schwab, City Manager Randa!i L. Anst�fie, Assistant City Manager David R. Sawyer, Planning Director - Nita Brown, Deputy City Cierk Joseph Kicdk, City Engineer Ivan L. Hopkins, City Attorney City Ork-� CITY OF GRAND TERRACE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS GRAND TERRACE CIVIC CENTER 22795 Barton Road * Call to Order * Invocation - * Pledge of Allegiance * Roll Call October 08, 1987 5:30 P.M. Staff CONVENE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Recommendations Council Action 1. Approval of Minutes 9/24/87 Approve ADJOURN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CONVENE CITY COUNCIL 1. Items to Delete 2. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS A. Proclamation - "Red Ribbon Drug & Alcohol Abuse Prevention Week" October 25-31, 1987 B. Proclamation - "Water Awareness Week" October 19-24, 1987 C. Proclamation - "Crime Prevention Month" October, 1987 D. Proclamation - "Colonial Heritage Week" October 4-10, 1987 3. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine & non -controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. Any Council Member, Staff Member or Citizen may request removal of an item from the Consent Calendar for discussion. LIM COUNCIL AGENDA 10/08/87 - Page 2 of 3 A. Approve Check Register No. 100887 B. Ratify 10/08/87 CRA Action C. Waive Full Reading of Ordinances and Resolutions on Agenda D. 1. Approve 09/10/87 Minutes 2. Approve 09/15/87 Minutes 3. Approve 09/24/87 Minutes E. Renewal of Entitlement Agreement with San Bernardino County Housing & Community Development Department. F. Request for donations from Colton High Yellowjacket Band & Riverside Sheriff's Association. 4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 5. ORAL REPORTS A. Committee Reports 1. Crime Prevention Committee (a) Minutes of 09/14/87 Meeting (b) Appoint Bea Gigandent to Crime Prevention Committee 2. Parks & Recreation Committee (a) Minutes of 08/03/87 (b) General Plan Update - Parks (c) Acceptance & Development of the Proposed T.J. Austyn Park (d) Pico Park Site (e) Commissioners Resignations (f) Snack Bar Update 3. Historical & Cultural Committee (a) Minutes of 09/14/87 B. Council Reports Staff Recommendations I Council Action Approve Approve Approve Approve Approve Approve Approve COUNCIL AGENDA 10/08/87 - Page 3 of 3 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS Staff Recommendations Council Action A. Appeal of Planning Commission's denial of SA-87-8 (CDS Engineering) B. Appeal of Planning Commission's denial of TMP 87-5 (C.G Engineering) C. Consider extension for T.J. Austyn - Continue Tentative Tract Map 13050 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Resolution designating certain areas of Grand Terrace Road as "NO PARKING" areas. B. Update on Volunteer Banquet. ADJOURN THE NEXT REGULAR CRA/CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WILL BE HELD THURSDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1987, AT 5:30 P.M. ------------------------------------------------ AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS FOR THE 10/22/87 MEETING MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE BY 12:00 NOON ON 10/14/87. CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGULAR MEETING - SEPTEMBER 24, 1987 A regular meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency, City of Grand Terrace, was held in the Council Chambers, Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on September 24, 1987, at 5:32 p.m. PRESENT: Byron Matteson, Chairman Barbara Pfennighausen, Vice Chairman Hugh J. Grant, Agency Member Dennis L. Evans, Agency Member Thomas J. Schwab, Executive Director Randy Anstine, Assistant City Manager Juanita Brown, Secretary Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney David Sawyer, Planning Director Joe Kicak, City Engineer ABSENT: Susan Shirley, Agency Member APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 10, 1987 MINUTES CRA-87-39 Motion by Vice Chairman Pfennighausen, second by Agency Member Evans, ALL AYES, to approve September 10, 1987 minutes. APPROVAL OF CHECK REGISTER NO. CRA092487 CRA-87-40 Motion by Cice Chairman Pfennighausen, second by Agency Member Evans, ALL AYES, to approve Check Register No. CRA092487 CRA meeting adjourned at 5:35 p.m. The next regular meeting will be held Thursday, October 08, 1987 at 5:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Secretary APPROVED: Chairman GiL'� A::;L; , En RED RIBBON WEEK October 25-31, 1987 WHEREAS, CALIFORNIANS FOR DRUG FREE YOUTH, INC., a statewide parent/community organization, and the CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOL AND DRUG PROGRAMS are co -sponsoring "Red Ribbon Week" October 25-31, 1987; and WHEREAS, schools, businesses, law enforcement, churches, hospitals, service clubs, government agencies, and individuals in the state of California will demonstrate their commitment for a drug -free society by wearing and displaying red ribbons during this week-long campaign; and WHEREAS, the community of Grand Terrace, California further commits its resources to ensure the success of the Red Ribbon Campaign; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Byron R. Matteson, Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace, on behalf of the entire City Council, do hereby support the RED RIBBON CAMPAIGN, and the proclamation of October 25-31, 1987, as "RED RIBBON WEEK" in the City of Grand Terrace, and encourages its citizens to participate in drug awareness activities, making a visible statement that we are strongly committed to live a healthy life. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace, California, encourages all its citizens to pledge: "THE CHOICE FOR ME...DRUG FREE!" Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace and of the City Council thereof. This 8th day of October, 1987. WATER AWARENESS WEEK October 19-24, 1987 WHEREAS, water is one of California's most precious natural resources; and WHEREAS, the health and welfare of the people and the state's economic growth depend on a reliable and safe supply of water; and WHEREAS, water also provides Californians with recreation and beauty as well as enhances fish and wildlife habitats; and WHEREAS, because water plays such a vital role in our everyday lives, it is important that individuals understand how they can use their irrigation water more efficiently; and WHEREAS, the goal of the Riverside -Corona Resource Conservation District, through their irrigation water management Mobile Lab program, is to evaluate irrigation operations on farmland, golf courses, condominium landscapes, parks, schools and other large turf areas; and WHEREAS, during Water Awareness Week, October 19-24, 1987, the District will be hosting an open house on October 20, 1987 to present the Mobile Irrigation Management Laboratory to all concerned individuals to demonstrate how the Mobile Lab evaluates irrigation uniformity, efficiency and application rates; recommends modifications in design, operations, maintenance or scheduling; and estimates the water and energy savings associated with the suggested recommendations; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Byron R. Matteson, Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace, on behalf of the entire City Council, do hereby proclaim October 19-24, 1987, as Water Awareness Week in Grand Terrace, California and urge all residents of the City of Grand Terrace to join in supporting the Riverside -Corona Resource Conservation District in their efforts to help Californians be water aware. Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace and of the City Council thereof. This 8th day of October, 1987. ,tGUraCIL ',"" _ a.9 OCT 0 CRIME PREVENTION MONTH October, 1987 WHEREAS, crime and fear of crime adversely affect the well-being and the quality of life of all citizens in our state; and WHEREAS, the financial loss, personal injury, and community deterioration resulting from crime are intolerable; and WHEREAS, it is essential to continue to distribute crime prevention information to the public and encourage its involvement in crime prevention programs in order to help reduce the number of crime victims in California; and WHEREAS, citizen crime prevention action has p proven to be a successful force in reducing crime; and WHEREAS, crime prevention adds immeasurably to the health, safety and vigor of our community and should be encouraged and supported by governmental agencies, private firms, merchants, schools, community clubs, and neighbors; and WHEREAS, crime prevention programs implemented at the state and local level require the support of all Californians; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Byron R. Matteson, Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace, on behalf of the entire City Council, do hereby proclaim October, 1987, as Crime Prevention Month in Grand Terrace, California and encourage all residents of the City of Grand Terrace to increase their awareness of and participation in effective crime prevention measures. Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace and of the City Council thereof. This 8th day of October, 1987. 11roic la Ina t-IL till "COLONIAL HERITAGE WEEK" WHEREAS, the California State Society of Colonial Dames XVII Century, descendants of the earliest settlers who came to America prior to 1701, will be celebrating "COLONIAL HERITAGE WEEK" during the month of October, 1987; and WHEREAS, the Roger Williams Chapter of Riverside has chosen the week of October 4 through 10, 1987, to observe this celebration; and WHEREAS, historical, heritage, genealogical, and other organizations interested in the preservation of Colonial records, history, and historic sites are invited to participate throughout the State with appropriate festivities and ceremonies; and WHEREAS, widespread knowledge and preservation of the Colonial history of our Nation are necessary to the survival of American democracy. NOW, THEREFORE, I, BYRON MATTESON, Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace, California, by the power vested in me by the Grand Terrace City Council, DO HEREBY PROCLAIM the week of October 4 through 10, 1987, as "COLONIAL HERITAGE WEEK" in the City of Grand Terrace, and I encourage its wide observation and support throughout the City. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this eighth day of October, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and eighty-seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twelfth. Mayor of the City of Granderrace and of the City Council thereof. T r k A I 1 Cl 1 S 1 i-' i fl� L N - It![') OCT check register no.100887 I r I N (-Ii[-( K C I t SCI II I I I eMr)I," T A r U U N f t. S 1-4 1 ,YT.1 -1 33.27 21 y CASK 11 A 1 I I I LG 5,) 59 .111' Al, Y t, S t PAYT . I? / 1 P C 1 43.72 43.72 C A . A e, 14 Y rASH I' AYT / 1 P C 10.81 10.81 r I !) I t N C ". 1111 A 1, Y CAST PAYT . 9/?l 5 C L 151.80 lDl .80 ?11 L A .(,AS (,()flf)PtJY CASH P A Y T . 9121 SCG 42.56 42.56 P 3 Ili I Ty CGsli PFII'B OAY Ll,RF,PETTY CASH 130.08 1 10 . 06 I, F p r ICK MAIN I. CO. M F E T . F / P 9 L) E 7 G CONTROL 20C .00 200.00 F 3 720 0 . C E I S( 14 COMPANY CASH P A Y T . 9 / 2 2 SCE 1 12 .10 112.10 7 A ( S ( 1! " P A N Y CASH PAYT-W22 S C G 31.85 31.85 A . I I St N COMPANY CASH PAYT. 9/?3 S C F 101.20 161.20 o "U. C A .(,A� CrIN 11 At, Y CASH PAYT.9/23S C C C G 37.51 37.51 I'' I'i I I It A' TI '-t I L I f I N POSTAGE FUN ME TI- k 19000 .00 1 C. o 0 .00 P � 2 P, I U , 1 1 ( S E 6E P' A I N T E N, A r'C E CLEAN S T 0 R.N 1) R A 1 N 9 M / V - V 19674.50 1,674.50 p 5 ? 7 C t . E D I S C.", C C -ki F, 4 N y CASH PAYT.924,SCE 13.16 13.16 r , ? " L A . ( • " ( t I` P A N Y C A S It P A Y T . ') / 2 '1 , S U G 3 '1 2 1 34.2 : 3 p 11 C 1 7 P L I I i- B U S I 1i I SS S Y S T L Pl S LEASE COP1 Ek -9/8 7 555.44 555.44 P 2 0 2 217 1 V I H ('P K I t, S LEGAL SVCS .8/87 2,857.33 2,857.33 P 2 c C i, . F I S I., \1 UMPAP Y CASH PAYT. 9/25 SCE 104.54 104.54 p ? C /1 7 2r, C C C)t t, N; Y CASH PAYT . 912`: ?SCG 1t.66 18.66 I N L 1UL11PLF REFUND 1) E P U I T C J M . I, M 15C.00 15G.00 F AN Y CASH flAYT. 1)12F ',(J 274.09 6 9 CASII I','. Y T . 1) 2 V S C G 81.51 61 . 5 1 p C, -IP4�:y C. 1- PAY, . I? ? C" S(: 27.40 27.4U ;1 C t.I F) f, Y T . L) 1: 1, (, C 14 .18 r' P Ar Y C f1 1',' Y T . W IG U I, r . il W 6 P L t- I K CI TY hi- ArI) I 61 AL V!1UuI!! E/CK F'iGI\Tf F' I l r ri I rJl' C •, V T(:III i \, r.' i ,•' Vi r,UI,P llY f•. I ikM Lf,1_CK C!'i C r +' ', ,i "I `'F CESCR I PT I (IN AMOUNT i h IUt.T 17'•` I\i til! 1 (t)UNTY SI-FPI'r I A`.,St l' Ilfl, TI() i.I/I,,0CSA 2I(,.G(`, 21u.uu 174',I h A`tiY 'UITUS HCTEL CONF.CMHTA,104kTE 3`_.00 35.00 174`,2 L(I'llA LI:q( A UNIVEFSITY CHEST X- RAY,RFCREATIOr: 45.00 45.00 174' LA'. WHIT! REFUNLI,WHITE,CLtSS CAN. 35.00 35.00 17414 AULUkA iZ. F,AY W.W.D.kLFUtvF,HAY 7.[0 7.20 17455 lu24 ACCENT PAINT E DESIGN SURVEYS FOR RECREATION 367.29 367.29 17451) 1134 ALL PNU CONSTRUCTION SNACK BAR C(,NST.WORK 7,700.00 79706.00 1.7457 1223 ATET INFCkrATI(IN -SYSTEMS RENT EOC PHONE 4.35 BAL.DUE TRANS PHONE JACK 1.98 6.33 17458 1360 BASTANCHUkY BOTTLED WATER RFNT COOLER,10/87,C/C 42.00 B/WATER,9/909C/C 41.90 RENT COOLER, DAY CAPE ,10/87 1.00 B/WATER,DAY CARE,9/-30 11.50 B/WATER,DAY CAPE99/30 5.75 B/WATER,DAY CAPE,9/30 5.75 107.90 17',`� 1 •`+` JUArtA i•I!!-'N5 PEC.INSTRUCIOk,PAI,T.PAY . 105.C,O 1015.0U 174P0 l6`.6 CAL IVOkNIA MUNICIPAL BUSINESS CMBTA CONF.DUARTE 126.00 126.00 17461 16t,0 CA PARKS E RECREATION SOCIETY MEMB.CPRS 87/88 80.00 80.00 17+,(,2 17tir' CfINSTANCI CHAP('AN CLEAN R/R,f'ARK,(4 DAYS) 60.00 80.00 1746 2 VALEkIE COFSKY REC.INSTRUCTOR,PART.PAY. 140.00 REC.INSTRUCTOR,PART.PAY. 72.00 2 12 .00 174(,4 If+E; CULTON YFLLOW'JACKET BAND DONATION,CULTON YELLOW'JACKETS 10G.00 10G.00 174(5 21)bl GCiLi)r.E_F 4,SS0CIATES,INC. PINS/T.L,.IEF PACE 250.36 250.36 174(r 4r iNTEkSTATF STRIPING PAINT CR(1SS WALKS 1,750.00 1,750.00 174(,7 4n FOLLY JA11ESOr, RFC. INSTRUCTOR 127.40 127.40 17 A F',t'FFril„ RE.,.1 +S1R(1tT(IP.PAFT.P1Y (,3.00 RE C. It.SI r,UC1 OF ,PART .1'AY. „G.00 121.00 174 'i rF:I-LIi IFtIrh LFh'OI. KEC.It:�TRUCT(1P,PAFT.PAY. 105.60 105.CU 1747, i I 11- At•Y F PA ('LYP11 IA 0 -..U,) ^:.TI in/rt \,ili.iEF E(F' tt(,ISTII. FU f 41t1(' u4 Van rpr;- \' (( V? i)( k IT[h ITiM CL(LCK CI f F' ' !i1''t ;I lftl (FSCk 11'1111r. A",!ONT AMOUNT f; I'Si HLi'! , irC. STl.TI01N 2?i.9j 25t.93 i7•,7 '. C' JC `: 'iY i F CkLISS.GU4kU,9/ii-9/ 18 T 114.48 114.48 17474 ,0 1-1CLEVAT0k (0{'1'n.'If Y (`AINT.ELI-VA1Uk,10/87 1Q3.88 193.88 17475 it :(' FLL PHnNE,Fi?C (.(I7 PH(i('F,CIVIL CLNli-F Nli.7c, PFIOr•;L, DAY CAPE 16.64 865.37 1747 54ti PLTF.k FNTFkPPISES PRINTING/CITY C L E k K 155.39 155.39 17477 S5S f I F kY'S SI:,TIOf,AkY ANI) OFFICL SUPI)LII=S 126.97 DFFICI- SUPPLIES 101.34 (III ICI "0F1,1 11', (.11-PICL S U P P L I I 11.78 OFF IC[ SUPI"LIFS 42.14 OFFICE SUPPLIES 129.11 526.13 i 7+ 2 1 FrTIY (nSH IrtCREASE PETTY CASH 200.00 200.0O 17471) 55F3 PETTY CASH RE1MB.P/C,UAY Cn•kF 106.00 106.00 --- 17480 5670 PRESS FNTERPRISE COMPANY LEGAL ADS 14.52 14-.52 - 17481 004 PI,,INPC11,, PACING SYSTEM SUPPLIES,TUUR DE TERRACE 252.25 252.25 174E2 f123 kALPH'S PLUMPING REPAIR R/R,FARK 222.16 222.16 17483 6144 RECO REFRIGERATION EOUIP.CO. MAINT.A/C,C/C 286.70 REPAIR A/C,C/C 252.52 539.22 17484 65;5 SA1, 1,tk'4An[,INO,CLIUNTY OF DUMP CHARGL98/I8/9/15/67 128.90 DUMP CHARCE,R/18-9/15/87 20.00 148.90 171,F5 PF,54 SICK CFNTEk NFIGHFURHGO(` WATCH SIGNS 424.88 424.88 17,,V , (_: 1 LI 11 �,T �. I I AL I',] S C('Mf ANY DAY CAKE SUPPLIES 82.74 82.74 1 74P 7 c.[2 S(IUTf-+ C0AS1 PUFRFk STAr'PS N A M F PLATES/BA1)GES 21.20 N A M F PLATFtiI'll n(ICFS NAMI 11LAII ll 'IA11 ILIC.(Il ILIt FLEC.CIVIC. CFNTLh 3,277.48 ELFC.P/P LiCIITS 203.43 FLF('.[;APT/I /Lr' fI FC."II(INALS (I) 315.32 F( [ C.S"kT 1,k( FkS.Pn•'F 1% .3 + , )94 .37 1 1 llil'r }n'. 'F(,FLATI(iN 0PFLII-S 1£'.1/ TI /C1 174 1 7 PAYROLL SEPT., 1987 ( I TY i F GP At l) 1 1 "F;A( I V [ I t I i/ CF 4'L(,1`,11 Iuc (;4 1'F' LLR 1 T I h P SCF I I T I fit u1C tPiLI ,TATTI(fv INS.I-UI n(1RKFFti.CIIhE'.INSh7 JUl'r "I i— I,Sf;N INSTRUCTOR,HL(.. 1, Y', RFLF LAT1(4, SUP PL I E S TOTAL CHECKS d PAI,F 1 T [ M CHECK AMnt-NT AM,UUNT 1r.t i u.1t+ 7hi.bi 7t?D.cI 14C.Cl0 141 Co 14Y.by 14b.C1) 219309.C?3 34,565.28 I CERTIFY THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE AFORELISTED CHECKS FOR PAYMENT OF CITY LIABILITIES HAVE BEEN AUDITED BY ME AND ARE NECESSARY AND APPRPRIATE EXPENDITURES FOR THE OPERATION OF THE CITY. THOMAS SCHWAB FINANCE DIRECTOR CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - SEPTEMBER 10, 1987 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace was called to order in the Council Chambers, Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on September 10, 1987, at 5:30 p.m. PRESENT: Byron Matteson, Mayor Barbara Pfennighausen, Mayor Pro Tem Hugh J. Grant, Councilmember 46V Dennis L. Evans, Councilmember Susan Shirley, Councilmember Thomas J. Schwab, City Manager/Finance Director Randy Anstine, Assistant City Manager Juanita Brown, Deputy City Clerk Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney David Sawyer, Planning Director Joe Kicak, City Engineer ABSENT: NONE The meeting was opened with invocation by Pastor Ray Williams, Grand View Baptist Church, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilmember Shirley. 4 Mayor Matteson convened City Council meeting at 5:35 p.m. ITEMS DELETED FROM THE AGENDA SPECIAL PRESENTATION Mayor Matteson asked if there were any items to be deleted from the agenda. The City Manager requested Item 8(A) Closed Session be deleted. Mayor Matteson introduced the new Deputy City Clerk, Juanita Brown, and introduced Councilmember Crawford with her new name of Councilmember Shirley. Constitution Week Mayor Matteson read a proclamation and presented the proclamation to Mrs. Cox, representing Daughters of the American Revolution, proclaiming the week of September 17-23, 1987 as Constitution Week. National POW/MIA Mayor Matteson read a proclamation and proclaimed Friday, Day September 18, 1987 as "National POW/MIA Day." Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen expressed her feelings about this proclamation and stated that Grand Terrace had a citizen, Colonel Merit, who was held as a POW for about eight years. A tree was planted in his honor and now grows very straight and tall at Grand Terrace School. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Matteson asked if there was anyone wishing to have items deleted from the Consent Calendar. CC-87-175 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen, (second by Mayor r Matteson, motion carried 4-1 AYES with Councilmember Grant abstaining. Item A - Approve Check Register No. 091087 Item B - Ratify September 10, 1987 CRA Action Item C - Waive Full Reading of Ordinances and Resolutions on Agenda Item D - Approve August 27, 1987 Minutes Item E - Approve to distribute old furniture from Fire Station to other CDF Stations PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 4r Mayor Matteson opened the meeting for public participation. Steven Perkio Mr. Perkio informed Council of graffiti on block walls in Grand 22401 Ladera Terrace which he had spoken to Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen about. He felt if the City would offer a reward people would come forward helping in the arrest and conviction of those person(s) who commit vandalism or deface public property. He stated a good way of getting the word out is through Neighborhood Watches, the Sheriff's Department, Chamber's Newsletter and the Foothill Journal. Councilmember Grant stated Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen had mentioned something about the amount of graffiti on walls in the southern part of Grand Terrace several months ago. He felt this was an excellent idea and was surprised that Council had not thought of it before. Councilmember Grant indicated he wasn't sure what the reward should be, but he concurred with Mr. Perkio. He stated he will put this recommendation on the agenda for the next Council meeting and asked everyone to think about what type of reward should be offered. Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 2 Mayor Matteson asked staff to do some research and bring recommendations back to the next City Council meeting. The City Manager informed Council it would be done and stated the City has a budget of $2,000.00 which is basically unallocated and non -departmental. He stated it is used for donations and can be used if Council would direct staff to develop a program. He stated it can be paid out of the budget and would not need a motion only a direction from Council. Mayor Matteson stated that there will be a penalty for those caught defacing public property and the fine would be used to pay the reward. �Mr The City Manager indicated staff will develop a program and put it in the next agenda. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated that almost on a weekly basis the City was having the flag stolen and at that time, the reward for the apprehension and conviction of whomever was stealing the flag was established. She felt this was an act of vandalism and theft and felt Council could piggy -back from that without coming back with a new action, since that was an official Council action at that time. Mayor Matteson asked the City Attorney if that could fall under the previous action? The City Attorney replied he wasn't sure, he would have to research it. Bill Dodge Mr. Dodge stated an ongoing aggravation for himself, neighbors 22887 Finch St. and those individuals bordering on the new construction going on between west of Observation, south of Finch and north of Oriole, are the Fieldcrest Homes that are going up in that area. He stated earlier in August people in the area became aware that the City had a noise ordinance preventing certain types of construction activities before 7:00 a.m. and after 10:00 p.m. Mr. Dodge stated he and some of the neighbors began to chart the activities that are going on there and had contacted the Sheriff's Department on each occasion when the builders had been in violation of that ordinance. Mr. Dodge indicated the Community Services Director and City Engineer were provided with a copy of the log. Mr. Dodge stated he and his neighbors are tired of the developers violating the noise ordinance and he would like Council to start some kind of legal action to stop them. He stated he had no objection to noise after 7:00 a.m. and up to 10:00 p.m. Robert Faries Mr. Faries stated the simple fact is the residents cannot stop 12491 Oriole the developers from interrupting their sleep, their Sundays and holidays. Mr. Faries pointed out the residents, the City Council or the Sheriff's Department have not been able to stop the developers. Mr. Faries stated two weeks ago a neighbor and Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 3 his son were roofing their house and the sheriff stopped them from doing so, as a complaint had been made. He stated you can stop a private citizen, a resident of this city, but you cannot stop a construction crew. Jim Sims Mr. Sims concurred with Mr. Dodge and Mr. Faries. He stated 22907 Finch the disturbances have been many and felt the City has the good wisdom to set up an ordinance to control these types of things and all the citizens are asking for is that they be enforced. Quentin Raaz Mr. Raaz stated he was not aware of the noise ordinance until a 12467 Oriole week ago. He stated he and his sons-in-law were putting a roof on his home and the Sheriff's Deputy came along and said there had been a complaint about the noise. After he was made aware of the noise ordinance, which at the time he wasn't, they quit roofing. He stated he had called the City about the cement trough and watering entering his home twice from the runoff and had been told by a fried that the trough had been approved by an engineer. Mr. Raaz felt commercial businesses should be forced to comply with the code, rules and laws of Grand Terrace. Marilyn Dodge Mrs. Dodge stated they were told by the Sheriff's Deputies that 22887 Finch prior to obtaining the building permit to start Terrace Hills Housing Construction, they had to sign an agreement to abide by the noise ordinance of Grand Terrace; that the contractors are fully aware of the noise ordinance, as the foreman has told the deputies that he knew about it. She wanted to know what can they do, is there any recourse. Mayor Matteson stated there seemed to be two problems, one the noise and the other, the runoff. He stated they should address them separately starting with the noise ordinance. Councilmember Evans stated he believed Council spent a good six months with the noise problem, which resulted in a noise ordinance relating to Inland Lumber. He stated Council came up with the best solution they could at that particular time. He stated construction workers want to beat the heat, but felt they should recognize the wishes of people in the community. Councilmember Evans noted once Council has established an ordinance, it is not going to be any good unless it is enforced. He questioned a condition of the building permit, does a developer have to sign that agreement? The City Engineer replied, "No," a condition of approval that is set upon the developer is "you shall obey all the ordinances of the city." He stated that is the only one that he knew of; there is no special document that he signs regarding the ordinances. He stated the developer was cited for a violation on August 4, 1987 and notice of violation was given to him at that time. Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 4 Councilmember Evans asked if this was for the noise ordinance or something else. The City Engineer replied for the noise ordinance. Councilmember Evans questioned if the City initiated that. The City Engineer replied the developer had been cited on August 4, 1987. The City Engineer stated he received today a copy of the list of violations from the one Mr. Dodge compiled. Mayor Matteson asked the City Engineer if he had any suggestions as to what can be done. The City Engineer stated he did not want to make suggestions, 4 but if there are any comments, he would like to hear them. Councilmember Evans stated it is not like Council had been inactive; Council had initiated something and obviously has not been effective. The City Engineer stated that is correct. Councilmember Evans asked if the deputy who had gone out to the scene had issued any citations. Detective Reynosa replied,"Yes." The deputies had been at the site, in the last month and a half, at least 36 times and on two of those occasions issued citations. Councilmember Evans asked other than the letter that the City Engineer indicated, has anyone directly contacted the developer on this project and expressed to him the problems that they have been having and the concerns of the residents. The City Engineer replied, "Yes," and the inspectors have spoken to the previous superintendent, as well as the current superintendent. He stated the citation was actually served on Fieldcrest Homes in the field and was also forwarded to their office, so the responsibility for compliance with the ordinance is certainly with the developer; he felt the subcontractors were also advised, so they all should be aware of the noise ordinance. Councilmember Evans questioned the City Attorney as to whether it was possible to file a restraining order against the developer to have them comply with the ordinance. The City Attorney replied a temporary restraining order is a document that is preliminary to a preliminary injunction to prohibit the continuation of a public nuisance, which in this case is noise. Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 5 Councilmember Evans asked the City Attorney whether it would be possible for staff to submit a letter to the developer stating that if they do not immediately comply with the noise ordinance, that the City will seek other legal means. The City Attorney agreed to follow through. Councilmember Evans asked that this be put on the next agenda for Council to see if they have complied within the two -week period and whether legal recourse in the form of a restraining order is needed. The City Attorney stated they probably would not wait two weeks, since there were so many violations and they had not complied with the law. He stated Council will be considering calling an adjourned meeting prior to two weeks and at that time Council could declare a public nuisance and seek the injunction. Councilmember Evans asked the concerned citizens whether this was agreeable with them. The City Engineer stated he will write a letter to Fieldcrest Homes advising them that their inspections are suspended until they come into compliance with this ordinance; this will not stop them from working immediately, but it will stop them at a point where they will have to have inspections in order to continue with the next phase. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated that the City is not going A, to favor the developer because he is going to bring in taxes as citizens pay taxes too. She explained the noise ordinance is called a nuisance ordinance and no one rolls on a nuisance ordinance unless someone makes a complaint. As far as construction defects, if property adjacent to this building site is being adversely affected by the construction project that is going on, it's our responsibility and your responsibility to see that that it is stopped. If it exists now, it should be corrected immediately. If this man's fence has been undermined, it is Fieldcrest's responsibility to see that the problem is taken care of immediately, not when the job is completed. She indicated she has concerns for the residents along Oriole. She stated if Council were to stop construction on that site today, the winter rains could cause big problems. She stated she would like to see the project finished because of what it is going to do down line. It should continue in a legal way, adhering to ordinances, abiding by building codes and all that ought to be possible. She indicated she has some real concerns about stopping the project at this point, but if that is what has to be done, she suggests hauling in sandbags to build a dam since there is no landscaping to stop mud flow. Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 6 The City Attorney stated construction activity noises are exempted from the probations of the noise ordinance prohibiting loud excessive noises. However, construction activities between 8:00 p.m., not 10:00 p.m., and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and Saturdays are not exempted and, therefore, construction sites cannot make loud excessive noises between those designated times, as well as make any loud excessive noises on Sundays and national holidays. Councilmember Grant stated we have a double standard and it is not the sheriff necessarily exercising the double standard, it's just that the big guy can put up with the pressure of government longer than the little guy. He concurred with the other Councilmembers on getting some kind of legal judgment against the developers because apparently that is the only thing that they are going to understand. Mayor Matteson asked the City Attorney if he started on this tomorrow, September 11, 1987, do you have to give the developers so many days to comply, what would be legal? The City Attorney replied he will start the process tomorrow to stop the noise and if they completely ignore us, then next week we will have a temporary restraining order preliminary to the injunction. Councilmember Evans stated he wanted it understood that he did not want to stop the development of the project; but that the developers comply with the order. The City Engineer stated that they also needed to address the drainage problem. He stated for the benefit of those concerned regarding the existing ditch it is not a product that will be accepted. Mayor Matteson thanked the concerned citizens for bringing this to Council's attention. However, this documentation started on August 4, 1987 and he wished they had brought this matter to their attention before this. He stated it takes the City a certain length of time to put things in motion and the City is here for the people, to protect them and to represent them, so when something like this comes up let the City know immediately. Mr. Dodge stated the developers have done this since they broke ground. He further stated it took the concerned citizens until August 4, 1987 to get a hold of the ordinance and to supply the sheriff with copies of the ordinance so he could enforce it. Mayor Matteson stated this is the first time Council was aware of this and Council will immediately take action. Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 7 Mr. Dodge stated the citizens do not want to shut the developers down. Mayor Matteson thanked Mr. Dodge and said they do not have to shut down, but they do have to comply. Mr. Faries stated he wanted something done about the drainage problem. The rains will be coming down into their yards and finishing the homes the developers are working on now is not going to stop the water. The developers are building ten to fifteen homes in the center of this development and they can put in all the landscape they want, but that is not going to stop the mud. Mr. Sims stated Engineer whether control plan to will not create have done this. he is a civil engineer and questioned the City the developers are required to prepare a road control drainage from within the tract so it the mud slides. He asked if the developers The City Engineer stated, in this particular case, the estimated date of completion for the public road has since passed so, based on their schedule, he felt that the area would be adequately protected from any potential mud slides or runoff, especially in the public right-of-way; therefore, in this particular case they were not required to submit a plan. Mr. Sims asked whether the developers could prepare such a plan since they are running past the anticipated schedule. The City Engineer stated he agreed with Mr. Sims, that such a 4 plan is an excellent tool, you can have the plan, but trying to implement it and having the cooperation is another thing. Mrs. Dodge Mrs. Dodge stated she prepared the response for the Southern Pacific Transportation Company Railroad litigation versus the City of Grand Terrace and filed it. She asked the Council to do them a favor and get the Temporary Restraining Order, if necessary. Dick Rollins Mr. Rollins stated he would like to remind the City Attorney he 22700 DeBerry did work out an ordinance for a law regarding a reward for vandalism of public property. Mr. Rollins indicated a reward was posted in the park when vandals burned down the bulletin board. He stated the City Engineer came up with the answer. The developers are paying over $6,000.00 a day in construction interest money, that time is of the essence and the developers are going to ignore you all they can to keep from paying other interest rates. He stated the way to stop the developers is to stop the inspection permits; stop the inspections and you stop construction; then the interest rates go up and that will force them to abide by the ordinance. Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 8 Mr. Rollins stated that by the City Engineer writing a letter it will be far more powerful than the letter the City Attorney writes because the developer want those subs in there to get the job done as fast as it can be done. Mr. Rollins asked permission to hand out copies of Assembly Bill 1637, which Barbara Riordan, 3rd District Supervisor, is spear -heading for SANBAG. He further stated the Parks and Recreation Committee is going to have an educational process with taxpayers of this County. ORAL REPORTS Committee Reports There were no Committee reports. City Council Reports Councilmember Councilmember Evans stated last week he was contacted by a Evans gentlemen who lives on the west side of the freeway in regard to a problem involving the truck swampers and the traffic problems they are creating along Barton Road. He had passed the information on to the Community Services Director and was curious as to what current status is. The Assistant City Manager stated they notified the Sheriff's Department, and those individuals that were stopped and parked in the public right-of-way where it was posted no parking, were moved on. He stated there are some individuals that are parking on private property and the City has no control over that property. He thought Mr. Hughes and some of the residents 4 from Grand Terrace Road have submitted a request to the Mayor and members of the City Council to designate certain areas along Grand Terrace Road as "No Parking" areas. Councilmember Evans requested the Assistant City Manager to review the letter and see if it would be appropriate to place "No Parking" signs in those designated areas and hopefully resolve the problem. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated the City needs to talk very carefully to the people along Grand Terrace Road to find out what can be done and advise them of how restrictive the solution can be. She stated the other thing that she is concerned about is the condition of the private property upon which these people are parking. She felt the property should be inspected for health and fire hazards. We need to make them remove the trash and garbage, and if they are not using proper toilet facilities, then the City needs to do something about that. Mayor Matteson noted that the piece of property is in escrow and will be developed soon. Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 9 Councilmember Evans asked the Assistant City Manager if he had already inspected the property. The Assistant City Manager indicated staff made a visual inspection after Councilmember Evans reported it to staff and staff notified the County of San Bernardino Environmental Health Department and the appropriate notices of violation are being prepared. Councilmember Evans stated as far as the impact of no parking signs, it was explained to Mr. Hughes that he was to contact the people who would directly be impacted by any potential signs. He stated the letter that was submitted had the concurrence of all the property owners in the immediate area. He stated it is his understanding that the owners are fully kaware that if the signs do go up, it will have some impact. The Assistant City Manager stated he would assume that if those individuals who are going to be impacted by the proposed "No Parking" area, concur with that request and it will then be placed on the agenda for the City Council to take the appropriate action, to so designate that as a "No Parking" area. Councilmember Grant concurred with the other Councilmembers; sees it five mornings a week and felt it is a very sad situation. He wondered to what extent, if any, Stater Bros. Company could assist the City in this. He stated Warren Coake is the chief security man for that company and felt something ought to be done to involve Mr. Coake. Mayor Pro Tem Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen indicated she and Councilmember Pfennighausen Evans attended the first Municipal Water Advisory Board Commission meeting after they were selected to do so. She indicated they are going to be addressing 14 specific areas of concern that was brought forth to them through a survey done throughout the Municipal Water District and they are going to tackle the first five at the next meeting and will report back to the people at that time. Mayor Matteson stated Victor Construction is planning on doing a complex down on Commerce Way, but they don't want to wait until the General Plan is approved for that area. He stated they would like to have a meeting with the City Council to get input next week to get the feel of Council and Planning Commission. He asked how Council felt about this meeting and stated he, personally, felt it is good to get an idea before the developer gets too far into his plans on what we want for the City down there. Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 10 Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated the meeting would be a workshop -type atmosphere to give them some idea of the feeling or the problems that people are going to have with the project; it will be fully open to the public. This project is a first -quality commercial development within our community. Time is money and the development has funding. Funding doesn't last forever and we would like to facilitate this with the least impact. She further indicated we want to get it through in a timely manner to a positive result within the City. Mayor Matteson set the date and time for Tuesday, September 15, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. and asked the City Manager to contact the Planning Commission. The City Manager stated he would contact Planning Commission and would advertise the meeting. He asked if Council wanted to put the issue of the restraining order on as well. Mayor Matteson indicated that would be a good idea. Councilmember Evans suggested that the Chamber be invited to the meeting and requested the City Manager to also notify them. The City Manager indicated he would notify the Chamber and run an ad in the Sun and Riverside Press. Mayor Matteson notified everyone that October 10, 1987 will be Grand Terrace's free dump day. Mayor Matteson called for a ten-minute break at 6:40 p.m. before going into Public Hearing which was scheduled for 6:30 p.m. Council reconvened at 6:50 p.m. Item 6(A) The Planning Director stated on August 17, 1987, the Planning Appeal of Commission denied CUP 87-7 (Keeney), an application for a Planning Conditional Use Permit allowing the operation of a combined Commission's recreational vehicle park and retail shops facility to be (Keeney) located in the City C-2 zone. He stated subsequently that Mr. Robert Keeney has appealed the Planning Commission decision to the City Council. The Planning Director stated Mr. Keeney proposes a total of 11,600 square feet of commercial floor space and 1,300 square feet of floor area devoted to the RY park. The Planning Director read the description and proposed uses of the commercial and RV areas. He indicated if Council approves this request, staff recommends several conditions to be made part of the Conditional Use Permit. He further stated these conditions are contained in the attached proposed resolution and include recommended conditions by the Planning Department, Engineering Department, the Department of Forestry, the Department of Transportation and the Department of Environmental Health Services. Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 11 He stated the Planning Department's original recommendation to the Planning Commission was for approval of this application as conditioned by staff. He noted that it was staff's opinion that the development of this parcel would be better suited to a larger retail restaurant development combining this parcel with the adjacent parcel to the east. However, the existing developments on these parcels and the availability of other potential sites in the area, which are more attractive to developers at this time should keep such a development from occurring in the near future. For this reason staff feels that this project, if recommended, is an appropriate use for the subject property at this time and, therefore, staff recommends City Council approve Conditional Use Permit 87-7 as recommended and conditioned in the resolution. 4 Robert Keeney Mr. Keeney stated this is a combined -use project that consists 12139 Mt. Vernon of a commercial center on the front portion of the property; approximately one and a half acres of commercial and an RV park on the rear of the northerly property approximately three acres; indicating the commercial center having approximately twelve thousand square feet of rentable space. He noted they are trying to get different tenants in there, such as restaurants, convenience stores, a hardware store and a laundromat which will serve both the RV park and the community, and any other use they feel is compatible in that C-2 zone. Mr. Keeney stated the RV park will have approximately 115 spaces with a spa, attractive landscaping, greenbelt, a club room and restroom facilities. He stated the RV park will not be easily visible from Barton Road, Grand Terrace Road or LaCrosse, indicating he knew this had been a major concern of some of the citizens that have questioned this project. Mr. Keeney indicated the first front third of the project will be entirely commercial and the way the property is, it will slope on a gentle rise for about a third of the project. The RV park portion of it will slope toward the north. He stated they have met with the neighbors and have their confirmation on the project if they meet their concerns. He stated they feel this project will be a catalyst for future development on the west side of the freeway and Grand Terrace. He indicated in the development process of this project, Barton Road will be widened to an ultimate width of one -hundred feet of the right-of-way and seventy-two feet to curb and it should alleviate the traffic problem we are having there now. Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 12 Mr. Keeney stated the property is approximately 250 feet wide and 1,000 feet deep and, because of its unique shape, this combined project makes a good use of the frontage with visible commercial and also offers a site cover for the RV park. He stated they plan to have an attractive design with the town and country look compatible with Grand Terrace's current desires for architectural landscaping. He noted the project is an effort on their part to bring commerce to Grand Terrace. They want to upgrade the area with a project that is compatible with the neighbors and the City of Grand Terrace and would appreciate a favorable consideration from Council. Mr. Keeney indicated he would be happy to answer any questions or concerns. fkaw Mayor Matteson opened the meeting up to the public to find out if there are any comments on this, either pro or con. Steve Perkio Mr. Perkio stated he had not heard of any of this before; he 22401 Ladera missed the other Council meeting where this was brought up. He stated he has done a lot of camping with his wife and felt an RV park would be nice to have in town as long as it is nicely landscaped with nice facilities and is quiet for all the neighbors. He felt it would be a great thing to have people coming from out of town with their motorhomes to have a place to stay. Lois Pierce Mrs. Pierce indicated she had been to their neighborhood 21845 Grand meetings and felt this would be a great addition to their side Terrace Road of the freeway. They had a few concerns, such as the lighting which they would like to have low enough so that it didn't disturb the residents at night. They have been assured it is going to have a solid fence; a chain link fence would be unattractive. She further stated they had assured the residents there will be 24-hour supervision to take care of any problems that might arrive, and the emergency exit that they have proposed will indeed be used just for emergencies. Since the rest of the supporters did not show up, she would like to encourage Council to adopt this plan. Douglas Bruno Mr. Bruno stated he is affiliated with Moore Construction Moore Constr. Development Company from Riverside, and they are very Development interested in this particular project because they may be Company coming to the area with a development of their own. He stated they are presently negotiating on some property which he would rather not discuss or reveal at this point. However, if this goes they will be relatively close neighbors to this project and it will enhance the area. It is encouraging to see that development is coming up on the west side and he felt right now there is a traffic problem which was a concern to them. He indicated this will lend a lesser traffic problem because of the RV parking and, if it were all commercial, that would really put additional stress in that area for parking and for traffic flow coming on and off of Barton Road to the freeway. Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 13 Bruno stated he was in favor of the project and felt it encouraging from a developer's standpoint. Sandy Collins Mr. Collins stated he was not for or against this project 22697 Brentwood because he did not know much about it, but he heard people here tonight say they are in favor and heard the Planning Director state that you should approve it. He pointed out the reason the project is before Council tonight is because the Planning Commission denied it and he had not heard anyone say why. The Planning Director stated the reason the Planning Commission did not approve this Conditional Use Permit was based on traffic impact and the feeling that this area was not suited for an RV type development. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she attended the Planning Commission meeting when this item was discussed and at the end of the discussion before the voting, they had managed to attach 45 conditions onto this project. She stated she was thinking Mr. Keeney wouldn't go for these conditions, but he did. She indicated she left the room completely confident that with all of those conditions which had been placed on it to mitigate all of their concerns that there would be nothing that the Commission could do but approve the project. She stated she left the meeting and three minutes later she heard the Planning Commission had completely done a reverse on the direction that they had been taking on the discussion. She told Mr. Collins she did not know why the project was denied and she sat through the whole meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she did not have a particular love for the project and had told Mr. Keeney that from the beginning. The obvious best use is to combine all of those parcels and have a large project, but in order to do that, someone has to be willing to gather all of those pieces together and there doesn't seem to be a meeting of minds. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated that earlier this evening, Council had something before them that not long ago was a problem on this particular property; the same swampers were using this piece of property for a variety of uses that they seem to find for vacant property. The swampers are gone and now the property is just sitting there. If Mr. Keeney can mitigate all of the factors of concern, the project should go through. She also indicated if all criteria on the project were met, she would vote in favor of this appeal. Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 14 Council member. Grant stated he wanted to see total commercial development in that area and had expressed that opinion to Mr. Keeney. He stated he thought Mr. Keeney had done his best and it would be to Mr. Keeney's benefit to combine that with other properties. Councilmember Grant felt Mr. Keeney had been sincere in his efforts to make something better out of that than what it is going to be and he concurred with Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen. He stated he read the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting; read the details; looked at the 40-odd number of conditions and he cannot justify in good faith why he should go against this appeal. Councilmember Shirley stated she felt Mr. Keeney is very forward thinking in being able to put together a project of kw this type as he has stated. She said an RV park can be easily removed for a better use of that real estate. In talking with Mr. Keeney, he pointed out to her Item 38 in the stipulations whereby the Department of Transportation had recommended that there only be one ingress and egress into this property and to use the emergency exit as the second exit and entrance into this property. She indicated she liked the way the plan is drawn; that Council has here an exhibit with two entrances and, as the people who live in the area have stated, they want that emergency entrance strictly left for emergencies so that there will not be traffic through their neighborhood. Councilmember Evans stated when this project first came before the Planning Commission the question was whether or not an RV #aV park was an allowable use in a C-2 zone. The Planning Commission found that it wasn't an allowable use. The surrounding property owners spoke in favor of Mr. Keeney's project. Councilmember Evans stated he needed a legal opinion or explanation from the Planning Director on the change. He indicated that in the staff report of June 25, 1987, the Planning Director indicated, based on the Planning Commission's decision, that this RV park is not compatible with the type of development Grand Terrace is trying to obtain in the areas the City currently has zoned C-2. It was his recommendation that this was not a permitted use in the City's C-2 zone. Now, we come up to September 10, 1987, where you agree it would be nice to have this parcel assembled into a larger parcel. It had been discussed, in the past, the assembly of three parcels where you can have a larger retail or restaurant development. The general concensus was that side of the City will probably not develop as rapidly as some other areas. Now, the recommendation is that Council approve the project. Councilmember Evans stated he liked to rely upon input from staff's expertise, as well as the input from our Planning Commission. Why the flip-flop? Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 15 The Planning Director stated, the prior action was actually. taking a look at the determination of use and not the individual project itself. He stated if that was approved at that time as a use within the C-2 zone, we would then be approving an RV park type of use on any piece of property that's zoned C-2 in the City. He agreed with the Planning Commissioners that it is not something that we wished to put into our code. He stated the second recommendation that the Planning Department has for Council tonight follows up on a item of law that the City Attorney can explain a little better, that we cannot outlaw any particular use in the City and because an RV park is not allowed in any particular zone in the City neither as permitted or with a Conditional Use Permit. He indicated they then have the right to apply for a Conditional �br Use Permit on any particular site in the City and that is what they have done this time. The Planning Department has taken a look at it from the staff's point -of -view and the Planning Commissioners point -of -view as to whether or not an RV park as presented in this proposal is appropriate for that particular use and, as you have read, the Planning Commission and Mr. Keeney disagreed on that and that is why the applicant has appealed. Councilmember Evans stated Council has no problems as far as the project complying legally with any of the conditions. The Planning Director stated, as long as they can come back, one of the conditions of this Conditional Use Permit is that an Architectural Review Hearing be held which is part of the code requirement. At that time, a revised site plan, which meets all the conditions that we placed on it in this particular Conditional Use Permit meets all the standard ordinance requirements should be presented to the Site and Architectural Review Board for approval. He noted that particular plan would need to meet all the regulations and these conditions. Councilmember Evans stated that the rendering we have this evening shows two entrances and two exits. Caltrans has shown that because of this close proximity to the freeway right-of-way, they will only go with one. How does that change the traffic impact as it goes out onto Grand Terrace Road? The Planning Director stated Caltrans' actual recommendation and ratio recommendation in their memo stated that the driveway should be pushed as far westerly away from the interchange as possible and that there only be one -access way onto Barton Road and that the emergency road entrance be used as a second entrance. He stated that is not what staff is recommending. Staff is agreeing with the Department of Transportation that there should be one driveway on Barton Road as far westerly as possible, but that driveway be constructed in a manner that is wide enough to handle the egress and ingress as a one driveway Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 16 facility and that emergency entrance be kept as an emergency entrance only. He stated because of that, there will be some internal revisions that will be needed in order to allow the turning ratios, but the traffic generation will be the same on Barton Road as it is here which is put together into one driveway rather than two. Councilmember Evans asked the Planning Director to explain Item No. 7. Mr. Keeney indicated Barton Road will be widened to a 100-foot right-of-way with 72-foot curb -to -curb as a result of his project and questioned whether Mr. Keeney would be willing in that area to do both sides of the street. The Planning Director indicated asking Mr. Keeney, because he wasn't sure what the intent of that memo was. Mr. Keeney stated he wasn't willing to develop both sides of the street. Councilmember Evans stated he did not like the project because he felt it wasn't the best usage for the City, but from a legal standpoint, and the input from staff, he can't find anything in which to deny the project, if Mr. Keeney meets all the conditions. He stated he would much rather see all the parcels assembled into a larger development which he felt would be more of an asset for this community. However, since staff feels this is not a reality at the moment, he can only support it at this particular time. CC-87-176 Motion by Mayor Matteson, second by Councilmember Grant, ALL (,, AYES, to grant the appeal of Planning Commission's decision of CUP 87-7. Undergrounding The City Engineer stated at the August 27, 1987 Council meeting, Council adopted Resolution 87-20 setting a public hearing on Council's intention to 100 lb. certain overhead facilities along Barton Road, including the Southern California Edison, Pacific Telephone and Cable Television facilities and, in that same resolution, Council set a public hearing for September 10, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. The City Engineer stated he had met with Southern California Edison personnel. The original map indicated the westerly boundary could be the easterly right-of-way line of the freeway which would include the parcel on the northwest corner of Vivienda and Barton, and the parcels fronting on Barton Road westerly of Michigan, specifically the service station on the south west corner and the service station adjacent to the freeway and the design center on Barton Road. He indicated it had been requested that the boundary be amended to go easterly along the center line of Vivienda, center line of Barton Road and center line of Michigan Street, thus, eliminating the four Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 17 parcels west of M.ichigan and Vivienda on both sides of Barton Road between those two streets and the freeway. In addition, it had been suggested that certain parcels within the boundaries remaining have an overhead pole set close to that building that actually supports the lights from the Edison Company facilities on Barton Road right-of-way close to their homes and then drops from that pole down into the meter which is fairly close to the structure. He stated it has been suggested that if the City Council so desires, they can eliminate the undergrounding of the overhead facilities from the poles close to the structure to the meter, thus saving some money. As we discussed previously, one of their considerations that was given to the property owners for the dedication was the total undergrounding or the undergrounding of all those facilities. He stated staff, at this time, is recommending that the boundaries be amended to eliminate the four parcels westerly of Vivienda and Michigan. With respect to the elimination of the undergrounding from the on -sight poles to the meters, he felt this is something that the City Council might want to discuss in further detail before staff would even consider recommendations on that. Mayor Matteson asked why were we eliminating those areas west of Vivienda and Michigan? The City Engineer stated he had a misunderstanding with the Edison Company representative when they met; he thought they indicated the last pole that would remain would be just easterly of the freeway right-of-way on the south side of Barton Road. He stated what the Edison Company needs to do is take the next pole down which is between there and the Corner of Michigan and Barton. He stated the 4 pole on the southwest corner of Michigan and Barton would be eliminated; the one just to the west of that would remain. Two reasons, (1) the budget that they have prepared for the funds did not include the relocation or the eliminating of that pole and; (2) they need to anchor that pole just easterly of the freeway right-of-way of Barton Road. He stated there is no place to anchor that pole therefore, the second pole, the one before the freeway and the one at Michigan and Barton, are the only ones they can really anchor to maintain the line going westerly that is to remain over the freeway right-of-way. Mayor Matteson asked if he was saying the one on the corner of Michigan and Barton Road would be eliminated. The City Engineer stated the one on the southwest corner would be eliminated. Mayor Matteson said the other question is if you put a pole on there, you run the Edison lines underground and then you come up to a pole, wouldn't that be more expensive than if you just came up to the houses up to the meter? Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 18 The City Engineer stated probably not because you still have to come up to the meter which is probably the same as coming up the pole. However, you still have to convert the meter to the underground facility from the overhead and that is a conversion on the house itself. He stated, again, he wanted to remind the City Council that in the transmittal to the property owners, staff did tell them that the City would underground to the house and this was a suggestion from the Southern California Edison Company that if we wanted to save some money, this would be one place where we could. He stated there is a total of five residences involved in that particular situation. The City Attorney stated he wasn't certain of the communication, the pole on the southwest corner of Barton Road and Michigan, would it still be standing? Mayor Matteson responded, no sir. The City Attorney asked if it would be underground and the response was yes. Mayor Matteson asked if staff is recommending that you put in the pole instead of going directly to the house? The City Engineer stated staff has to honor the transmittal to all the property owners and staff said that we would pay for that portion of the conversion on private property to complete the undergrounding. Mayor Matteson asked how much difference the City Engineer is talking about going from a pole to changing a meter over. The City Engineer replied, "You are probably looking at an estimated additional $400.00 or so." Councilmember Shirley asked about the people who had deeded property to the City and we promised them we would underground to the house; she felt Council should honor that. She felt it would be much better for the City if we could underground the whole thing; if we are going to start with one part of it, lets do it right. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked if there were poles on the north side along the Grand Terrace School property. The City Engineer replied not Edison Company poles, but a telephone line along the frontage of that property and the service coming to the Community Center is where the telephone service is coming off of that system. The Edison Company services to both the Community Center and the School is from a system that is far removed from Barton Road. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen questioned, "would it be reasonable in the City Engineer's estimation to pull those telephone lines underground as we are doing everything else?" Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 19 The City Engineer replied the telephone lines from Vivienda easterly, which is all on the north side of Barton Road, is going down and so is the cable, there will be no facility. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she understood that what he was saying is that does he feel it would be unreasonable to take those telephone poles down and put the rest of that telephone service underground? The City Attorney asked, "along the frontage of the school property?" He thought it came under Rule 20 regulations and wasn't sure we could ask the telephone company to go underground without asking Edison to go underground in the same boundaries. He stated that means if we ask the telephone company to go underground along the northerly side of Barton Road between Vivienda and the freeway, there is no Edison facilities in that area and he wasn't sure of what the legality would be. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she heard what the City Engineer was saying. It does seem to piggyback to what Councilmember Shirley said that if we are going to do it, do it right and, if that is right, then we need to do it. She stated there is a definite reason why Edison has recommended retaining that pole on the south side of the street and that makes sense. She stated we want to clean up Barton Road; to beautify the entrance into our City, we want to put everything underground and we are going to leave poles on the north side along Grand Terrace School, that doesn't make sense. The City Engineer indicated, he would have to refer to some legal advice or talk to someone who is far more familiar with Rule 20-A than he was from a legal standpoint. He stated to try and accomplish what we are talking about would mean that the boundary on the northerly side of Barton Road would follow the easterly right-of-way line to the center line then drop back somewhere back to Michigan Street, which would include only the telephone facilities on that side. Mayor Matteson asked if it were possible to cross over the street and then go with Edison down to the freeway, rather than running separate lines down each side of the street. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she did not understand what the City Engineer was saying. The City Engineer asked Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen, "as far as the construction is concerned, is that what you are saying, the installation of the underground?" Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 20 Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated, there are facilities on both sides of Barton Road that are going to have to be moved. Where we originally started the freeway, Edison has a problem because of anchoring another pole, so that saves strategic problems that are solved there. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen indicated it didn't make sense to her that the only things on poles along Barton Road north side of the freeway are telephone lines. If we are going to underground, it doesn't make sense that the telephone company is going to underground all of the lines except from Vivienda to the freeway. Are we going to leave the poles standing there? The City Engineer replied, that is the logical boundary for the undergrounding of Edison and, again, Rule 20-A pertains to $40. overhead electrical lines which requires all other facilities to follow. He indicated he would like Sue Noreen, with Southern California Edison Company, to explain that because he did not understand it all. Sue Noreen Ms. Noreen said she did not understand all the legal Southern ramifications, but would explain to Council that when Edison California declared the situation where Edison wanted to go out and find Edison Company the Rule 20-A Project where they could spend the dollars that Edison had set aside for you to beautify your City, there are some certain guidelines that have to be followed. She stated there has to be at least 600 feet, it has to be a heavily traveled area or an area where there is a lot of overhead congestion. Ms. Noreen indicated the initial request that came to Edison #4W was to underground Barton Road from Canal to Michigan. She noted what Edison usually does at that point is get together with the City Engineer, bring in all the utilities and go out and walk the project. Ms. Noreen explained Edison could not serve the other side of the freeway if the district went up to the freeway and the pole came down, so they have to have an anchor pole there to maintain the line which goes across the freeway. She stated there is no way to underground across the freeway. She said she could not speak for the telephone company, but it could be because Edison goes out and walks the entire area before coming up with the most practical, logical boundaries to block off the underground districts if agreed upon by all three utilities, cable, Pacific Telephone, and Edison. It could be that they have met with the same conditions that Edison has; that they have to have an anchor pole or they can't continue their line across the freeway. Ms. Noreen further stated the boundaries are agreed upon mutually by all the utilities. When the map came to her originally, the boundaries were drawn incorrectly, not the way that the utilities had agreed upon. Ms. Noreen stated the agreement was the center line or the properties on Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 21 both sides of Barton Road from Canal to the center line of Vivienda; the center line of Barton Road; and the center line of Michigan, but the one Edison pole on the outside of that boundary would be removed. She indicated that is what was agreed upon by the utilities and the map should have been presented to Council that way. Mayor Matteson questioned, theoretically, the telephone company would go underground up to Michigan and then up again? Ms. Noreen replied "Up to Michigan." She stated she could not speak for them. She did not know what their construction looks like out there, but they must have a reason for dropping it off at that point. Mayor Matteson said they are not going through there by themselves. Ms. Noreen said they are the only ones on that side of the street; she asked if the cable was with Edison or on the other side of the street. The City Engineer replied he believed the cable was on Edison's side. He questioned Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen, "is that what you meant by construction, if there are going to be two trenches, one on each side?" Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated, "no," she just wanted to make sure; she was getting a little bit scared, now she doesn't know how logistically they are going to handle it. Ms. Noreen said it depends on the construction schedule and if they can all coordinate it; it will go into the same trench. If one of the utilities is further ahead in construction than the other, then it usually ends up being something that most likely will go on one side of the street, because it will be less expensive. The other two utilities will then go on the other side of the street and it will be in conjunction with the street widening on Barton Road. The City Engineer stated the westerly boundary should be amended from coming down the center line of Vivienda, westerly on Barton and south on Michigan and maintain the rest of the boundary eliminating the boundary westerly of Michigan and Vivienda. The City Attorney stated he did not know of any prohibition that would preclude Council from drawing that boundary to include the school site or the north side of Barton Road up to the freeway. He suggested that if you consider doing that, you should conduct a public hearing, then close it and continue the matter. Do not make a decision so that you can then consult with the telephone people and see what impractical problems that might ... Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 22 Ms. Noreen said she was sure it was something impractical. She felt it may have been considered at the time, but she certainly didn't know. It was observed that Councilmember Grant left the meeting at 7:30 p.m. and returned at 7:35 p.m. The City Engineer stated, the property that would be effected, is the Community Center and the school property, which is the additional boundary on the north side as it is drawn. Mayor Matteson asked the City Engineer to clarify whether the utilities will go down to Michigan and stop there at Michigan. The City Engineer replied, the undergrounding on the south side or the Edison Company, which is where they are, will include the pole on the southwest corner on Michigan and Barton and everything easterly from there to the Canal right-of-way. Mayor Matteson asked, "and the telephone company would include?" The City Engineer replied, "From Vivienda easterly to Gage Canal along the north side of Barton Road," and he would be happy to discuss the details of the problems with the telephone company's representatives and go from there. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated whether it is five years from now or fifty years from now, sooner or later something is going to happen with the Grand Terrace School site, and at that time, she was sure we are going to have all of those lines underground so she can wait. PUBLIC HEARING Mayor Matteson opened the public hearing and asked if anyone would like to speak on the subject. Elsa Debald Mrs. Debald stated she was here representing her daughter who owns parcel 022. She made reference to a letter that was sent out stating that the property owner shall reconnect their buildings to new underground lines; service lateral will be provided without cost to property owners up to 100 feet from the utilities main line. She wanted to know where is the main line, is it out in the middle of the street? The City Attorney indicated that Mrs. Debald was reading out of the resolution, stating there was a letter that accompanied it. Mrs. Debald read part of the letter and asked if the entire 100 feet plus going around through the meter will not be charged to the property owners. Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 23 The City Attorney replied, "That is correct." The City Attorney stated the reason he had it put in a letter was because the normal or standard form of a resolution is what you are reading. However, the City Council has made the commitment and what he tried to do is ease the owner's mind with respect to what the resolution said and that is why he stated it in the letter the way that he did. The City Manager indicated that staff had taken up the issue of the original resolution stating that language. He suggested to make it clear for all the property owners in the second resolution, which will allow staff to add one section to that language that would state that those who dedicated would be given the connection at no cost, just so that it is in the legal form in the resolution. The City Attorney mentioned that it should probably state that the now improved properties having connections at this time will be reconnected at no cost. There are others who do have unimproved property. We can't make a commitment for down the road. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she also understood that this would be an accommodation made to people who willingly participated with the City in this. She thanked everyone for helping the City clean up Barton Road. She noted there was only one exception and she would like to see a Section 8 added to the resolution so stating that all improved property owners who willingly dedicated will have the power connected to their house or place of business at no cost to them, as the letter represents. Mayor Matteson asked if that was a motion and the response was yes, and she would like that to be Section 8. CC-87-177 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen, second by Councilmember Evans. Mrs. Debald Mrs. Debald asked if the meters currently on the houses are going to be adequate to handle this new line or are there going to be new meters. The City Engineer replied, no, we will be using the same meters. Motion CC-87-177 carried ALL AYES, to add to the resolution so stating that ALL IMPROVED PROPERTY OWNERS WHO WILLINGLY DEDICATE WILL HAVE THE POWER RUN IN AND CONNECTED TO THEIR HOUSES OR PLACE OF BUSINESS AT NO COST TO THEM AS THE LETTER REPRESENTS. Mayor Matteson explained because of a prior commitment, he have been asked to move Item 7(D) up to the next item on the list. Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 24 Pico Park Site The City Manager stated that Council had asked staff to wrap-up the Pico Park Site issue. Staff has received a summary from Edison with all the conditions that they would require in order for us to take control of the site. He stated, that the fencing and irrigation will be about $6,000.00, the reimbursement to Marygold is now estimated at $2,500.00 and the lease is now estimated at $1,000.00. He noted the Parks and Recreation Committee, at their last meeting, asked for directions on this issue and therefore, we have summarized it and placed it before Council to give both the Parks and Recreation Committee permission, and staff direction on how to proceed on this matter. Mayor Matteson asked what was Council's desire. Councilmember Shirley felt we should go ahead with the lease with Edison; we need the land and indicated, it is more than reasonable and it would be a real asset to the community. Councilmember Grant stated he has consistently supported this lease and would have liked to have seen a longer lease, but felt delays in implementing this is going to cost us money. He indicated, not being totally happy with all the conditions requested by the Edison Company, felt the need of this park, and the lease of this land from Edison outweighs those concerns. He concurred with his colleagues and the Committee that we need extra recreational parkland in this community. He fully supports the intent of this agreement with Edison and feels we would seriously regret this if we don't follow through. Councilmember Evans asked the Assistant City Manager, "If we were to accept to this lease agreement, when would it be effective?" The Assistant City Manager indicated he may have to defer this question to Sue Noreen, but he assumed immediately. Ms. Noreen replied, it takes about 60 days to draw up a lease, but you can have immediate occupancy. Edison will tell the current tenant that the City has agreed to enter into a lease, even though it might take Edison 60 days to draw up the paper work. She also stated you can go in and do the improvements that are being requested, as they have to be done first. You wouldn't be able to go in right away; you have to get the fencing up and start doing your work. Councilmember Evans asked the Assistant City Manager if he were recommending a cost of $9,500.00, is that for the lease, the reimbursement for Marygold Farms, for fencing and irrigation? The Assistant City Manager stated that is $6,000.00. Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 25 Councilmember Evans questioned, assuming we were entering into the lease agreement, do you have a timetable as to when any improvements would commence and also exactly what it is that we are going to do on that property and how much we are going to spend to improve that property. The Assistant City Manager replied if it is approved for occupancy, staff will get back with the Parks and Recreation Committee to finalize exactly what they are hoping to achieve with the development of this site and work on obtaining some concrete estimates as to exactly what it is going to cost. Councilmember Evans stated we haven't done that to date. The Assistant City Manager stated we really don't have anything finalized, everything is strictly preliminary now. Barbara Conley, Barbara Conley stated the Committee decided to put this through Chairman to Council because they felt the amount of time they have been Parks and dealing with Edison on the Pico Park Site has been over too Recreation long a period of time. She stated the Committee felt the land Committee within Grand Terrace City limits for possible park sites is extremely limited. The availability of a land lease, provided the City and Edison can agree on conditions, is a viable option. She stated the original intent of the Parks and Recreation Committee was to establish a simple park that would include two adult softball fields, two little league fields, and two or three soccer fields, depending on the season. She indicated this proclamation was submitted in February, 1986 to Edison and she believed was approved by Edison on that simple basis. Future development concepts, provided they concurred with the land -lease agreement, would be to include portable bleachers, toilets, and/or drinking fountains. She stated in answer to Councilmember Evans' question, we have come up with a park design of which she had copies. It is not a completed park design; it is one that was drawn up by one of the Commissioners and this is what the Parks and Recreation Committee felt was the best use for the land. Ms. Conley stated that the cost associated with the simple park site, backstops, fencing, preparation, seating, etc. had not currently been assessed by staff; they just had the rough outline of what they would like to see on that land because of the ongoing debates. She indicated with cost of land spiralling outrageously in Grand Terrace, they did not feel the $1,000.00 per year lease is unreasonable, neither does she feel that the $2,500.00 cost to reimburse Marygold Farms is excessive, due to the delay that we have all been involved in with signing this lease. The $3,500.00 for the first year to lease ten acres of land would appear to be far below the purchase price for yearly financing to purchase ten acres of land here in Grand Terrace. The estimated fencing stipulated Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 26 by Edison Company would possibly be a cost we would incur no matter where our park site was located. We might think that there isn't complete fencing around our baseball diamond on DeBerry, but you have to understand, that is more than a softball diamond. We are talking about four softball diamonds on this land on Pico. Ms. Conley stated during the past eighteen months the Parks and Recreation Committee has sent various action items to Council and they are at the point where they would like a decision to be made. She wanted to know if we are going to lease the land or not, because they have other ideas and things they should be working on. The Committee also felt that the possible lease of these ten acres of land should not diminish the concern for additional city -owned parkland or a sports complex in Grand Terrace for the future. The City Manager stated the estimate is only to do the minimum that Edison required on the fencing, which is only to fence the western portion that would separate our parcel from the existing alfalfa. Ms. Conley said the plan that the Parks and Recreation Committee was working on had fencing all the way around and that is on which she was basing her assumption. The City Manager stated the cost estimate is just for that one piece. CC-87-178 Motion by Mayor Matteson, second by Councilmember Grant, to sign a lease and expedite it as soon as possible. 4W Councilmember Evans questioned the amount of money we are willing to put into this park site. The Assistant City Manager stated that is entirely up to the City Council. Councilmember Evans asked the Assistant City Manager if he had any rough estimate based on what has been discussed over the last couple of years? The Assistant City Manager assured it could be as high as $130,000.00 or maybe as low as $90,000.00. It depends on what extent we want to go development wise. Councilmember Evans questioned if this amount is for a park site that will not be fully functional, by that, it cannot be utilized year-round because we can't put permanent fixtures on this land and, primarily, lights at this particular point. The Assistant City Manager responded, "yes." Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 27 Councilmember Evans stated he had some concerns of spending that amount of money towards a park that will not be fully functional. He stated the City Manager has shared with Council that he has been doing a study on possible sources of revenue that we could utilize towards park acquisition land, which would be the first step towards having an all-purpose site that would incorporate what Ms. Conley talked about, a recreation center, tennis courts, handball courts, lighted fields and what have you. Councilmember Evans asked the City Manager to share with Council and the audience on how much money the City Manager thought we would have available if we were to pursue going out on park acquisition. The City Manager stated he had been working out a residual value deal with the 1981 housing issue and the closer we get to actually putting this deal together, it appears it is going to be more like $500,000.00. Basically, it is the residual cash that will be available when that bond issue plays out, which will be in about 15 years. He indicated what this does is allow us to sell that at the present value and believed that we could cash out at about $400,000.00, which would be available to the Redevelopment Agency. If Council saw fit to spend that on parkland, then we would have to transfer that in the way of a payback to the City on loans. He further stated if Council wishes to commit to a site and use those resources or other resources that exist in the General Fund, there is money available, as well as methods to use financing if we acquire a site that we can't handle all at once. 6 Councilmember Shirley stated she felt Council is in agreement that we need more than one park site in Grand Terrace, that we are not stopping with the Pico Park Site if we do go through with this. Councilmember Shirley asked the Assistant City Manager how much, not withstanding any funding, we might get from anywhere else. How much would it cost to purchase and develop a fully functional park? The Assistant City Manager stated it depends on what amenities you want. If you want a multi -purpose type sports complex, probably in the neighborhood of one million and a half to two million dollars. Councilmember Shirley stated she felt the Pico Park Site is a bargain and a beginning. It is the second park site in this town and hopefully the beginning of many more. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated that the Pico Park Site backs directly up to a tract of houses. We would never be able to light it even if Edison would allow us to put up lights; that makes it a daytime field. She stated that really doesn't Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 28 bother her because we don't have the dollars and we don't have the space to produce enough ball parks to keep everyone playing ball except on weekends, so that is not a great concern to her. If they want to play ball and they can't do it at night, then they can do it on weekend as long as we have ball fields to offer them. She indicated her second concern is that already this year the turf at the upper soccer field is starting to get torn up and worn out. She noted it has taken us six years to get a turf bed that will hold up at all. She stated if the people think that they are going to have two useful soccer fields by the next soccer season, by taking the Pico Park Site, she felt they are going to be sadly disappointed. She did not think we could build a turf bed that quickly and history has proven that we can't. She stated, as far as an unlighted ballfield for softball, all of the things that Barbara Conley, Chairman of the Parks and Recreation Committee, referenced about their concept of the use of the property was actually what she had perceived it would be, something very simple, inexpensive to develop and something we would be able to put into immediate use. She stated upon reflection, we wouldn't be able to put into immediate use the soccer fields, but we could put into immediate use the four baseball fields on day time use only. Now her question is do we take $100,000.00 plus and put it some place if we are going to need it some place else. If all the questions were in place, this is absolutely one of the best deals going. She stated she is going to support the lease, but supports it with reservation. Motion CC-87-178 carried with Councilmember Evans voting NOE. The City Manager asked for clarification, did the motion include the appropriation that staff listed? The response was yes. Item 7(A) Mayor Matteson indicated every Councilmember had an opportunity to interview the Planning Commissioner applicants the earlier part of the week. CC-87-179 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen, second by Councilmember Evans, ALL AYES, to appoint Jim Sims as Planning Commissioner. Item 7(B) The City Attorney stated the Planning Director will be making a presentation shortly, but this is the second reading of the ordinance, THE TITLE AND ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GP 87-2. The Planning Director addressed amendment changes to certain land -use designation on the west side of I-215 in the City. He noted there had been no substantial changes made to the ordinance and it is now before Council for a second reading. Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 29 CC-87-180 Motion by Mayor Matteson, second by Councilmember Shirley, to approve the second reading and changes of the General Plan Amendment. Motion carried with Councilmember Evans and Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen voting NOE. Item 7(C) The Planning Director stated the second reading of the Zoning Ordinance change is for the west side of the City at this time only until the entire General Plan Revision is completed for the entire City. At the meeting held on July 30, 1987, Council held a public hearing and requested that staff change the Planning Commission recommendation of 15 dwelling units per acre in an R-3 zone to 12 dwelling units per acre. This change was made in the ordinance. 4W CC-87-181 Motion by Mayor Matteson, second by Councilmember Grant, to approve the changes in the Zoning Ordinance. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen indicated she opposed one portion of the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan Amendment. On the west side of the freeway, it dealt only with one piece of property. She felt it is totally unrealistic in today's dollars to expect the developer to develop multi -family units at 12 units to an acre. She felt that it is a move on the part of Grand Terrace to shut that type of development down; she was not sure we could do that unless we hurry up and get something else done. Therefore, she will oppose this Zoning Ordinance Amendment strictly based on the reduction of 15 units per acre to 12 units per acre. Councilmember Ev 40 and felt we are unrealistic and economic issues whether this had tonight, it can higher density, ans concurred with Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen taking a look at something that is totally it is certainly going to create very serious for the City in the future. He questioned gone to the State yet? Even if we pass this conceivably come back from the State at a is that correct? The Planning Director indicated his understanding was that the State, in essence, would reject housing elements because they must approve it and we would consider any recommended changes. Councilmember Evans stated we would, therefore, have to go through this whole process again to increase it. The Planning Director responded, "That is a possibility." Councilmember Evans mentioned there is also another concern and the City Attorney needs to give us input, once it is adopted. It is his understanding this document is for the entire City, is that not correct? Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 30 The City Attorney responded, "Yes." The only problem that is certain is if the designation does not exist east of the freeway; therefore, it would not be applicable until such time as you have adopted a General Plan Amendment for that portion of the City. The Planning Director stated the Planning Commission had their meeting Tuesday night. They recommended a resolution, which will clarify that this Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan Amendments will not have any affect on the east side of the freeway until the entire General Plan is heard and approved. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked if the Planning Commission has the authority to do that once Council has adopted this document. A similar zoning, and the only one she can think of is A-1, that could be placed elsewhere in the City as we do our General Plan Update on the east side of the freeway. She stated all of the other portion of that now will apply to the whole city, was she correct? The City Attorney stated, no. Not until such time, and in his opinion, even with the Commission action, it will not apply to that area east because Council has adopted amendments that do not exist in the area east of the freeway or until such time as the other General Plan Amendment has gone through, or no longer is compatible. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated if she understands what she is hearing there is an R-3 Zone where Council has changed some density regulations in it. She asked if the City Attorney was 420 telling her that is only going to apply to the west side of the freeway; that any R-3 property on this side of the freeway is not going to apply until the General Plan in its entirety has been adopted and the new zoning has been adopted. The City Attorney, replied, "Yes, you have zoning designations that do not exist east of the freeway." Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked if we have R-3 on both sides of the freeway. The City Attorney stated, we have R-3 on both sides of the freeway, but not within the designation as defined in the ordinance. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked if the specific square footage is what makes the difference. The City Attorney answered, "Yes." Councilmember Evans questioned how is it going to affect the proposed Mt. Vernon Villas Project? Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 31 The City Attorney asked if that is the Forest City Dillon Project, Councilmember Evans answer was, "Yes." The City Attorney replied, it won't because it is east of the freeway, it will not until you have adopted a General Plan Amendment. Councilmember Evans stated, the question is, "it can easily fit into the criteria of this document," if he understood it correctly. He stated he has a hard time understanding it is okay over here, but until you do this on the other side of the tracks, it is not going to apply, but yet the R-3 that is in that's particular area would fit the criteria. The City Attorney stated it wouldn't fit the criteria of the General Plan Amendment because you have adopted that General Plan Amendment. Motion CC-87-181 carried with Councilmember Evans and Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen voting NOE. Mayor Matteson stated we will adjourn this meeting until the special meeting of September 15, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. The City Attorney indicated not a special meeting. Mayor Matteson then stated to the adjourned meeting. Respectfully submitted: 4V City Clerk APPROVED: Mayor Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 32 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE N T M n COUNCIL MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING - SEPTEMBER 15, 1987 A adjourned regular meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission of the City of Grand Terrace was called to order in the Council Chambers, Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on September 15, 1987, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Byron Matteson, Mayor Barbara Pfennighausen, Mayor Pro Tem Hugh J. Grant, Councilmember Dennis L. Evans, Councilmember Susan Shirley, Councilmember Chairman Caouette Vice Chairman Van Gelder Commissioner Hawkinson Commissioner Munson Commissioner Hargrave Commissioner Cole Commissioner Sims Randy Anstine, Assistant City Manager Juanita Brown, Deputy City Clerk Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney David Sawyer, Planning Director Joe Kicak, City Engineer ABSENT: Thomas Schwab, City Manager/Finance Director The meeting was opened with invocation by Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilmember Grant. Mayor Matteson convened City Council and Planning Commission, this is from the adjourned meeting of September 10, 1987. Mayor Matteson indicated the first item on the list is the Retail development in the vicinity of DeBerry and the I-215 freeway. The Planning Director presented a staff report for Council's and Commissioners' information. On July 20, 1987 the Site and Architectural Review Board considered and conditionally approved SA 87-6, a proposed 3.3 acre commercial retail center located in the area north of DeBerry Street and east of I-215 freeway. He stated the project, as proposed, requires a General Plan Amendment which realigns the right-of-way of Commerce Way and also reduces the required width of Commerce Way. He stated todate, staff has not processed the General Plan Amendment to accomplish this because such a realignment of Commerce Way would have a significant impact on the property to the south of this project and should be considered in the overall General Plan Amendment. He stated Mr. Ross Geller has indicated to staff that the realignment of Commerce Way, as proposed by the applicant, is in -line with what he will be recommending. He stated the applicant has requested this joint meeting in hope that after a general discussion of the project, he will feel more comfortable in beginning work on the required drawings necessary for building permits and the Site and Architectural Review, while waiting for the General Plan Amendment to be heard. He noted the purpose of this meeting is for general discussion of this project and no action should be taken by either the City Council or the Planning Commission, as recommended by the Planning Department at this time. The Planning Director indicated the applicants were in the audience and felt they had presentations to present to Council and Commissioners. Vic Peloquin Mr. Peloquin indicated as being one of the owners of the 280 Pasalto property, and the property being in their possession Anaheim, CA approximately a year and in preparation of this development, he Victor understood the City had other developments proposed on this Construction property. Mr. Peloquin stated that in order to make the project economically feasible, they had to come up with a number of square feet at the price they paid for the property and the construction. He stated in order to do that, they need to get the road aligned to get better utilization of the land. He stated they are anticipating attracting freeway frontage users that need that exposure. Therefore, their design is leaning towards what they submitted to the Planning Commission approximately three and half months ago when they got a very receptive response from them regarding the overall project. Mr. Peloquin stated the only thing that the Planning Commission could not do was approve the realignment of the roads or the road width with regard to their development. He indicated, subsequent to that meeting, they understood that a General Plan Amendment change is coming before the City and is going to be presented to the City around October 12, 1987 for the first review. In preparing for that, and in talking with city officials, they found out their alignment matches the proposed alignment of the consultant. Mr. Peloquin stated they only had two issues to discuss; the alignment and the width of the road. He felt the alignment of the road that they came up with was what the City's Consultant would be recommending and, therefore, is not an issue to discuss. Mr. Peloquin stated if they widen the road further than it is right now, which is 21 ft. on either side, they could easily widen it to 24 ft., which would give you two travel lanes each direction. He felt they could widen the road to 48 ft. and come up with a 12-foot landscape buffer. He stated the two travel lanes being 12 ft. Council Minutes - 9/15/87 Page 2 each bring a maximum total of 48 ft. from curb -to -curb which he believed would facilitate any future traffic needs within that scope of traffic impact. He stated if the Planning Commission, City Council and City Personnel all concurred with that, he would like to open for discussion. Mayor Matteson asked Mr. Peloquin if he would show them on the map what he was talking about? Mr. Peloquin, pointing out on the map, stated what they have right now is the width of the road being 80 ft. up near the skating rink coming down to this area. He stated they propose an ultimate right-of-way of 72 ft., which is about 8 ft. short of what the width is now. He noted the recommendation they got at their last meeting, was there will be no "on -street" 46, parking. If that is case, the width of the road could be narrowed down making it into two lanes in either direction, 48 ft. curb -to -curb. He indicated they would reduce their landscape buffer (made indication on the map) by 3 ft. and widen the road to 48 ft. curb -to -curb creating 4 lanes in either direction. Mayor Matteson questioned Mr. Peloquin as to where the street is ending now. Mr. Peloquin indicated the street ends at DeBerry (made indication on the map) and ties into the existing street and makes an even transition to Commerce terminating at DeBerry. The Planning Director stated the existing street ends at the beginning of the plan and what Mr. Peloquin is showing you was OAW proposed. Mayor Matteson asked if this was the existing proposal or the revised proposal. Mr. Peloquin stated this is the only proposal they have ever submitted. Mayor Matteson asked who owns the land; was Mr. Peloquin dividing someone elses land. Mr. Peloquin stated they own all the land there (indicating on the map), 9.1 acres, they do not control any of the land on the other side. Mayor Matteson asked, so this does not affect anyone's property but your own. Mr. Peloquin replied "That is correct." Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked Mr. Peloquin to explain why the existing General Plan alignment would not make the project feasible and why the realignment is better for the project in the City. Council Minutes - 9/15/87 Page 3 Mr. Peloquin proceeded to show where it terminates and stated, if this street were to continue on a parallel line with this, it would come right down in this location and they wouldn't have parking. He stated by realigning this street and coming out in this direction, they felt the interesection would be a much better intersection. Their main purpose is to get this road away from the freeway, which would allow for ample parking for larger users. Councilmember Grant asked the Planning Director how does it affect the property that continues on south from there. The Planning Director replied (indicating on map) the one area where the roads comes into is a property line that would impact these properties to the south. If, in fact, the road 4bw continued, it would impact each one of the properties on either side of the property line. Mayor Matteson asked if the property owners down there have been contacted regarding their opinion on the street coming in there. The Planning Director stated they have not been contacted by staff. Mayor Matteson asked the Planning Director to please contact them. Nick Bacani Mr. Bacani stated in the present plan of the 1983 General Plan, Victor Constr. the road goes all the way (indicating on the map) and even if this road goes this way and then goes this way, they feel it would not make very much difference. It would be very logical and advantageous for the development of the entire City if it goes this way and dissect this property (indicating on the map) in between because most of this area is vacant right now. He stated if this will be zoned similar to this (indicating on the *,. map), it will be of a great importance to the City, because right now what we are attracting is freeway visibility. He stated if this grows, it would impact the growth. Mr. Peloquin stated, just in general terms, anytime you can get a road frontage on a piece of property, it will enhance the frontage value of the property. Councilmember Grant questioned you mentioned there will be no "on -street" parking, is that your own idea? Mr. Peloquin replied no, they met with staff approximately a week or week and half ago and it was a thought that no "on -street" parking in that location would be desirable. He stated whether staff recommends it now or whether the City Council would want "on -street" parking, what they are trying to do is get cars off the street and onto the parking lots. Mayor Matteson stated that he had mentioned in his report that there was no intended usage and so how can we designate how many parking spaces are required when we don't know what is going in. Council Minutes - 9/15/87 Page 4 The Planning Director stated the current proposal is broken into three phases. The current proposal, which is going through Site and Architectural Review, is through the zoning of C-2 and CPD. The way our code is written, we have a blanket formula for that, with the exception of certain uses, such as hospitals, or something along those lines. He stated what the buildings are being built for, staff measured the parking per the 100 per one space for 250 square feet requirements. He stated so, as long as the use goes in and meets the CPD and C-2 use requirements the parking will be adequate as the code is written now. Mayor Matteson asked if there were any other questions? Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated several years ago, we attempted to put a minimum -acre development with an overlay on that area. She stated through a variety of moods, the development minimums were removed, but this project comes the closest to meeting that criteria that at one time we had set. She stated the hindsight being a little easier than foresight, had we known something like this would come in, we probably wouldn't have Orco Tool where it is. Mayor Matteson stated one of his concerns is that if we do narrow those streets down, we might have problem later on with traffic. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked the City Engineer if he could develop some type of scenario that would give Council and the Commissioners an idea of how traffic would be feeding into this alignment of Commerce Way and tell us whether in the future, 4 that alignment could handle it. The City Engineer replied in the staff report that had been prepared for the first Planning Commission meeting, staff recognized the General Plan as it is now, which requires 88 ft. of right-of-way with a 64-foot curb -to -curb. He noted the existing conditions, as they are now in the developed section of Commerce Way is 60 ft. of curb -to -curb, which doesn't meet our current standards. He stated, strictly from a traffic standpoint, the 64-foot curb -to -curb provides for two lanes of traffic in either direction and a potential parking lane on either side, which means what you are ending up with is two 12-foot lanes of traffic, which is the half street. The City Engineer indicated the concerns he has, if any, are the fact of someone parking in a "No Parking" area which would impede traffic, like unnecessary turning movements off of Commerce Way into the various facilities. Councilmember Shirley said taking the extremely optimistic viewpoint that if this development goes in and becomes Council Minutes - 9/15/87 Page 5 extremely well used and the parking lot fills up and people start parking on the streets, how can the City deal with this and keep it under control? She believes there will be "on -street" parking, illegal or not, and she would like to address this point further and get sme more comments on it. Mayor Matteson asked what will happen if you are required to put in that larger street, how would it affect your project? Mr. Peloquin stated if the larger streets are put into two lanes either direction and parking, it impacts the parking requirements all along both sides and we will have to put in another 8 ft. The landscaping will diminish and will also take out parking spaces, which then reduces our square footage of our buildings. He stated so, economically, it impacts them 460 severely. Mayor Matteson stated we do not know what will develop down from there either. Mr. Peloquin stated as far as the parking on the street, he felt it could be easily controlled as they do it in other cities that have "no parking" on the streets. They put in red curb, "No Parking" signs and enforce it with citations. Mayor Matteson expressed a concern about delivery trucks or furniture trucks coming to deliver, they are going to double park out on the streets while they find out what they are suppose to do, right there that makes one lane. Mr. Peloquin stated, traditionally, they don't do that, but he can't say that they wouldn't. They are suppose to be pulling into the parking lot and if they have delivered once to that location, they know where they are going, and they just drive in. Councilmember Shirley questioned if there was anything that provides for compact car parking and, if so, has that been taken into consideration? Mr. Peloquin stated it had been taken into consideration. He stated he thought the code is 25 percent for compact, he wasn't sure what it is in Grand Terrace. Councilmember Evans stated he felt we are getting off the path, and if he understood what was being asked is to give input to two issues, (1) whether or not we agree with your current alignment, (2) decide as to the proper width. He stated in the staff report, the Planning Director mentioned that the Consultant had indicated he had no problem with this alignment and this is what he is going to be recommending, is this not correct? Council Minutes - 9/15/87 Page 6 The Planning Director replied that is what he had indicated to him at this point. Councilmember Evans asked the Planning Director in his professional opinion, is that realignment better for the City than what is currently on our General Plan? The Planning Director replied, "Yes." Councilmember Evans asked the Planning Director if he could justify why. The Planning Director stated he felt the applicant talked about some of the reasons. Basically, the current alignment runs along this easement here (indicating place on map). What that is going to produce is the strip of commercial here that does not allow for interior parking of the adjacent two structures. He stated it continues on down into the next section of properties along the freeway, and the easement is down there also and this alignment will allow us to dissect the property and allow a cluster of developments on either side. Councilmember Evans asked, "for better utilization of all the area?" The Planning Director replied, "that is correct." Councilmember Evans asked The City Engineer, from an engineering standpoint, if we were to go with this realignment and continue with it south of DeBerry, in your professional opinion as an engineer is this a better realignment than the current General Plan? 4bo The City Engineer replied he had no doubt that it is a better alignment than the one on the current General Plan. Councilmember Evans stated his position would be at this particular point is we got it from our Consultants, our staff, that that's probably what we should go with. Mayor Matteson asked if he could get some input from the Planning Commission? Planning Chairman Caouette stated that initially having been through a Commission former review project, he agreed with the consensus. Commissioner Commissioner Hawkinson stated he concurred with Mayor Pro Tem Planning Pfennighausen as far as what the Commissioners attempted to do Commission with an overlay, and he felt this is what they were looking for, this type of development. Mayor Matteson asked if there were any property owners here who would like to speak on this subject? Council Minutes - 9/15/87 Page 7 Tony Petta Mr. Petta made reference to the alignment and to the streets. First he pointed out that the present alignment was designed along the flood control right-of-way with the minimum impaction upon the property owners. He stated that was designed to be a frontage road. He stated it doesn't mean a realignment wouldn't be better, it's possible it could be. However, in order for the property owners to be able to intelligently discuss the realignment, we need to know where it is. Mayor Matteson asked the Planning Director to move the map where the audience could see. The Planning Director showed the audience where the realignment was located on the map. Mr. Petta stated if that is the location of the alignment, then the alignment will affect his property and it will also affect the property which is south of him. He stated one of his questions had been answered, the indication that the road would be on the property and half on either side. The Planning Director stated that is what he understood the recommendation to be. The Planning Director stated, we can assume recommendation could be made at this time, for discussion purposes. Mr. Petta stated if that is the case, let him point out that half of this road, which would be the west side, at DeBerry and Commerce Way, the southwest corner, is a duplex and that duplex would be in the way of the road. He stated that since that property has already been developed, it would be ages before the City could force the owner to put in a road at that particular point. He asked if that would create a problem for the City? Mr. Bacani stated they are aligning the new road with one of the edges of the right-of-way, to be the edge of the 30-foot water easement line. He indicated a property on the map that looks like it is abandoned. Mr. Petta asked Mr. Bacani if he was north of DeBerry now, and the response was yes. The Planning Director stated this is the 30-foot easement that Mr. Bacani is talking about coming down through this area here (indicating a place on the map). He stated this is the easement for the water line and across the street there is a green pressure pop -off valve on the other side of DeBerry. He stated he wasn't sure if that is dead center in that easement, but you can kind of get a picture of where this road is going to be. It is going to be a little bit east of the green valve that is on the other side. He indicated this easement is Council Minutes - 9/15/87 Page 8 already existing and felt it has about 60" of water line that runs down through the high pressure. Mayor Matteson wanted to know where the duplex was that Mr. Bacani was referring to. The Planning Director stated he wasn't sure where Victor Construction Company was and asked them to come up and point out their property. After the explanation and indication on the map, Mayor Matteson asked if that duplex was to the west of that water cap. Mr. Peloquin stated he wasn't sure. Councilmember Evans asked Mr. Harber to point out on the map where his property was in relationship to where they were talking about and then share with us your ideas. Mr. Harber indicated if he understood it right, it's across from Mr. Petta's property. He stated he really had no problem with the possibility of a half street...... and felt it would be a good asset and felt it would be advantageous to others in the area. Councilmember Evans stated if he understood his position then, you don't have any objections at all to continue Commerce Way from this particular development southward as long as it divides the property line. Mr. Harber replied, no, he did not have any objections to that and felt that it appears as though the development that is proposed here has had some good planning done and he does not object to the realignment nor the development. Councilmember Evans stated he felt the general consensus of what has been proposed is probably the best utilization for everyone right now. Mr. Harber stated that in his opinion, yes, and he agree with that. Mayor Matteson asked if there were anyone who objected to this realignment. Mr. Petta stated that his conversation was not in the form of an objection, but his question was specifically about the duplex at the corner. He stated he really saw no real objections to that situation. He questioned if the Planners had considered that? Council Minutes - 9/15/87 Page 9 The Planning Director stated that he believed Mr. Petta explained two of the options that are available. We could either let the property stay there and when it is no longer useful, we could put it in our plan or else decide it is needed and we could purchase the property, but that decision would be up to Council at that time. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated, due to the fact that the General Plan Consultants have not come in with their recommendations of land use in the area located between DeBerry and Van Buren, it is very difficult for us at this time to project what will happen to that duplex. She stated there didn't seem to be a great deal of concern about what would happen to that duplex when it was proposed, but either a wall or black top would take its place and a regional shopping mall will be replaced in that area. She felt that at such time as the property would develop, she was certain the owner of that duplex, all things being given, if the price were right, the property would be sold and the road would go through. She indicated she would have great concern over an alignment that would take this alignment from Commerce Way to DeBerry, then jogger over to the freeway, down to Van Buren and then some other way from Van Buren. She stated she was very concerned as to where roads are going to go and alignment and street widths. She noted the General Plan Consultants have not come in with their recommendations. The property owners in that area have not had an opportunity, as well as public forum, to come forward and give their recommendations of what they would like to see developed in the area. She hoped that is going to happen, Council has recommended it. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen felt what the developers are asking us for tonight is a conceptual okay with the adjusted street width and the realignment, in order to proceed with the project in a timely manner. She indicated the developer understands that we can't make any decisions tonight, he is just trying to get a feel. She stated she would like to hear from the Planning Commission and she introduced the new Planning Commissioner, Jimmy Sims. Councilmember Grant indicated regardless of what the Consultant ultimately recommends in the area south of DeBerry, there is most likely going to be a need for the extension of this road, so you cannot very well put your head in the sand and ignore the fact the duplex is there. He indicated he is delighted to see that this project is attempting to be approved and as far as the width of the roads are concerned, he has concerns, as well as the Mayor, about parking with red lining. He stated they had better look at that very seriously now when we can do something about it. Council Minutes - 9/15/87 Page 10 Mayor Matteson stated it seems to be the consensus of the Planning Commission, the property owners and the City Council, that the alignment is for the best interest of the City and he felt you can almost take that as a direction. He indicated the other issue is the width and there seem to be some controversy on that. He opened discussion on width. Seth Armstead Mr. Armstead stated he is an absentee owner for Grand Terrace, but he would like to go on record that Mr. Petta and he are fifty-fifty on this proposition and he is in favor of the extension of Commerce Way, because you are going to need the local use of sales tax. Commissioner Sims stated that one thing he noticed on the plan is that the parkway seemed to be fully landscaped discouraging 4,. any kind of pedestrian movements at all and asked the Planning Director is that the intent. The Planning Director stated one of the options that was discussed at the Planning Commission level was whether or not sidewalks would be appropriate for this type of development. He stated sidewalks were in the original recommendations from the City Engineer, but the Planning Commission felt that for this type of development pedestrian walkways along Commerce Way was not what they were intending to encourage. Commissioner Sims stated in his mind he was relating back to the concern of the roadway width and what would happen beyond the illegal parking flow. In an emergency situation if a vehicle breaks down, naturally they will go to the side of the road, and there doesn't seem to be any provision for escape #6V along the side of the road except in the roadway itself. He indicated being interested in seeing what the Consultants have prepared on this and really would like to see what they say. Mayor Matteson concurred with Commissioner Sims and felt width is very important. Dick Yost Mr. Yost stated either he missed something or something has not 23247 Barton Road been pointed out that he felt would be rather obvious. He questioned about parking on either side which would take about another 12 ft. total or 24 ft. on either side. He asked why couldn't there be a 12-foot turn -lane right down through the middle of it? He stated we are talking about taking up 12 ft. instead of 24 ft. total, so that will have an impact on your cost factor there too, but a lesser cost factor than an additional 12 ft. for parking. Lee Swertfeger Mr. Swertfeger stated he really liked the sound of the whole 12438 Michigan project and agreed with Mr. Yost. Council Minutes - 9/15/87 Page 11 Councilmember Evans stated he thought the purpose of this meeting was to try and get a feel for the developers. He stated he hoped that the issue of realignment has been addressed to your satisfaction. The issue of width of the street, we can't give you any definitive directions because we don't know what the consultant is going to propose south of DeBerry. Councilmember Evans stated as far as traffic hazards, he felt that staff has given you direction, we can put up "No Parking" signs, that is no problem. Obviously in the event of an emergency, people may have to park where they are not going to be able to get off the roadway. His concern was that of decreasing it down to 48 ft. He felt it is imperative that we do provide some kind of turning lane and as to what will be appropriate, that will have to be worked out through staff and the Engineering Department. He felt they cannot eliminate the utilization of landscaping. He feels the City needs to heavily emphasize landscaping, because it sets a tone and he is not prepared to cut back on that. Chairman Caouette Chairman Caouette stated he really does appreciate the scale and scope of this particular project and felt all of us would like to see this project and more like it. Vice -Chairman Van Gelder stated she does not have a problem with a slightly narrower street, but she did feel it is important to have a center -turn lane. She did not feel that red lining the curb is going to be a problem. She is very pleased with the project and hopes we can give it every support 6 possible. Commissioner Hawkinson stated that he concurred with everything that had been said as far as the project itself and is very delighted to see something like this being proposed. He indicated he is more in favor of a wider width of street, specifically the turning lane in the center. Council Minutes - Page 12 Commissioner Hargrave felt we would need a turning lane on Commerce Way, as a minimum, and felt it might be prudent to have the developer, when they come in with their proposal, give us some of the numbers. He stated perhaps we can mitigate the number of parking spaces that we have in this particular project as a way of having what we want as far as the traffic, which he felt is far more important and has a higher priority than getting an exact number of parking stalls. He stated he would be happy to give up some of the parking spaces in that complex to get a turning lane on that road. 9/15/87 Commissioner Hargrave stated he would like to see some numbers. If we put a turning lane on Commerce Way, how many parking spaces in this project would we lose, and then look at that. If it is reasonable and not too far out of line, then maybe that is a good trade off. Commissioner Hargrave asked the Planning Director if the project contains approximately 35,000 square feet of floor space, is this rentable or usable floor space or are we talking gross floor space? The Planning Director stated the square footage was figured on gross within the buildings themselves. It does not take into account sidewalks or walkways in between the buildings, but it does include storage areas within the buildings. Commissioner Hargrave stated so, in that case, the square footage that we have represented here, really is more square footage than is going to be used for commercial sense. He noted if we could get a little better idea on the actual square footage that this project might have as far as resale floor space then you might be able to better equate that into the actual number of parking stalls that we would need. Commissioner Sims indicated he heard a lot of good comments; his concern revolved around an emergency situation. He concurred with Commissioner Hargrave in making sure the road is wide enough. Mr. Peloquin stated in general, and understood the conservative approach that was mentioned in regard to the error in widening of the street or going conservative to an wider asphalt buffer in there. He stated the problem that you face is that the street is not a tax -generating source for the City and it never will be. The square footage of the buildings that is allowed to be put on that property is a tax -generated basis and is an income for the City. If you error too large in a wide street, it just goes perpetually for years and years and never earns you any income. So it's a thought process in there, of at least getting to a happy medium of getting the amount of square footage that's both profitable for us as developers and also to develop to generate income for the City. He indicated a left -turn pocket is not going to be traveled at a high speed, it's mostly slow down and turning to the left. He indicated we have a tremendous amount of landscaping which is to allow us to have approximately an 8-foot landscape buffer on either side, four 12-foot lanes and a 10-foot left -turn pocket lane within the right-of-way. He felt we will still end up with the ultimate width of approximately 72 feet. Council Minutes - 9/15/87 Page 13 Comissioner Hargrave stated if developers come in and don't do their homework economically and make generic overtones and know they haven't done it, and you come in and say this is the square foot this project needs and you have done your homework properly, he felt you can make a good case, indicating most Planning Departments will go along with it. Mr. Peloquin stated he appreciated what Commissioner Hargrave was saying, but we do have some physical constraints and what you are seeing on the board up there is not just a one afternoon shot at getting the best utilization of the property. It was well thought out for many, many weeks. He indicated they have some physical constraints as far as the width between the buildings; the width of the right-of-way that has to be put in for the travel lanes within the parking area and then the parking stalls themselves and that by virtue of those constraints end up almost dictating where the property line has to be. He stated they might go back and try to do something with that, but he wasn't sure how they can. (Indicating going over to the board), if we just move, for example, this right-of-way over 3 or 4 feet, it will eliminate this entire row of parking, because we have to have a 25 foot width, plus the parking stall links in here. Mayor Matteson stated or you can adjust the building, you don't have to lose all the parking, you're talking 3 feet, adjust the building by 3 feet or come up with different designs. Mr. Bacani stated one solution which would strike a happy medium between the problem of curb -to -curb that will allow a left -turn pocket (allowing a right-of-way of 72 ft.), 72 ft. divided into 12 (12 on a 4-12 lane) is 48 ft. and a 10 ft. left-hand pocket (58 ft.). He indicated subtracting that from the 72 ft. right-of-way, (14 ft.). Mr. Bacani indicated if you allow 6 to 7 ft. of landscaping, (6 ft. on both sides), you have 5-12 ft. lanes, (12-foot width curb -to -curb). Mr. Bacani explained a 6-foot landscape buffer on the both sides of road would be more than enough, depending on the kind of landscaping (inside and outside). He stated, Victor Construction emphasizes beautiful landscaping on the buildings that he owns. Mr. Bacani agreed with Councilmember Evans that landscaping attracts people. He stated, they could perhaps propose instead of the 15-foot landscaping buffer they have drawn, they can accommodate the road 4 lanes of 12 ft. and a center -lane pocket of 10 to 12 ft. and the remainder will be 6 ft. on either side for landscaping where we can have trees and shrubs. He stated if you even want to put sidewalks, you can accommodate it. Still it comes to 72 ft. right-of-way and if that is acceptable by the City, then what they are after here tonight is direction. Council Minutes - 9/15/87 Page 14 Mr. Peloquin noted that Mr. Bacani had been spending about $30,000.00 a month to carry available funds. He indicated one of the greatest difficulties in development of a project is to get a lender. This project, in particular, because we have got a joint -venture partner and a lender who has been sold on the idea and has carried the interest for so many months now. There comes a time when they can carry no more, and this is the reason we are asking the Planning Director to give us some direction so we can proceed with the hard-line drawings. Once we have the hard-line drawings, we can look forward to submitting building plans as fast as we can and move forward with the project. Mr. Bacani asked for the extremes of the dimensions and we will try to work with them. If our proposition of a 72-foot right-of-way is acceptable, then we can proceed. The Planning Director stated the purpose of tonight's meeting is to try to give the developers some idea of how the Council may act in the future regarding the width and the alignment of the road. We are getting into some detailed information that really deals with site plans, not Site and Architectural Review, but unfortunately it does affect the width of the road. We've talked about the turning lanes, the parking, the width and we are now touching on landscaping. He stated, and while you are making that decision about how you would want to comment on that. We are asking Council to realize that the landscaping being proposed is within the right-of-way in a normal development the way the code is written up. The 15-foot landscaping buffer has to be on their property (the development property), not in the City right-of-way. The problem with that is that we need to make sure that we have all of the width that fir we want now, including the parking and the turn lane. He noted, because in the future if we are going to approve a project which allows less than the 15-foot landscape buffer within the right-of-way in order to widen it, we will be eliminating all of the landscaping in the future. Mayor Matteson indicated, okay, let's finish up with the Planning Commissioner's opinions. Commissioner Munson stated, the minimum width of the street should be the four lanes plus the turning lane. However, he will be happy to compromise on the landscaping or the parking. He felt we can't be set in what we demand, you have to negotiate and would negotiate with the landscaping and parking. He did not feel all of the parking will be used all of the time. Commissioner Cole stated, he too, had concerns about the street width, but felt the left turn lanes were needed. He indicated, his reluctance to give in on the landscaping because he believed the landscaping establishes the tone and setting for Council Minutes - 9/15/87 Page 15 the entire project. He felt 6-foot landscaping on either side of the street would be a minimum amount that would be just a place to collect gum wrappers. As far as negotiating or giving in on the parking, he guessed he would take objection to that also. He indicated we would be shooting ourselves in the foot if we cut down on the amount of parking required for the buildings and he would not be in favor of that suggestion. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated, she would like to summarize where she stood at this point. She stated, she is particularly cognizant of the fact that a vehicle may break down and she didn't think that when roads and freeways are planned they keep adding additional lanes for the fact that someone may break down on one and, therefore, you add another to accommodate and so on. She stated, usually, vehicles are removed rather rapidly when they find themselves in that situation. The road width is of concern and she felt that the two lanes in each direction with a turning -lane is advisable and she did not feel she would be in favor in reducing to a 6-foot landscaping buffer. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she appreciated Commissioner Hargrave calling to our attention the fact that, the number of square feet within each building does not accommodate customers and, therefore, that's where we are associating square footage to a retail space, not storage space. She stated if she have to move off center of anything, she would like to retain the landscape buffer and negotiate on the parking based on usable retail space. She stated she would ask all the Planning Commissioners and all the members of the Council to audit the local shopping centers and see that there is probably only one season of the year when cars park the entire parking lot available, and that is Christmas. Otherwise, the perimeter parking space is never used because Americans have become traditionally lazy and they do not want to walk more than 50 feet. Barney Karger Mr. Karger stated he is very much in favor of a wider street 11668 Bernardo and less greenery. Now, the parking as you said, is used only Way at certain times, so he would compromise on that. Also remember that you do not have to consider your greenery as horizontal, it can also be vertical. If you have ferns that make 8 ft. look like 15 ft. or have more trees so that you have more greenery and looks bigger. So, if the developer can assure the Planning Department and convince them that he is going to have a greenery affect, he sees no reason for not giving up some of the greenery space. Councilmember Evans stated, he felt the purpose of the meeting tonight has been to give direction; that everyone is agreeable to the realignment. He stated the fact of the matter is that they are not going to bend on the street width. Council Minutes - 9/15/87 Page 16 He thought the developers have heard that we are ready to compromise and the compromise will probably be in parking, maybe some in landscaping. The City Attorney stated, the Council has not indicated they are going to compromise on parking. That, requires a variance and we certainly cannot commit to granting variances and making those findings and felt it is simply one of the areas you would consider. Councilmember Evans stated, that is the direction he is hearing, they are willing to do that. The Planning Director stated in the Code, there is some flexibility for parking that is allowed for the developer and the Planning Director to compromise on. He indicated that we could do some of this without having to go through the variance requirements which would, in essence, allow us to do it because the findings for a variance could be very difficult in this situation. Mayor Matteson stated, basically, everyone is for the project; it's a good project; everybody is for the alignment, but you are going to have problems with that street width, so that is your basis. Mr. Peloquin Mr. Peloquin stated, in regard to the street width from the City Engineer, The Planning Director and anyone who might be an expertise on it. If four 12-foot lanes, two in either direction, and a 10-foot left -turn pocket would be acceptable, we might be able to go back and start with that. If we are 4 told, that, it is 12 ft., then he wasn't sure if the lanes could all be 11 ft., this are somethings he would like to have some direction on if, in fact, anyone knows. The City Engineer stated, basically, what the City Council has discussed this evening appears to him is that we are back to the original staff recommendation of 60 ft. In that respect, he would suggest that as the rest of the property develops along Commerce Way, he has a feeling we are going to have a "No Parking" situation all along Commerce Way if there is going to be a turning lane. He asked, we are talking right now about 2 ft., is that what you are talking about, am I correct, the difference between a 10 and 12-foot parking lane? Mr. Peloquin stated it is not that they are objectionable to that, it is just that they could solve more landscaping buffer problems with two more feet of landscaping than we could in putting in more asphalt. So, it is almost one in the same as far as cost, it's just they are trying to get a happy medium to accommodate everyone's need. Council Minutes - 9/15/87 Page 17 The City Engineer stated, strictly from an engineering stand point, if someone came to him five years from now and said Joe, why the 1-foot indentation in the curb, he would have a hard time trying to explain that to him, but it doesn't make sense, if it is that critical, lets look at it again. He stated there are certain things we can live with and everyone understands until someone says why did they do this? Mr. Peloquin stated they have a beautiful project coming into the City and they are very proud of what they are going to be doing. He indicated they are now buffered against Commerce Way, that is, going up into Michigan with a very very wide street. They are promoting bringing in a beautiful project to the City. A lot of color, a lot of elegance into the window of the City coming in. They stated they do need some concession to make this a very viable and very successful project for the City. He thanked everyone for their concerns and indicated they will go back and give some consideration to the width of the street, but he didn't necessarily see how that they are going to automatically open it up to be a 80 or 90-foot wide street. Mayor Matteson stated he realized the maximum you get out of property is the more money you can make and as a business man that's your purpose, but at the same token we have to consider everything that is involved. Councilmember Evans stated he did not know if the City Engineer answered his question, do you start from the base of 58 ft. or do you start from 60 ft. The City Engineer replied there are no decisions to be made here, theoretically, you should be starting with the base of 88 ft. of right-of-way and 64 ft. curb -to -curb. He stated staff's recommendation to the Planning Commission was that a minimum of 60 ft. curb -to -curb be followed and that is what we are recommending right now. That will give us two lanes in either direction, plus a turning lane. Councilmember Evans asked a question from an engineering standpoint. He has been out to too many traffic accidents and has had to measure streets, lane widths, what have you. Most of his experience shows that a turning lane generally averages 10 ft., is that a correct assumption? The City Engineer replied your affected width for all practical purposes is probably 10 ft. because you are not going to drive in the gutter lane, you basically have 10 ft. of pavement to drive on. He stated he has known of some streets that are 10-feet wide in length and they certainly impede the traffic and they also caused more accidents in the area. He felt a 12-foot lane is what should be used in the public street. Council Minutes - 9/15/87 Page 18 Mayor Matteson stated that is why Officer Evans was out there on the accident because of the 10 ft. He thanked Mr. Peloquin and stated he hoped they had given them enough information to work that night. Mayor Matteson indicated Item #2, Temporary Restraining Order against Fieldcrest Homes. The Planning Director read the staff report regarding testimonies from local residents that live adjacent to the Fieldcrest Development and primarily their complaints about the violation of the City Municipal Code Section 8.108.030 Noise. He stated, present this evening is a representative of the Fieldcrest Development and if Council so desires, staff would suggest opening the floor and affording him the opportunity to give a testimony. The City Attorney stated we really are here to give the developers the opportunity to respond, and if he does not respond and if the testimony that you hear is such that you deem if a public nuisance, you should declare it and direct the City Attorney to obtain a preliminary injunction, Temporary Restraining Order. He stated he did contact the developer's representative and they indicated they would be present this evening and he believed they were present. He stated he felt they should have the opportunity to respond, he generally conveyed to them what the complaints were and he will let them tell you what their response is in their own words. John Neggie Mr. Meggie stated they have a problem and they have tried to Superintendent solve it. He believes some of it has been a little bit for Fieldcrest exaggerated. He indicated according to an officer by the name Development of Riggs said that the last seven days they have not had a violation called in, with the exception of today. He stated they had one that was stupidly done by one of the workmen and he told the officer it was his first day there when it wasn't. He stated they sent out letters to all the subcontractors that starting before 7:00 a.m. will not be tolerated and if they continue to do this, they will no longer be working on the Fieldcrest Project. He stated they have signs up, they will put fences up, if necessary. He stated he did not know what else to do except shut the whole thing down. He stated it is very difficult to talk to people who can't speak English. He stated most of them understand now because they have been cited a couple of times and he hopes this will be the end of this so that they can go on with the building. Mayor Matteson asked if there were any residents that would like to speak on this. Council Minutes - 9/15/87 Page 19 Bill Dodge Mr. Dodge said that he was here at the September 10, 1987 22887 Finch meeting and a couple of his neighbors addressed Council with these problems. He stated he gave Council copies of the logs that he and his neighbors kept of the violations for the last four or five days since the last meeting. This past Sunday, he went down into the development and chased off two gentlemen who were trying to deliver scaffolding, and when he asked them aren't you aware of this ordinance, they said nobody ever told us about it. He stated the only thing that discouraged them was the possibility of the $50.00 cite. He stated he has not done his job. He has not done anything about avoiding or creating less of a nuisance. Mr. Dodge stated he was here tonight to act as a representative for all the neighbors who border this project to ask that, in fact, that this project be considered a public nuisance and that an injunction be started against them. He indicated this is the only way these people are going to understand it. Mr. Dodge said as far as what he wants and what his neighbors want is their peace and quiet and the only way they are going to get it is get an injunction process started to have this company declared a public nuisance. He stated they also want to know why, out of the thirty-six times that the sheriff was out, he cited only twice. Mayor Matteson asked Mr. Neggie if he wanted to answer that? Mr. Neggie stated the signs were made out and brought out today, one sign, a double sided sign. He stated there will be two more signs which will cover up the two streets coming in, that will be Van Buren and Cardinal. Mr. Neggie stated there is no problem getting those put up and they will also put fences up on the existing streets, coming up Cardinal and also on Van Buren and will lock those. They will lock the street on Observation, and it will not be opened until 7:00 a.m. because he will have the only key. Marilyn Dodge Mrs. Dodge stated on Sunday, she also had to call the sheriff because there was a roofer out there using a saw to cut the cement tiles. She did not believe that sheriff had any trouble communicating with that roofer because the roofer ultimately got down, packed up his tools and left. She stated she did not think there is a problem with communication in English. Mayor Matteson thanked Mrs. Dodge and asked what if we give Mr. Neggie an opportunity to fence that, lock the gates and also give Mr. Dodge your phone number, so that if there is a problem, you call Mr. Neggie and try to solve it in that manner. He asked would that be satisfactory to you Mr. Dodge? Council Minutes - 9/15/87 Page 20 Mr. Dodge replied sure, he will go along with that. Mr. Dodge stated he wants a date when it will be put up and in place. He stated if we don't we will be leaving them with an open-end situation, and he has found it does not work. Mayor Matteson asked Mr. Neggie when could he have that fence put up. Mr. Neggie said he will have the contractor out tomorrow and it shouldn't be no more than two or three days. Mayor Matteson asked Mr. Dodge and Mr. Neggie to please exchange phone numbers and Mr. Neggie could call and give Mr. Dodge a date and also call the City and give the City that date. Mrs. Dodge stated Mr. Faries, who was not here tonight, was concerned about them undercutting his back fence. Mayor Matteson asked them to give Mr. Faries the phone number of Mr. Neggie. Mrs. Dodge asked how about the run-off ditch? What's going to happen on that? Mayor Matteson stated the City Engineer will handle that. She wanted is there a deadline on that? The City Engineer stated they will get with Mr. Neggie and resolve all these problems in the very near future. The City Engineer stated yes he understood and, Mr. Dodge, in the past, that these are some of the problems we've had and this was before Mr. Neggie's appearance on the job. He stated he was not saying that this developer is exceptional or that he is the worst in the world, he is saying that since this has been brought to our attention, you and I spoke approximately about a week or so ago, he wasn't aware of all the problems, 40 unfortunately, not that he could have solved them. He stated his experience has been that working with them, they try to be reasonable and all he is saying is that he would like to sit down with Mr. Neggie and try to resolve those problems and then come back and give a definite date as to when they will be resolved if not before we get back together. Mayor Matteson asked Mr. Dodge if he would get Mr. Neggie's phone number so you can reach him 24-hours a day. Mr. Neggie said in the background that his main office number and home phone number is on there. Councilmember Evans stated it sounds as if we are dealing with two problems, a building engineering problem and the noise ordinance problem. He stated he will only address the noise because he thinks that is the primary concern this evening. Councilmember Evans asked Mr. Neggie, you are prepared to put up a fence around the whole project, is that correct? Council Minutes - 9/15/87 Page 21 Mr. Neggie stated they will have to. That is the only way they are going to be able to keep those people out before 7:00 a.m. Councilmember Evans asked Mr. Neggie from your experience in the past, how long will it take to get a fence up? Mr. Neggie stated anywhere from three to four days. Councilmember Evans stated one week from this Thursday, Council will be meeting again, if it is not, he would like to request right now that matter be put on the agenda for review. If it is agreeable with Mr. Dodge and if the problems have not been resolved at that time, they will seriously consider taking the Temporary Restraining Order. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated the thing that disturbs her about this whole thing is that Grand Terrace is a quality community and we encourage development with quality developers. She stated Fieldcrest was not the original company that we were dealing with and she has had nothing but problems come out of that development ever since it broke ground. She stated she cannot imagine how a company the size of Fieldcrest cannot have a fence up around the perimeter of that facility in less than four days, if they really wanted to. She stated a quality developer comes in, understands the area he is in, and works responsibly and cooperatively with the community. Fieldcrest owes that to Grand Terrace and we intend to see that Fieldcrest gives it to us. Commissioner Sims indicated as one of the owners, he thinks the fence is a good idea, but he wanted to stress that you are AW putting up a barrier to prevent people from getting in before 7:00 a.m., but you won't be doing anything to prevent the people from milling around those lock gates and quite possibly creating a disturbance at the same early hours. Mr. Neggie gave Council a copy of what they sent out to all their subcontractors. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated there is an amazing mechanism and it is called a payroll check. It has an amazing quality of being able to control what that man does. Mayor Matteson stated we have discussed this thing and now hopefully we have a solution worked out between Mr. Neggie and Mr. Dodge. This is not going to be perfect no matter which way it goes, there has to be a little give and take, so hopefully both of you will work together and try to come up with a solution. Council Minutes - 9/15/87 Page 22 4 Councilmember Evans stated just so he understands, this will be on for the next meeting for review? The Planning Director stated if Council so desires. Councilmember Evans stated he feels it is imperative. Also, Mr. Neggie, if you have legal counsel, have them explain to you what a Temporary Restraining Order is all about and the power of a Peace Officer, if someone violates it. Mayor Matteson adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m. until the next regular City Council meeting which will be held Thursday, September 25, 1987 at 5:30 p.m. Council Minutes - 9/15/87 Page 23 Respectfully submitted: Deputy City Clerk APPROVED: Mayor CITY OF GRAND TERRACE 0 g 1987 COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - SEPTEMBER 24, 1987 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace was called to order in the Council Chambers, Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on September 24, 1987, at 5:30 p.m. PRESENT: Byron Matteson, Mayor Barbara Pfennighausen, Mayor Pro Tem Hugh J. Grant, Councilmember 4 Dennis L. Evans, Councilmember Thomas J. Schwab, City Manager/Finance Director Randy Anstine, Assistant City Manager Juanita Brown, Deputy City Clerk Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney David Sawyer, Planning Director Joe Kicak, City Engineer ABSENT: Councilmember Shirley The meeting was opened with invocation by Susan Shaw, Assistant Professor of Religion, California Baptist College, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen. Mayor Matteson convened City Council meeting at 5:35 p.m. ITEMS DELETED FROM THE AGENDA Mayor Matteson asked if there were any items to be deleted from the agenda. The City Manager requested Item D - Approval of September 10, 1987 Minutes be deleted from the agenda due to changes that need to be made. SPECIAL PRESENTATION Proclamation Mayor Matteson presented a proclamation, proclaiming "Minority Enterprise Development Week" October 4-7, 1987. Resolution Mayor Matteson presented a resolution in Support of Maintaining Mexican Consulate Services. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Matteson asked Council if there were any items on the Consent Calendar to be removed for discussion. Councilmember Grant requested Item A - Approve Check Register No. 092487. CC-87-182 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen, second by Councilmember Grant, ALL AYES, to approve the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Item B - Ratify September 24, 1987 CRA Action Item C - Waive Full Reading of Ordinances and Resolutions on Agenda Item E - Waiver of fees for the Multiple Sclerosis Society for 4 use of Community Meeting Room. Councilmember Grant stated that on page one, Voucher No. P5264, and he asked if that was John Lightburn's luncheon? Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen replied, "yes." Councilmember Grant questioned on the second page, Check Register No. 17408, for $145.00 for Bare Facts, what was that? The City Manager replied it was a 1/8 page ad in a publication put out by the Civil Air Patrol; a donation requested for activities of Civil Air Patrol. The City Manager stated the Council has a $2,000.00 budget which covers this type of item. Motion by Councilmember Grant, second by Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen, ALL AYES, to approve Check Register No. 17408. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Mayor Matteson opened the meeting for public participation. Tony Petta Mr. Petta stated he appreciated the Mayor reading the 11875 Eton Dr. proclamation of the Constitution and the importance of remembering the fact that, we the people refer to the government of the people by and for the people. He also stated the importance of government meetings being opened to the public. He stated that last Monday evening, he attended the Planning Commission Meeting and made reference to the Forest City Dillon Project. He stated the public was not properly notified of such an important meeting. He stated the newspaper should have carried the notice for the public's benefit. He stated this Phase I project went before the Planning Commission and was denied. He voiced his many concerns about the impact the apartment will have on Mt. Vernon and the density being the greatest. The developer appealed and went before the City Council and the City Council addressed only one of the problems, which was density. They felt this was the main issue and, therefore, the City Council approved the whole project. He stated the developers submitted a plan to the Planning Council Minutes - 9/24/87 Page 2 Commission last Monday for 308 units, in addition to the original 248 units. Their project chose not to consider the conditions of the ordinance. He stated this was approved by the Planning Commission and will come before Council. Mr. Petta stated Phase I already has 248 units approved, which apparently will be built, 96 units will be built in the Britton area and that already is too much. He stated it will severely impact Mt. Vernon. He stated as long as the City Council understood the concerns of the people west of the freeway, and did away with not only the project, but the zone, that sets the precedents and, therefore, it would be wise to do the same on Mt. Vernon. Councilmember Grant stated that this will come before the City Council approximately October 24, 1987, or may be as soon as October 8, 1987. The City Manager stated that they will try and have it on October 8, 1987, as most of the groundwork is already set. Councilmember Grant stated he is ready whenever staff feels they are. He stated his suggestion to staff was, in addition to the normally described legal places of notification that it be publicized in the newspapers. Someone has to make an effort to publicize, not only the people that might be affected, but the people from all over Grand Terrace if they are concerned about this need to be notified. He stated he hoped that we would make every effort to let people know. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen reiterated the fact that the Planning Commission made an accurate decision and was very thorough in their study of the facts stating that the denial of the project west of the freeway, was not based on density, but on safety and access of the project. She stated that the Forest City Dillon Project is not a poor quality project, but a quality project by a quality builder. After much discussion, the Planning Commission voted 6 to 1 in favor of the project. She felt it was about time people got concerned about this project, and that only about fifteen people were verbal and stopped it the last time. Mayor Matteson stated it was not the time for an open discussion on this subject, that it will be opened for public discussion at a later date. He stated that maybe the Foothill Journal could carry an article on it. He then asked if there were any other public participation. Debbie Harber Ms. Harber reported the Chamber of Commerce's upcoming installation Dinner on October 24, 1987. On October 31, 1987, they will be having their Chili Cookoff. November 8, 1987, will be the day of the races at Santa Anita. Council Minutes - 9/24/87 Page 3 Ed O'Neal Mr. O'Neal stated two years ago, Grand --Terrace enacted the 22608 Minona Dr. first Smoke Control Ordinance in San Bernardino County. In general, every city within the boundary of San Bernardino County, has either enacted or is in the process of enacting a similar program. He stated we will be hearing more about it in November. Mayor Matteson asked if there were any committee reports? Crime Prevention Ms. Sharon Korgan asked Council to donate funds for the Sharon Korgan plaquesfor the Poster and Essay Contest which she allocated Crime Prevention $30.00 a piece for nine plaques. She discussed the program Officer goals for 1987/88. She stated that Council had in their packet a list of the goals she was discussing. She invited Council to 4bv the October 19, 1987 Monthly Business Watch Meeting at 7:00 p.m. She also invited Council to the Neighborhood Watch Program on September 30, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. in the Community Room. She thanked Council for the full-time position, which she felt is much needed. She asked Council to please act on the plaques. Mayor Matteson stated he had one question about the plaquesbeing so expensive. Ms. Korgan stated that she geared it a little high. The City Attorney stated there was no action item on the agenda regarding the plaques, therefore, Council could not act on this issue. Mayor Matteson asked that it be placed on the agenda for the next meeting. The City Manager stated that if Council had general concensus that they want to purchase the plaques, we have sufficent funds in our existing budget to buy them. Mayor Matteson stated he felt it was the general concensus, but the cost should be investigated. The City Manager stated he will check out more than one price. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated to keep up the good work. Ms. Korgan informed the Council that Thomas Semph has resigned from the Crime Prevention Committee. CC-87-183 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen, second by Councilmember Evans, ALL AYES, to accept the resignation from Thomas Semph,regretfully, and that staff should advertise to accept applications for his replacement. Mayor Matteson asked staff to send a letter of appreciation to Mr. Semph. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked that Mr. Semph be included in the Volunteer Banquet. Mayor Matteson asked if there were any other discussions? Parks and Mr. Buchwalter stated they have a full compliment on the Crime Recreation Prevention Committee with Mr. Semph's resignation and they have Committee parties interested in joining the Committee as active members, Ralph Buchwalter therefore, they will be making an application to fill the 22970 Merle Ct. vacancy immediately. He stated they are presently functioning Council Minutes - 9/24/87 Page 4 4 as a full compliment. He stated that Council will have full cooperation from the Crime Prevention Committee, as well as the Parks and Recreation Committee regarding vandalism. Mayor Matteson asked if there were any other oral reports? Parks and Ms. Conley, Chairman of Parks and Recreation Committee stated Recreation that there are three vacancies, due to the resignation of Chuck Committee Percy, Ken Linderhagen and Louie Galvez. She asked Council to Barbara Conley advertise for vacancies. She also stated that she is meeting with all of the other committees regarding an 1988 Community Events Calendar. COUNCIL REPORTS Mayor Matteson asked if there were any Council reports? Councilmember Evans stated he had two items, the first was the Barton Road over -crossing to the I-215 freeway and the congestion. His main concern was the widening of the bridge. He stated that in 1985, our City Engineer sent correspondence to Caltrans concerning widening of the bridge on Barton Road and I-215, and that Caltrans felt there was not enough traffic to warrant their participation. In March 1987, we again, submitted correspondence to Caltrans asking for an update on the situation. He asked if we had received a reply on that. The City Engineer stated we also asked for synchronization of the signals at that time. He stated that in a letter he received last week, Caltrans asked for our traffic data on Michigan and Barton Road to be compared with their traffic data. The comparison would be used in the decision both to widen the bridge and to synchronize signals at these locations. In communication, Caltrans stated the synchronization of the lights would pose no major problem, but that the lights will need to be interconnected with lights on the off -ramp. Councilmember Evans stated he would appreciate receiving any correspondence received since June 1987. The City Engineer stated that the widening of the bridge would be contingent upon the passage of the 1/2 cent sales tax. Councilmember Evans stated he wants to explore the Council's options in case the Bill does not pass. Councilmember Evans stated the second issue is in reference to the Pico Park site. He stated that since we are in dire need of park sites, he asked that staff prepare a timetable which would be utilized to guide the development of that park once we enter into that agreement with Southern California Edison. He would like to see that in conjunction with the signing of that agreement. Council Minutes - 9/24/87 Page 5 Councilmember Grant stated for the record, he represented the cities of San Bernardino County at the Local Agency Formation Commission on September 23, 1987. He stated that he sat in on the Yucaipa Municipal Advisory Council's Open Session on Yucaipa Cityhood on September 24, 1987. He further stated that he has again observed the rubbish on top of Mt. Vernon and advised staff to have it picked -up. He also indicated the parking lot at Stater Bros. Shopping Center needed to be cleaned up. Mayor Matteson directed staff to write a letter to the landlord regarding the clean-up. Councilmember Grant asked if we had received any update from the developer regarding the Westar Project? The City Manager replied we have not received any directly from them, but he will request an update and report back to Council. Councilmember Grant stated he would appreciate it. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated as a piggy -back to the issues made by Councilmember Grant, the lessors pay to have sidewalks and parking lots maintained. She has encouraged them to take some kind of action against Viking Properties to take care of this. She stated that in regard to the Westar Project, we should receive an update at least once a month on where they are. She stated that she attended the Parks and Recreation Committee meeting and one of the big concerns that the Parks and Recreation Committee requested her to bring before Council was the frustration that was felt in not getting information Ar before the fact about the General Plan Update. She stated they wanted to put in a request that they be given the opportunity before it comes to the Council for officially reviewing any recommendations for any place in the City regarding park land so they have some idea of what the General Plan Consultant is considering, like the buying of land, the places that he is identifying as potential sites, so they might address some of the issues in the development of park sites. She stated that was an official request from the Parks and Recreation Committee. She further stated that frustration is starting to come out in the Committees with resignations. These people are giving free of their time and they feel Council is not listening to them. Councilmember Evans stated that he asked staff several meetings ago to coordinate the input of information regarding the Consultant and asked if staff has done so. The City Manager replied that they have not had any direct contact to give to the General Plan Consultant. He felt staff was a little confused as to what contact they wanted the General Plan Consultant to address regarding the park issue. Council Minutes - 9/24/87 Page 6 He stated that when he talked to Mr. Geller, Mr. Geller indicated he was confused as to what context Council wanted addressed. From a General Plan standpoint, the issue of the zoning, applying to land for a park, does not generally fall under the purvue of a general update. Councilmember Evans stated that he was hired as a professional, that he should have formulated a plan for land use in this community and by now this plan should have been forwarded to the Parks and Recreation Committee. He stated that either the plan should be written and delivered to the committee or orally presented, but that it should be a one-on-one communication. He felt it was clear at the time. He stated that the committee should be aware of the plan and be able to share their input before it goes to the Planning Commission or the City Council. The City Manager stated that it was Council 's direction to the staff that there would be no direct contact with any citizens or committee members to the General Plan Consultant. With that being the direction you have given to staff, you have already, as a body told us that no one has access and unless Council changes that policy, that is the case. Councilmember Evans asked if any correspondence is being forward to the committee. The City Manager replied, no direct correspondence relating to parks. Councilmember Evans asked has the request been transferred to the Consultant as to Council's concern? The City Manager replied, we have talked to the Consultant and that was the result of the fact stated that he is confused as to what Council wanted to see. He stated the Consultant feels it was not his job to stake out land that the City has no control over and designate it as parkland. Councilmember Evans stated the City does not have control over any land. The City Manager stated that the General Plan Consultant felt, in his professional opinion, that was not the item that should be addressed in a General Plan Amendment. Councilmember Evans stated that he is only 1 of the 5 Councilmembers, that staff should pass it on, that if he does not identify some land, that he will have some hard questions to answer to him and he hopes the Parks and Recreation Committee also. Council Minutes - 9/24/87 Page 7 Councilmember Grant indicated that what he understood the direction to staff to be was that the input to the Consultant from the community would be through the Consultant with the participation of the City Manager and the Planning Director. At no time has this Council stated that the community could not have communication with the Consultant. He stated they hired a Planning Director to plan the community and a City Manager to manage the City and that communication must take place in order for them to work together. Mayor Matteson stated that the Parks and Recreation Committee appealed before Council a few weeks ago asking permission to find a parcel of land. The Mayor stated they were denied the right and they should have let them do it. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen requested that staff find the Minutes where direction was given that only the City Manager would deal with the Consultant. She stated that she felt that other committee's should be allowed to have access to plans and be allowed to give input to those plans. She stated that they should form a citizen committee before the next update to review the plan and save the City $30,000.00, because Council has refused every suggestion the Consultant has made todate. Mayor Matteson asked staff to find the Minutes where the Parks and Recreation Committee was present and asked for permission to find a park site. Mayor Matteson asked the City Engineer what problems there 4, would in putting a stop sign at Main Street at the Michigan crossing. The City Engineer replied that would have to be coordinated with the County of Riverside because that is the boundaries between the two Counties. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated that she had talked to Melva Dunlap, Supervisor from Riverside about a piece of correspondence that a lady had received from a supervisor from that district and in the letter he made a remark that it was not serious because someone did not die there. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated that by having access to that letter, there would be no problem in getting the stop sign in that location. Mayor Matteson asked about the widening of Barton Road past the freeway down to the next bridge? The City Engineer asked within the current project? Mayor Matteson replied, yes. The City Engineer further stated that it was possible, but there are some right-of-way problems, mainly on the south side of the freeway, but these parties could be approached. He stated that if Council so directed, he would write letters to the people on the west side of I-215 and request that they consider dedicating. Council Minutes - 9/24/87 Page 8 Mayor Matteson asked if that was Council's general consensus to continue with the research? Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked the City Manager if they had funding for a project of this magnitude? The City Manager replied he felt before asking the owners to dedicate, that they should do a study on the cost to find out if they have funding in this fisal year and that Council could go from there. The City Engineer stated that the Assistant City Manager had funds budgeted for improvement on that portion of the roadway 4 and if they combined that with the estimated balance of funds, they could come back to Council with a figure of cost. L41 PUBLIC HEARING Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated that in the widening of Barton Road, there would be excessive expense because of the moving of power poles. Councilmember Evans concurred that they were talking about a lot of money and asked if they were talking about widening from the western side of the bridge to the City limits, is that the intent. Mayor Matteson replied, yes. It was observed that Hugh J. Grant left the meeting at 7:48 p.m. and returned at 7:54 p.m. Consider extension The Planning Director read the staff report regarding the T.J. T.J. Austyn Austyn extension. Mayor Matteson asked if there were any Tentative Tract questions from the audience regarding this issue? No. 13050 Robert Faries Mr. Faries stated that a meeting should be set up between 12491 Oriole Austyn and the citizens of the surrounding area and also suggested that someone from the City be in attendance to help them understand what is going on. Ed St. Jermain Mr. St. Jermain discussed the report from T.J. Austyn and 12600 Warbler stated there is no downstream storm drain for the water to go into. He stated the hydraulic report prepared for T.J. Austyn stated that there is a large amount of off -sight drainage coming from Blue Mountain onto that tract. He made reference to the options stated by the Planning Director. He stated they called themselves the Blue Mountain City, and if we are going to be the Blue Moutain City, then we need to learn to live with Blue Mountain and understand it and the natural forces that interact with it, because if we don't, Blue Mountain is just going to wash us down the mountain. Council Minutes - 9/24/87 Page 9 Mayor Matteson asked if there was anyone else in the audience that wanted to give their comments on this issue. No one desired to do so, so he returned it back to the City Council for their comments. CC-87-184 Motion by Councilmember Evans, second by Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen, to adopt staff's recommendation, Alternative Number 1 - denying the request for an extension for TM 13050, Phases 5, 6 & 7. Mayor Matteson asked if there was any discussion? The City Attorney asked what notice we gave to the developer or 4 the owners. The Planning Director replied the applicant was notified after the Planning Commission meeting of the scheduling of the meeting and he understood the City Clerk's Office and the City Manager's Office sent a copy of the report to the applicant last week, but that has not been confirmed. Mayor Matteson asked the Planning Director did this expire on September 12, 1987? The Planning Director replied, yes, but the California State Map Act automatically allows for a sixty-day extension, as long as staff from the City receives a request for a extension prior to that date or if Council acts and approves or denies the project. Councilmember Evans stated that the five members of the Council, when a project comes before them, have to rely on the professional experience of all the various agencies for their input from what they base a decision. He stated that he had major concerns as it relates to the topography. He stated there are concerns relating to grading and problems as you get closer to the foot of the hill, the topography and engineering aspect of this project are his primary reasons for requesting denial of the project. Mayor Matteson asked Council to cast their votes. Motion CC-87-184 carried ALL AYES. Mayor Matteson stated the next item is an approval of an Interim Ordinance clarifying GP-87-2 and Z-87-2 the area west of I-215. The City Attorney stated he would read the ordinance and felt it should be an Urgency Ordinance and asked that Council act on it as an Urgency Ordinance and then he read the ordinance. Council Minutes - 9/24/87 Page 10 The Planning Director stated that the Interim Ordinance is to clarify the intent of GP-87-2 and Z-87-2, the intent is that all of the changes that were approved at that time will affect all of the area west of the freeway. Until the City's overall General Plan and map designation are reviewd, this ordinance will not change any of the details of those ordinances or amendments to the General Plan. Mayor Matteson asked as clarification, why doesn't the zoning in the ordinance which was passed affect the whole City? Why are we separating that right now? The Planning Director replied that was suggested by the City Attorney and maybe he should clarify that. The City Attorney stated there are certain portions of the ordinance that could not apply and until such time as the General Plan occurs, those designations don't match what currently exists. The position would be a hunt and peck situation in which you decide and determine in each instant which designation applies and which does not. He felt it would be vulnerable to attack. He stated so that if you disapprove a project, and it's vulnerable, it doesn't take very much of a whiz to notice the area in which he should attack you. He stated he didn't think we wanted the vulnerability to attack from the position the City takes and the approval it grants. Mayor Matteson asked if this ordinance would automatically terminate upon completion of the General Plan? The City Attorney replied, Mayor Matteson yes, sir. asked if there were any questions from the audience? Councilmember Evans asked the City Attorney if he was making this ordinance an Urgency Ordinance, when would the effective date of this ordinance be. The City Attorney replied, immediately upon its adoption. CC-87-185 Motion by Councilmember Evans, second by Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen, ALL AYES, that the City Council adopt staff's recommendation regarding the Urgency Ordinance clarifying GP-87-2 and Z-87-2, the area west of I-215. UNFINISH BUSINESS Update on Noise The Assistant City Manager stated that at the last regular Violation session of the City Council, it was requested that Council be Fieldcrest aprised of the situation concerning the noise that was being Homes generated from the Fieldcrest Property. He indicated there was an update before Council that dealt with the conversation that staff had with Marilyn Dodge and Jim Sims. Council Minutes - 9/24/87 Page 11 Bill Dodge Mr. Dodge handed out a log that he and his wife had kept since 22887 Finch St. the last meeting. He stated there has been some changes, but they were not significant. He stated he tried to call Mr. Neggie, but all he got was an answering machine. In regard to the ditch, he suggested that a Bond be posted by the developer so that it will be completed. Robert Faries Mr. Faries stated the gates around the property are opened at 6:00 a.m. every morning. He stated he was contacted by the City Engineer's Office and that they were going to put in a storm drain ditch, but he was not informed as to when that is going to take place. The City Engineer stated he had a conversation with Mr. Neggie and that ditch would be worked on (60 beginning September 29th and should take no more than two days to complete. Mayor Matteson stated that the ditch is an issue that must get resolved. He stated that we have done our job on the Noise Ordinance and things are getting a little picky. These guys have to get their job done. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated that if the project is not completed by winter, the problems they are facing right now are going to be minor to the problems they will have. She further stated she is symphatic with their interrupted sleep and their peace and quiet on Saturdays and Sundays. She does not feel that Fieldcrest has been cooperative, and Council is concerned with the citizens complaints, but not if they have to stand outside and see if they are working. She stated if the 4, deputies are not citing them, then they need to be given redirection. She asked the people how would you like to be house directly behind the underground drain at Cardinal and Warbler when that water comes down that hill; how would you like to be that property owner when that comes down as a sea of mud. She stated that the drainage channel has to be carefully monitored and done quickly; that the developer should be ready with sandbags in that event. Councilmember Grant asked the City Attorney, in reference to the chronological notes presented to him by Mr. Dodge, if City Law has been violated. The City Attorney replied, probably on some of the occasions, but felt the instances had been reduced. For the most part he did not feel that they are construction -oriented offensive noises. CC-87-186 Motion by Councilmember Grant, that Council instruct the Attorney to provide Council with a recommendation whether not they should require posting of a substantial bond to restrain the developer from continuing a nuisance in this regard or to provide them with information whether or not should have a legal injunction. Council Minutes - 9/24/87 Page 12 Ci ty or they Second by Councilmember Evans for purposes of discussion. He asked the City Attorney to define a Temporary Restraining Order and a Bond that Council member Grant proposed. The City Attorney replied there is no similarity, the Bond would assure that this would not occur, it would be a voluntary bond. The affective way would be the Temporary Restraining Order. Councilmember Evans went through the log provided by Mr. Dodge and asked the City Attorney in his opinion, which occurrences were actually in violation of the ordinance. The City Attorney stated the occurrences he felt were in violation. Marilyn Dodge Mrs. Dodge stated she felt it asked of them to provide Council with an update, therefore, she took specific notes. Detective Reynosa asked to address the specific date of the 20th of September. He stated that the Sheriff's Officer went out to the site and spoke to the workers. He informed Detective Reynosa as to what his disposition was on that assignment. The Officer advised him that he had not seen either of the two men on prior occasions, so he took the alternative to ask them to leave, which they did. Councilmember Evans stated from reviewing the chronology of those dates where there have been violations, with one exception where the deputies have taken action by initiating a tv citation. The City Attorney now has to address that in court. Sandy Windbigler Ms. Windbigler stated she does not live in Grand Terrace anymore, but works here and felt the citizens need to be more patient with the developer; as soon as the developers get their work done, they will be on their way. She stated that it is not always the developers fault, sometimes it is the subcontractors fault. Councilmember Grant stated the people have been more than patient. Mayor Matteson stated that if the motion is passed, is that to install an injunction on this tract of homes? If so, the developers better increase the insurance, because when the mud comes down into that tract of homes, the same people are going to come back to Council for restitution. The City Attorney stated he did not believe the motion directed him to to obtain a Temporary Restraining Order. Mayor Matteson asked Councilmember Grant to repeat the motion. Council Minutes - 9/24/87 Page 13 Councilmember Grant stated that this Couincil instructs the City Attorney to provide Council with a recommendation as to whether or not they should impose an injunction or whether or not there should be required a legal Bond against the developers to restrain the nuisance. The City Attorney inquired as to whether or not Council would want him to wait until the next Council meeting to seek a Temporary Restraining Order. Councilmember Granted stated, "no." The City Attorney stated if the motion passes, he suggests that (40 rather than reporting back to Council as a whole, because they won't meet for two weeks, that they might want him to report back to either the Mayor or the City Manager. The Mayor asked the City Attorney to explain the motion. The City Attorney stated the motion was for them to report back with the affect of either or both, and his recommendation as to which method should be pursued or to pursue a Temporary Restraining Order and the Bond. Motion CC-87-186 carried ALL AYES. NEW BUSINESS Request for The Assistant City Manager stated the City Council has received 4 No Parking Signs a request from three property owners, whose property is located on Barton Road on Grand Terrace Road, just north of Barton, to delineate certain areas of Grand Terrace Road as "No Parking" areas. He stated staff has gone out and looked at the area and staff has no objection if Council choose to delineate these areas. Mayor Matteson indicated the agenda stated Barton Road, not Grand Terrace Road and asked the City Attorney if there was a problem with that? The City Attorney replied, yes. The Mayor postponed that item until the next Council meeting. Appropriation of The Assistant City Manager stated staff was requested to go fees for the back and research the status of the establishment of a reward establishment system. He stated that at that point and time, there had been of a Vandalism a request made to the City for collection for said reward, but Reward Program if Council so desired the sum of $500.00 be appropriated and set aside and utilized for that purpose. CC-87-187 Motion by Mayor Matteson, second by Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen, ALL AYES, to appropriate fees for the establishment of Vandalism Reward Program. Council Minutes - 9/24/87 Page 14 Extension of 90 Mayor Matteson stated that he has since received a letter days granted to requesting that the date be extended to December 30, 1987, ITT School until because the building that they are moving into will not be 11/30/87 completed. They will actually be closing the school on the 18th of December and want until the 30th of December to move out. CC-87-188 Motion by Mayor Matteson, second by Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen. Councilmember Evans stated that it was never the intent of the City to force ITT School out, that he has heard the City wants to welcome them with open arms. He asked if they would 4W consider moving back into Grand Terrace if they can work something out with the Victor Construction Project. Bill Miles Mr. Miles stated the situation with Victor Construction and the 10437 San decision making was that they did not have enough time to wait Antonio, for Victor Construction. It has come down to timing, as they Colton are requiring more classroom space. He stated that they felt it was in their best interest because of timing to leave the City of Grand Terrace although, they have looked extensively for more space, before coming to Council. Councilmember Evans asked if Council were to take action that would say you could stay and if there are available facilities in that building contingent upon finding other suitable locations within the Terrace, would you go with that? Mr. Miles stated that they would seriously consider it, but parking is a major consequence. Councilmember Evans stated that they have until December 30, 1987, and suggested staff closely coordinate with ITT and Victor Construction in a timely fashion the possibility of keeping the school in the Terrace. Mayor Matteson stated that they already have a lease. Councilmember Evans stated that leases can be broken. Mr. Miles stated that Grand Terrace had worked and cooperated with them to the extent beyond reasonableness and they are very thankful for that. Mayor Matteson asked Council to cast their votes. Motion CC-87-188 carried ALL AYES. Council Minutes - 9/24/87 Page 15 PI The Council meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Regular schedule meeting to be held on Thursday, October 8, 1987 at 5:30 p.m. Council Minutes - 9/24/87 Page 16 Respectfully submitted: Deputy City Clerk APPROVED: Mayor LI! f-." T7 Tj r I C' tr TI1 Deve CC: -a, s 1 7 e -3 CF :11 E C-. i F-11 CI, 77 i I I-o a - a s sa .2 a s a,7-, zj I C ;e CIS C, 1-7 -0 DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC �:; �., �! % /.J COUNTY OF SAN BEIRDINO AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT`�'�'�'�'�; PUBEVIRONMENTAL LNC WORKS AGENCY 474 West Fifth Street San Bernardino, CA 92415-0040 (714) 387-4573 THOMAS R LAURIN I , Director September 18, 1987 Honorable Byron R. Matteson, Mayor City of Grand Terrace 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace, CA 92324 RE: SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CDBG REQUALIFICATION NOTICE Dear Mayor Matteson: The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) recently issued Notice Number CPD 87-10, a copy of which is enclosed for your reference. This notice addresses the qualification process for urban county participation in the Community Development Block Grant Program. As part of the qualification process, San Bernardino County is required to notify each eligible unit of general local government of its opportunity to continue to participate with the County during the upcoming three year (Fiscal Years 1988 through 1990) CDBG Program, or elect to have its population excluded from that of the County's total, and seek CDBG funds on a competetive basis through the State of California Small Cities CDBG 4W Program. An extract of that notice states: "By September 18, 1987, any county seeking to qualify for an entitlement grant as an urban county for Fiscal Year 1988 must notify in writing each unit of general local government which is located in the county, and which is eligible to elect to have its population excluded from that of the urban county (as described in paragraph III. A.) that it has the opportunity to make such an election. The notification must make clear that such an election, or the failure to make such an election, will be effective for the three year period for which the county qualifies as an urban county, and must state that the unit of general local government must notify the county and HUD of an election to be so executed by October 15, 1987." Please address correspondence to HUD as follows: Ms. Bobbie Denson U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Los Angeles Area Office, Region IY, 1615 West Olympic Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90015-3801 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY September 18, 1987 Page 2 CDBG REQUALIFICATION NOTICE You need to be aware that a decision to exclude the City's population from that of the County's total would remain in effect during the next three year CDBG program period. If the City elects to exclude its population and no longer participate with the County CDBG Program, the City must notify the County and HUD of this decision by October 15, 1987. Said notice should be accompanied by a City Council Resolution specifying the City's desire to not participate. In making your decision, you should consider that during your past participation in the County's CDBG Program, your City has received over $346,972 in capital 4 improvements, as well as direct citizen benefits from several County CDBG programs. These programs include housing preservation, business expansion loans and various public services. Should your City decide to continue to participate in the County's CDBG Program during the upcoming three year period, a new cooperation agreement will need to be executed and sent to HUD by November 9, 1987. The new Cooperation Agreement will be similar to the agreement now in effect. It is being updated to address the rules set forth in the attached HUD notice and will be transmitted to you by October 2, 1987. The transmittal date will allow you about 3 weeks to review the agreement and obtain authorization (via City Council Resolution) to execute the agreements. To stay within HUD's time frame, executed agreements will need to be submitted to this office by October 23, 1987. Upon receipt, and prior to HUD's November 9, 1987 deadline, the executed agreements will be presented to the Board of Supervisors for approval. ,r Please keep these dates in mind as you schedule City Attorney and City Council reviews. It is critical that we receive completed documents from you by the October 23 deadline. For additional information on the County's CDBG Program, we invite you or your designee to attend a meeting for the cooperating cities scheduled for October 2, 1987, 10:00 A.M. in the Citrus Room, County Government Center, Fifth Floor, 385 North Arrowhead Avenue, San Bernardino. We look forward to working with you in a cooperative venture to meet the needs of your City's low and moderate income households over the next three years. If you have any questions, please call me at (714) 387-4594 or Mr. Douglas Payne at (714) 387-4583. Sincerely, ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITHOMAS R. LAURIN Director TRL:Is Enclosures cc: Thomas J. Schwab, Acting City Manager Barbara Cram Riordan, Supervisor Third District -------------- ----- NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (- COUNTIES 202/39 i h?.I, r . M E M O R A N D U M *60 September 1, 1987 TO: CD Service Fee Members FROM: Don Pep F Director RE: Attached FY 1988 Urban County Qualification Process for CDBG Program Attached is the Urban County Qualification Process requirements for FY 88. It will be quite complicated for some counties so please take close note of the contents. Also, there are additional requirements for co-op agreements. Call me if you have questions or comments at (202) 393-6226. U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Planning and Development A Special Attention of All Regional Administrators ATTN: Directors for CPD All Field Office Managers ATTN: CPD Division Directors Subject Notice: CPD 87-10 Issued September 1, 1987 Expires September 1, 1988 Cross References. Succeeds Notice CPD 86-7 Federal Fiscal Year 1988 urban county qualification process in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. I. General This Notice establishes requirements, deadlines, and general procedures to be followed in determining the qualification of urban counties and joint recipients for program years 1988 through 1990. It also states Departmental policy regarding determinations of essential powers of urban counties, provisions for split places and performance reviews (of urban counties and joint recipients. Additionally, it 46Westablishes a schedule of actions required of urban counties to qualify for entitlement status for Fiscal Years 1988 through 1990. Standards for cooperation agreements are set forth at section III. D. The standards contain additional requirements pertaining to real property acquisition, disposition and program income not generally contained in existing agreements. Moreover, please note that language relative to compliance with Civil Rights provisions has been revised to clarify the Department's position regarding compliance with these and other provisions. The new provisions are denoted in this Notice by bold type. It is suggested that special attention be directed to these new requirements and grantees be advised of the additional required provisions that must be included in cooperation agreements. A section has also been added to the Notice describing certain legislation now pending and suggesting how potentially affected counties should proceed. This section is also flagged by bold type. CCBE Distribution w - 3 -1 , W-1 , R-1 , R-6 , Bulk copies W Field CPD Directors Previous [-&tions Are Ohsoletc HUD 21 E"-?0 city in the urban county if grandfathering legislation is enacted. Nevertheless, HUD will accept cooperation agreements from such cities that contain a provision stating that such agreement will not become effective if the grandfathering provision is enacted prior to the official allocation of CDBG funds for FY 1988. B_ Deferral: Pending legislation would allow new metropolitan cities —Co —defer their entitlement status in order to be part of an urban county. If the pending legislation is not passed certain cities will become new entitlement cities (including several that would have become metropolitan cities three years ago but that elected to defer such status under a now defunct provision), and in some cases the respective urban county will lose entitlement status. (Such cities and their counties are identified in an attachment to this Notice.) Affected urban counties may proceed to execute cooperation agreements with any such units'of"local government on the assumption that deferral legislation will be passed. Any such agreements should contain a provision specifying that the agreement will become effective only if a statutory provision authorizing deferral of metropolitan city status becomes enacted prior to the official allocation of the FY 1988 CDBG funds. C. Urban County definition may be modified as a result of a pending amendment that would allow any county with 200,000 potential combined population to qualify as an urban county if its unincorporated population plus participating units AW total a minimum of 50,000. Therefore, any county attempting to qualify under the terms of this Notice that fails to secure participation of the currently required 200,000 combined population by the established deadline, may submit the documentation for those units that do wish to participate, in the event that statutory change may by then enable the county to qualify based on that population level by the time the official allocation of FY 1988 CDBG funds is made. Counties potentially affected by the above described pending legislation should initiate actions to fulfill the requirements set forth in this Notice. They will be notified in accordance with the schedule contained in this Notice, taking into account any statutory amendments that may occur before the official fund allocation is ready to be made. 3 undertake essential community development and housing assistance activities or may do so only with the consent of the governing body of the locality. HUD will count such a unit towards qualification of the urban county only if the county is authorized to undertake essential community develoment and housing assistance activities with the consent of the governing body of the locality and the county and the unit of general local government have executed a cooperation agreement to undertake, or assist in the undertaking of, essential community development and housing assistance activities. The county must submit cooperation agreements meeting the standards set forth in paragraph III.D. of this Notice to HUD by November 9, 1987. 4 B. Special rules for split places If a unit of general local government is located only partly within a county (a split place), the population of the portion of the unit of general local government located outside the county will not be included in that county for the purpose of urban count qualification P Y q (i.e., to reach the 200,000 Population threshold). For the purpose of urban county grant computation, the entire area of such a split place will be included as a part of the urban county if: 1. The part of the split place located within the boundaries of the county would otherwise be included in computing the urban county's grant amount (i.e., that such unit of general local government either does not elect to have its Population excluded from the county, or enters into a cooperation agreement with the urban county, as applicable); and, 2. The part of the split place outside the boundaries of the county is not included in calculating the grant amount for any other unit of general local government entitled to a Community Development Block Grant. Where a portion of a split place located outside the county is included in the urban county for grant computation purposes, that area shall be included in the housing conditions, needs and goals established in the Housing Assistance Plan (HAP) for that urban county. Counties seeking qualification as urban counties and having units of _general local government located only partly within the county must notify such units of their applicable rights by September 18, 1987. Specifically, the county must notify a split place with any population located in the county that: S D. Cooperation agreements Certain urban counties must enter into cooperation agreements with certain units of general local government located in whole or in part within the county (as described in paragraph III. A. and B.) in order for such units to be included as part of the urban county. Such counties must submit to HUD executed cooperation agreements, together with evidence of authorization by the governing bodies of both parties (county and included unit), executed by the proper officials not later than November 9, 1987. These cooperation agreements must allow the county to undertake or assist in undertaking essential community development and housing assistance activities, and should clearly state that the county has final responsibility for selecting activities and annually filing Final Statements with HUD. All such cooperation agreements must meet the following standards in order to be acceptable for this purpose: 1. The agreements must give the county authority to carry out activities which will be funded from annual CD Block Grants from Federal Fiscal Years 1988, 1989 and 1990 appropriations and from any program income generated from the expenditure of such funds. 2. The agreements must state expressly that the county and the cooperating unit of general local government agree to 4W "cooperate to undertake, or assist in undertaking, community renewal and lower income housing assistance activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly assisted housing." As an alternative to this wording, the cooperation agreements may reference State legislation authorizing such activities, but only with the approval of the specific alternative wording by counsel of the appropriate HUD Field Office. 3. HUD shall not accept any agreement which contains a provision for veto or other restriction which would allow any party to the agreement to obstruct the implementation of the approved HAP during the three program years for which the county qualifies as an urban county and for such additional time as may be required for the expenditure of funds granted to the county for such period. 4. HUD shall not accept any agreement which contains a provision for termination or withdrawal by the county or the cooperating unit of general local government, except as specifically authorized under Section II, Effects of Pending Legislation. 7 d_ That the county has the responsibility for monitoring and reporting to HUD on the use of any such program income thereby requiring appropriate recordkeeping and reporting by the participating unit as may be needed for this purpose; and, e_ That in the event of close-out or change in status of the participating unit, any program income that is on hand or received subsequent to the close-out or change in status shall be paid to the county. 9. The Cooperation Agreement shall include provisions setting forth the standards which shall apply to real property acquired or improved in whole or in part using CDBG funds that is within the control of a participating unit of general local government. The standards must include: a. The timely notification of the county by the participating unit of local government for any modification or change in the use'•of the real property from that planned at the time of acquisition or improvement including disposition; b. Provision for reimbursing the county in an amount equal to the current fair market value (less any portion thereof attributable to expenditures of non- CDBG funds) of property acquired or improved with CDBG funds that is sold or transfered for a use which does not qualify under the CDBG regulations; and, C. Treatment of program income generated from the disposition or transfer of property prior to or subsequent to the close-out, change of status or termination of the cooperation agreement between the county and the participating unit. A county may also include in the cooperation agreement any provisions authorized by State and local laws which legally obligate the cooperating units to undertake the necessary actions, as determined by the county, to carry out a community development program and the approved requirements of the CDBG program and HAP, otheraappli meet other plicable laws. E. Qualification documentation By November 9, 1987 a county wishing to qualify as an urban county tor Fiscal Year 1988 must submit to the responsible HUD Field Office: W pertaining to each urban county are available in Headquarters. Under separate cover the CPD Data Systems and Statistics Division will supply Field Offices with instructions and worksheets necessary to report which units of government are to be included in urban counties. By December 18, 1987, Data Systems will return the printed updated urban county worksheets to the Field Offices with a cover memorandum notifying the Field Office of any discrepancies, problems or questions. The Field Office will be asked to verify the data and respond to Data Systems within seven days if a problem exists with the data. CPD Headquarters will complete its review of all qualification information by December 18, 1987, and as soon as possible thereafter will, through the applicable Field Office, notify each county seeking to qualify as an urban county (1 ) whether or not the county qualifies as an urban county, (2) the three-year period for which the county qualifies as an urban county, (3) which communities are included in the urban county for the three years of qualification, and (4) which communities have properly elected not to be included in the urban county for the three years of qualification. Similar information shall be supplied by the Field Offices to appropriate State agencies where States are administering the CDBG program for nonentitled communities. G. Period of qualification Any county which qualifies as an urban county will be entitled to receive funds as an urban county for three successive Fiscal Years regardless of changes in its population or the metropolitan city status of any portion of the urban county during that period, unless the urban county does not receive a grant for any year during such period. For grant calculation, during the three-year period of qualification, no included unit of general local government may withdraw from the urban county, and no additional geographical area may be newly included in the urban county, except that a unit of general local government which loses designation as a metropolitan city may join a previously existing urban county in which it is located starting in the Fiscal Year for which it first fails to be designated as a metropolitan city. Any unincorporated portion of the county which incorporates during the three year urban county qualification period will remain a part of the urban county through the end of that three year period. Any unit of general local government which is part of an urban county will continue to be included in the urban county for that county's three-year qualification period even if it is 11 6. By November 23, 1987 Field Office Counsel will have complete rev' ews__0T cooperation agreements and certified that they meet the requirements of paragraph III. D. 7- By November 23, 1987 Field Offices will concurrently forward a complete marked -up copy of the urban county status worksheet to participating counties and to the CPD Data Systems and Statistics Division in Headquarters for verification of the data that will be used in the allocation process. 8. By December 18, 1987 Headquarters will complete review or the marke -up urban county status worksheet and return the printed updated worksheet to Field Offices with a cover memorandum notifying the Field Office of any apparent discrepancies, problems or questions. The Field Office will be asked to verify the data and respond to Data Systems within seven days if a problem exists. 9. By December 28, 1987 or as soon as possible thereafter, File-Lu Orrices shall notify each county seeking to qualify as an urban county of its urban county status for Fiscal Years 1988 through 1990. to IV. METROPOLITAN CITY/URBAN COUNTY JOINT RECIPIENTS A. Joint requests and cooperation agreements Any urban county and any metropolitan city located, in whole or in part, within that county can request HUD to approve the inclusion of the metropolitan city as a part of the urban county for purposes of planning and implementing a joint community development and housing assistance program. HUD will consider approving such a joint request only if submitted at the time the county is seeking its three-year qualification as an urban county. Field Offices approving such joint requests shall identify the participating metropolitan city as a part of the urban county on the applicable urban county worksheet submitted to the CPD Division of Data Systems and Statistics. Metropolitan cities and urban counties thus forming a joint recipient must submit cooperation agreements for HUD approval which must meet the standards in paragraph III. D. of this Notice. An arr ovd joint request must remain effective for the period forwhicch the county qualifies as an urban count be joined by more than one metropolitan city,urbbutnacounty may metropolitan city located in more than one urban county may 13 Year 1988 may continue to receive grants based on a previously approved HAP. HUD will not approve an annual HAP goal for 1988 which is not submitted together with a new three-year HAP for any urban county which consists of a different configuration than that reflected in the previously approved three-year HAP. The HAP submitted by a joint recipient must include the metropolitan city as well as the urban county. Any HAP which is currently in effect for any metropolitan city which joins an urban county will be superseded by the joint three-year HAP required under this paragraph. In preparing its HAP, the urban 4 county should consider unmet needs and goals in any such superseded HAP and should make appropriate adjustments to account for housing assistance previously provided under such a HAP. VI- URBAN COUNTY PROGRAM RESPONSIBILITIES The county, as the grant recipient (either for the urban county or a joint recipient), has full responsibility for the execution of the community development and housing assistance programs and for meeting the requirements of other applicable laws (for example, meeting the requirements of E.O. 11988 and E.O. 12372). The county's responsibility must include these functions even where, as a matter of administrative convenience or State law, the county permits the participating units of general local government to carry out essential community +development and housing assistance activities. The county will be held responsible for the accomplishment of the community development program and the housing assistance goals and for ensuring that actions necessary for such accomplishment are taken by cooperating units of general local government. In this context, the chief executive officer of the county will be the responsible official under the provisions of 24 CFR 791 relating to local review and comment on HUD assisted rental housing applications. Attachments 15 URBAN COUNTIES SCHEDULED TO REQUALIFY FOR FY 1988 REGION STATE COUNTY 02 New Jersey Bergen 02 New Jersey Burlington 02 New Jersey Camden 02 New Jersey Essex 02 New Jersey Hudson* 02 New Jersey Middlesex 02 New Jersey Monmouth 02 New Jersey Morris 02 New Jersey Union 02 New York Erie 02 New York Monroe 02 New York Nassau 02 New York Onondaga 02 New York Orange 02 New York Rockland 02 New York Suffolk 02 New York Westchester 03 Delaware New Castle 03 Maryland Anne Arundel 03 Maryland Baltimore 03 AW 03 Maryland Montgomery Maryland Prince Georges 03 Pennsylvania Allegheny 03 Pennsylvania Beaver* 03 Pennsylvania Berks 03 Pennsylvania Bucks 03 Pennsylvania Chester 03 Pennsylvania Delaware 03 Pennsylvania Lancaster 03 Pennsylvania Luzerne 03 Pennsylvania Montgomery 03 Pennsylvania Washington 03 Pennsylvania Westmoreland 03 Pennsylvania York 03 Virginia Arlington 03 Virginia Fairfax 04 Alabama Jefferson 04 Florida Broward 04 Florida Dade 04 Florida Hillsborough 04 Florida Orange 04 Florida Palm Beach * May Be Affected By Legislation Page 2 REGION STATE COUNTY 09 California Riverside 09 California Sacramento 09 09 California San Bernardo California San Diego 09 09 California San Joaquin. 09 California San Mateo 09 California Santa Clara 09 California Sonoma Nevada Clark 10 10 Oregon Clackamas 10 Oregon Washington 10 Washington Clark Washington King 10 Washington Pierce 10 Washington Snohomish POTENTIAL NEW URBAN COUNTIES FOR FY 1988 REGION STATE COUNTY 04 Florida Escambia 05 Wisconsin Waukesha 06 Texas Dallas EXISTING URBAN COUNTIES THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY LEGISLATIO_: REGION STATE COUNTY 02 New Jersey Hudson 03 Pennsylvania Beaver 05 Illinois Madison 05 Illinois St. Clair 10 Washington Clark * May Be Affected By Lecislat_c- Page 4 05 North Chicago Illinois Lake 05 Canton Township Michigan Wayne 09 Lodi California San Joquin 09 Petaluma California Sonoma 10 Vancouver Washington Clark NEW METROPOLITAN CITIES LOCATED IN A COUNTY SCHEDULED TO QUALIFY FOR FY1 8 REGION CITY STATE COUNTY 02 Gloucester Twp. New Jersey Camden 04 Coral Springs Florida Broward 04 Sunrise Florida Broward 05 Naperville Illinois DuPage and Will 05 Brooklyn Park Minnesota Hennepin ' 05 East Cleveland Ohio Cuyahoga 08 Chandler Arizona Maricopa 09 Union City California Alameda 09 Antioch California Contra 09 Huntington California Costa Los Angeles 09 Moreno Valley California Riverside 09 Chino California San 09 Bernadino Fontana California San 09 Bernadino Redlands California San Bernadino 09 Rialto California San 09 .Bernadino Upland P California San 09 Bernadino Carlsbad California San Diego 09 Santee California San Diego Page 6 DATE: October 1, 1987 STAFF REPORT CRA ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (XX) MEETING DATE: 4r SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR DONATIONS FROM COLTON HIGH YELLOWJACKET BAND AND THE RIVERSIDE SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION. FUNDING REQUIRED XX NO FUNDING REQUIRED The City has received requests for donations in the way of the purchase of ads for two organizations. The first request is from the Colton Yellowjacket Band to purchase an ad in the Annual Tournament Day Band Program. A full page ad would run $100.00. The City has supported the band in the past (request attached). The second request is from the Riverside Sheriffs Association to purchase an ad in the publication being compiled, entitled, "Teen Suicide, Missing Children, and Child Abuse Prevention Manual." The manual is to contain over two -hundred pages of information, as outlined in the attached table of contents. The manual is to be distributed to both San Bernardino and Riverside County areas. They have set a cost of $210.00 for a quarter page ad. Council does have budgeted appropriations for this purpose. STAFF RECOMMENDS: COUNCIL SUPPORT THESE ORGANIZATIONS AND PURCHASE ADS, AS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT, FOR A TOTAL OF $310.00 AND CHARGE 10-190-220. TS:ma ./�`) Attachments n. . ,. f.:`! f.JA A 3 COL TON FELL O WJA CKET BAND PARENTS 777 West Valley Blvd. September 22, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Council: Colton, California 92324 The Colton High School Yellowjacket ?-iarchi.ng Hand is hosting its annual Band Tournament Day on October 17, 1987. As part of our fundraising support for this function, we compile a program listing all activities throughout the day and invite the community to purchase ads. Our rates are: Business card - $35 Half page - $50 Full page - $100 L Ol/ t1N `<<�OWJPG�G1 64N0 4W If instead you choose to sponsor a Sweepstake Trophy, the cost would be $100. If you are interested in purchasing an ad, please complete the attached card and return in the enclosed envelope. Payment may be enclosed or you can be billed by October 28, 1987. Please make checks payable to the Colton Band Parents. A copy of the program will be sent to each purchaser. Thank you for any support you might be able to provide. Sincerely, _) Lupe M. Lavin, President NOE * Sti RIVERSIDE SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION, INC. a MOE] �`SOCIA��O Byron Matteson, Mayor PP795 Barton Rd. "rand Terrace, ra. Dear `,'nur Honor As we discussed recently, this is to confirm and varify that the Riverside Sheriffs Association is publishing the " Teen Suicide, Missing Children, and Child Abuse Prevention Manual." A minimum of 5,000 copies will be distributed, more if needed and support is generated. The aim is to educate and prevent child abuse, teen suicide, and to help find the missing children. To make this project work, we are asking you and other local businesses who care about Riverside County and its people to sponsor an ad space in the manual. This will enable us to publish and distribute these manuals, and will clearly identify you as a supporter of this project and your Riverside Sheriffs Association. 410 Frankly, we need your support. We felt if you were aware of what we are doing, we could count on you this year. If we could save one life with this program, we would all benefit. We will be calling you later this week or early next week to help you in placing your ad, or you may call us at the number list- ed below. You are a true friend of law enforcement. 1 Sincerely, Ton Hardy (714) 684-8027 We at the Riverside Sheriffs Association take this opportunity to Thank You for your support. i vV � Dave Clary, President Riverside Sheriffs Association Table of Contents Boardof Directors ......... . .. ................. ............... .. ............ ..... .................. 2 Contra Costa County Canine Unit ...................... ...................................... 8 Part I — Child Abuse D;"erentiation of Abuses ............... . ............... ..................................... 19 Antisocial Perspective............................................................................... 23 Sexual Abuse'Assaults ...... .................... ............. ...... ............. I....... 33 Causation of Child Abuse and Neglect ................................................... 39 Reporting Child Abuse.................................................................................. 43 4w Action Suggestions for Parents ................................................................... 55 Prevention for Parents of Infants and Toddlers ............................................. 59 Parentingis a Big Job................................................................................... 67 References for Parents.................................................................................. 69 ParentEducation............................................................................................ 71 Part II —Teen Suicide Research and Statistics................................................................................ 75 Most Common Questions Regarding Suicide ................................................ 75 ACase History ............................................................................................... 79 SuicideWarning Signs................................................................................. 83 Programs & Vocational Resources Directory of Community Services Agencies ................................................ 85 Part III —Missing Children Guide 9 Steps of Child Protection............................................................................ 95 Prevention Techniques ............ ................ 97 Preventingan Abduction............................................................................ 125 Rights of the Non -Custodial Parent .........;............................................... 129 -t Parental Kidnapping ...................... r: The Family Court ...........................................................................................i37 t" Police and Prosecutors............................................................................... 143 Searchingfor Your Child............................................................................. 149 Legally Recovering Your Child............................................................ 155 After the Abduction .................. 159 Part IV CPR 163 Resource Information for Victims of Domestic Violence .. ... ......... 201 MissingChildren ................ ......... .. .......... ........ ... .............. 209 SupportGroups............................................................. ............... . 229 National Services Directory ........................................ 231 Published by Stuart Bradley Productions, Inc •S 1987 St'an;Bradley Producoons. Inc A Nevada Coy al,on All rights resorved. Unauthonzed reproduction. in any r-.a,.ner Is prohibited Primed in U S.A • Bizarre, sophisticated, or unusual sexual behavior or knowledge • Poor peer relationships • Delinquent or run -away • Reports sexual assault by caretaker • Change in relationship with adult previously accepted EMOTIONAL ABUSE • Speech disorders Lags in physical development Habit disorders sucking, biting, rocking, etc • Developmental lags mental, emotional NEGLECT • Consistent hunger, poor hygiene, inappropriate dress • Consistent lack of supervision • Inadequate medical care • Extended stays at school • Constant fatigue Secondly, we can help abuse from ever taking place. In terms of sexual abuse, even young children can and Wildlife Safari 23 Ortmola Wty Ortnd,i, Cahlornut -)4563 (415) 253-- 1080 (SOO) 221 —8118 USA (800) 526— 1637 Calif. should be told they have the right to say no if any adult tries to touch them in ways that make them feel uncomfortable They should also be encuuraged to tell an adult they trust if anyone tries to touch them in this way Children should also be encouraged to ask for help if someone is physically abusing them Additionally, we can all be alert for signs of increasing stress and increasing "loss of control" or "overdisciplining" with children By get- ting services such as child care, respite care, parent aides, parenting education, and counseling to parents in these stages, we can prevent abuse from happening Sometimes, we can prevent abuse just by helping out friends and relatives going through difficult times: • Offer to watch a friend's children for an afternoon or evening so she/he can have a break, look for a job, etc • Offer emotional support to a parent in stress (go by for a visit, call to listen, etc ) • Let them know you have trouble being a parent some- times too. • Tell them about services in the community (see below). The prevention of child abuse cannot be done just by the "official agencies" or "somebody else." Child abuse is a problem that affects us all. We must all be part of the solution Each of us can be part of the solution. Professional Police Supply ON Full LAW ENFORCEMENT EQUIPMENT SPECIALISTS 24551 Sot() Rtt<ul I I,tywarJ, (,A 94544 (415) 886-5211 492 ith Street 0al.Lind, CA 94607 (415) 839-6505 SUICIDE WARNING SIGNS • Preoccupation with themes of death or expressing suicidal thoughts • Giving away prized possessions, making a will or other "final arrangements" • Changes in sleeping patterns —too much or too little +�^ • Sudden and extreme changes in eating habits. losing or gaining weight %. • Withdrawal from friends and family or other major behavioral changes • Changes in school performance, lowered grades, cutting classes, dropping out of activities • Personality changes, such as nervousness, outbursts of anger or apathy about appearance and health • Use of drugs or alcohol • Recent suicide of friend or relative • Previous suicide attempts } IN CASE OF EMERGENCY DIAL 911 Page 83 HUMAN BITE MARKS PHYSICAL INDICATORS OF PHYSICAL ABUSE The following are physical indicators of physical abuse in the school -age child UNEXPLAINED BRUISES AND WELTS: on the face lips, or mouth in various stages of healing (bruises of different colors, for example, or old and new scars together) on large areas of the torso, back, buttocks, or thighs in clusters, forming regular patterns, or reflective of the article used to inflict them (electrical cord, belt buckle) on several different surface areas (indicating the child has been hit from different directions) UNEXPLAINED BURNS cigar or cigarette burns, especially on the soles of the feet, palms of the hands, back or buttocks. immersion or "wet" burns, including glove- or sock -like burns and doughnut -shaped burns on the buttocks or genitalia patterned or "dry" burns which show a clearly defined mark left by the instrument used to inflict them (e.g., electrical burner; iron) rope burns on the arms. legs, neck or torso UNEXPLAINED FRACTURES to the skull, nose, or facial structure in various stages of healing (indicating they occurred at different times) multiple or spiral fractures swollen or tender limbs any fracture in a child under the age of two UNEXPLAINED LACERATIONS AND ABRASIONS to the mouth, lips, gums or eyes to the external genitalia on the backs or the arms, legs or torso UNEXPLAINED ABDOMINAL INJURIES swelling of the abdomen localized tenderness constant vomiting (especially when they appear adult size or are recur- rent.) BEHAVORIAL INDICATORS OF PHYSICAL ABUSE Conduct, too, can be a tip-off to the presence of child abuse and neglect. Abused -and neglected children may demonstrate certain characteristic behavior or conduct which can be spotted by the sensitive individual. For the adolescent particularly, behavior may be the only clue to child abuse and neglect These behaviors may exist inde- pendent or of in conjunction with physical indicators The following are some of the behaviors which may be associated with physical abuse. If the child: is wary of physical contact with adults (The abused child will often avoid it, sometimes even shrinking at the touch or approach or an adult ) becomes apprehensive when other children cry demonstrates extremes in behavior —extreme aggres- siveness or extreme withdrawal, for example —be- havior which lies outside the range expected for the child's age group seems frightened of the parents states he/she is afraid to go home, or cries when it is time to leave reports injury by a parent is unpleasant, hard to get along with, demanding, often doesn't obey. Frequently causes trouble or interferes with others; frequently breaks or damages things is unusually shy, avoids other people including children, seems too anxious to please, seems too ready to let other people say and do things to him/her without pro- test is frequently late or absent or often comes to school much too early; hangs around after school is dismissed wears long sleeves or other concealing clothing to hide injuries child's story of how a physical injury occurred is not believable, doesn't seem to fit the type or seriousness of the injury observed shows little or no distress at being separated from pa- rents apt to seek affection from any adult Page 27 Riverside County Sheriffs Association Manual 1320 Blaine Suite #A Riverside, CA., 92507 014) 684-8027 RATES i Back Cover 2500.00 4w Inside Back Cover 2000.00 Inside Front Cover 1850.00 Full page 1500.00 3/4 page 1075.00 1/2 page 850.00 1/3 ~ 625.00 1/4 495.00 1/6 ~ ~ 325.00 1/8 " " 295.00 DBL Business Card 195.00 Business Card 175.00 Honor Roll / Bus. Listing 95-125 -r ' -O CK_ C i� C. _L L_i �✓ G� Le- C �� � v ` CITY OF GRAND TERRACE CRIME PREVENTION COMMITTEE RL CEIVED MINUTES OF MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 14, 1987 CITY OF Misr:�'�,{ Jim Singley, Treasurer, called the meeting to order at 6:08 p.m. The treasurer, Singley had no report. There was a motion made by Singley to by-pass the agenda. Butler second 16�e motion and the motion was carried with all I's. Tom Semph's resignation was presented to the committee. The Crime Prevention Officer, Sharon Korgan reported that the parks and recreation meeting that she and Ralph were to attend tonight had been cancelled. However, Barbara Conley, the committees chairman will speak at our meeting tonight. Barbara asked the Crime Prevention Committee for their help. She would like to see both committees work hand in had on the following problem eas : 1. Terrace Hills Park - vandelizim, possible drug dealing/ the noise problem and littering. Barbara stated that the "We Tip" program had not worked in the oast due to the fact that in order to collect the reward, the person reporting the crime must testify and the criminal must be prosecuted. Korgan suggested that the Parks and Recreation committee submitt written documentation supporting in detail all occurances so that the Crime Preventior Committee can act on them at once. Singley suggested maybe the Committees could design a fence or road barrior, more lights etc. to make the park less of an attraction to the trouble makers. Singley also suggested that Barbara Conley take these ideas back to her committee and then the Parks and Recreation Committee could come bac to the Crime Prevention Committee with a recommendation so that the Crime Prevention Committee may take it to the City Counsel. Korgan presented the proposed annual program showing what the Crime Prevention Officer's and the Committees goals are for the 87-88 term. Korgan reported that the Sheriffs Department paid to send her to the Santa Barbara C.C.P.O.A. Conference. Therefore, the Committee didn't have to supply the funds. There was a motion by Singley that the Committee provide up to and not to exceed $672.00 upon approval of the Committee for the Crime Prevention Officer to attend the Environmental Design Training Seminar. The motion was second by Wright and carried with all I's. Korgan reported that she will be conducting the Essay Contest this year in October/November. There was a motion made by Singley that the Crime Prevention Committee fund up to and not to exceed $300.00 upon approval of the Committee for 4Wizes to the winners of the Essay Contest. The motion was second by Pace and carried with all I's. Singley suggested that the Crime Prevention Officer look into purchasing Mc Gruff pins for future prizes. There was a motion by Singley to move the Crime Prevention Committee October meeting to the 5th of October due to the holiday. The motion was second by Wright and carried with all I's. The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m. # It # COMM11SION AND COMMITTEE REPORTS COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 8, 1987 COMMISSION/COMMITTEE: Crime Prevention Committee SUBJECT: Appoint Bea Gigandent to this Committee PROBLEM: The Committee is functioning short one member. Facts: Council accepted the resignation of Thomas Semph. 6 ALTERNATIVES: SOLUTION: Recruit a qualified citizen for membership. REQUESTED ACTION TO BE TAKEN BY COUNCIL AND/OR STAFF: Appoint Mrs. Bea Gigandent to fill the Committee vacancy created by the resignation of Thomas Semph, term to expire June 30, 1988. DATE:10-1-87 IM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE APPLICATION FOR CITIZEN SERVICE COMPLETE AND SUBMIT TO CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AS A MEMBER OF: Cy/�/ 4elpeo lu d 1-k7 ni , NAME: ', 5 R A) / e- e- Cs CT A ail T— HOME PHONE: �iy- g 5 _ I� 3� BUSINESS PHONE: OCCUPATION: EDUCATION: (List highest year completed and all degrees) W/' �Z�/ S � - 8 (' S'. IV eS5-W� 19 ?1 e — 1� V Y(k -?) �-- -- --- Are there any workday evenings you could not meet? Yes ( ) No If so, p,se list: Why are you interested in this position: /_ YJ —w-- . . . / / // / _ n What do you consider to be your major qualifications? J REFERENCES: Please attach a writtFn statement containing any additional information you feel woult be useful to the City Council. CITY OF GRAND TERRACE PARKS & RECREATION COMMITTEE MEETING MONDAY , AUGUST 3, 1967 MEMBERS PRESENT Chairman Barbara Conley, Lennie Frost, Louis Galvez, Dick Rollins ABSENT: Jason Otter, Chuck Percy, Ken Rinderhagen, Dave Widor CITY STAFF PRESENT Wendell Lake CALL TO ORDER: 7.35 PM by Chairman Conley 1. Minutes of the July 6, 1967 meeting were reviewed and upon a motion by Louis Galvez and seconded by Lennie Frost approved by unanimous vote. 2. PICO PARK SITE --Randall Anstine informed this Committee of new developments in the Edison lease land proposal. llarggold Farms may have to be reimbursed if City takes physical possession of land 1-1-68 and the well needs an analysis to see iF there is adequent water for City and Marygold Farms use. Based on these NEW developments, Louis Galvez made a motion to request Council to direct further efforts of this Committee. Seconded by Lennie Frost. ACTION ITEM SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL 3. T.J.AUSTYN PARK SITE --It has been brought to the attention of this Committee that T.J.Austgn has resumed negotiations to develop the park. Further discussion at September meeting. `f. PROPOSED PARK REPORT --Planning Director has requested, by September 1, 1987, a report consisting of suggested location, size, and ammenities to be forwarded to the Consultant for the General Plan update. REPORT SUBMITTED TO PLANNING DIRECTOR. S. GRIFFIN HOUSEHOLD SURUE'e--Commissioners Frost and Conley surveyed 11 adjacent homeowner (3 were not home) for their reaction to a pi3ssive park For the Griffin site. Only 2 homeowners strongly rejectecl any developments. All homeowners accepted c!eveloprnent provided certain considerations were deal,-. ili .r t h . ACTION I TE11 SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL. . ). P & R SURUEY--Mendell. Lake and Chairman Conley cooperatively completed a P & R Survey to be utilized by this Committee to better serve the r-esidents of this Community. Commissioner Rollins made the motion we request Council to a.�prcve cost of printing and sending survey. Lennie Frost secor-'ed. ACTION ITEM SUBfiITTED TO CITY COUNCIL. 7. TOUR de TERRACE --Flyers will be distributed in 3 weeks. Spreen Honda is donating 2 pace cars. Mendell Lake and Commissioner Conley will be presenting to the area elementary schools the 1.3 mile route. Louie Galvez made the motion to request Council to authorize closure of streets as set forth in report. Dick Rollins seconded. AW ACTION ITEM SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL. B. SNACKBAR--A correction is made From $13,500 to $1,350 (April Minutes) For Tim Engel to seal unit. Bottom Doors, roof and inside walls need completion. Grading will be accomplished in 3-4 weeks. It was suggested that prior to grading the hot tap and sewer lines be put in. 9. 1966 PARK BONO ACT --Further discussion tabled. 10. TERRACE HILLS PARK --Commissioner Rollins discussed the teenager abuse of Terrace Hills Park. Residents are complaining that they can no longer enjoy taking their little children to the park due to the foul language, drinking and drug use at the park. commissioner Rollins reminded Committee of an obscure ordinance of a $100 reward for people reporting vandalism of Public Property. This will be researched. Commissioner Rollins suggested discussing this at the next Council meeting. 11. Commissioner Galvez attended a 7 hour American Coaching EFFectiveness Program on how to coach chilren. He praised the Soccer Club's presenting of this material and suggested in the Future more clubs utilize or co-sponsor this worthwhile workshop. 12. Chairman Conley reported that no communication as yet has been recieved from Commissioners Percy, Renderhagen or Otter concerning the letters they were sent regarding their attendance at Committee meetings. Meeting adjourned at 9.20 pm. Respectfully submitted, Barbara 1-1. Conley Chairman,Recorrding Secretary COUNCIL MEETING DATE: ❑ctober 8_ 1987 DATE: gnptamber 23, 1987 COMMISSION/COMMITTEE: PARKS AND RECRFATION ► p► �: _.: PROBLEM_ As an advisory City sanctioned Committee, the Parks 8 Recreation Committee should be included in the Consultants initial plans for parks PRIOR to the plan being reviewed by the general public. Facts• Parks 9 Recreation Committee submitted a needs analysis report to the Planning Director to be forwarded to the Consultant. Council directed Planning Director to keep Committee abreast of Consultants thoughts and plans for parks. Committee was notified as of 9-21-87 that Consultant has not formalized his thoughts on paper yet concerning plans. Facts II. With the General plan update slated for public debate in October, it would seem the Consultant should have formalized, if not detailed ideas, about Grand Terrace and its' Parks. This Committee feels strongly that the Committee should be notified of Consultant's intentions prior to the General Public viewing of the General Plan. ALTERNATIVES Present General Plan update to Community of Grand Terrace without an adivisory Committees' review and input. SOLUTION• 1. Request that Consultant allow Committee opportunity to review General Plan as it relates to Parks prior to Community perusal/comment period. 2. By-pass Committee input. Accept Alternative #1 above. ... „ )� ,. �.. l...J..`'1._ i:.. i a_. r - ''�E.E i i r'4V ��(1I-_ C-'; tTD -'..-. +, f. ... t-. _. I)T/' 1' ••t i '.. "1 -_if t- T .-.�� ... )�-.' l J, 1 l l_ 7T7 (�.;: ��'�..� J\, 0 l 5 D /' i t-•T f ' � 7 1 I I ♦ '1 ; J� -.-_- �. .� i f"U r.r QL' I FED r'Ur.;u '>( JtC)cm. Jr0 ie r 1„EE r r S pra `• e c t- Submitted J Fr'- E i re- ew , t T"G; r pr'C% osed :7a site [7 a ns . JLir { nu tine spa _ 1 _ 'IE:F;t_' Q CiC t>"lE3 Park S and IFS-c-Letior � OmmitteC On FBU4; F?mCJt i ? �JB" Sal uOfilm].ttee reViel:.EG' the proposed nian anti acce:7rea pro ec as SLibmittec, The %rimmitt.ee is aware as LICLIFICi S}1C-,Uid be. that Iii UrdeLie a ilaJie Jarr•. S1t:E? I{J.itl a L;sab'e :ot Ic) tine Clty rwli_ cva LC pr-U.'1de 0 8..UCT CiLli-'d @CUipMC t i S1 OUid Je nU`Hd G tJ1c UtJGSrzQ Darr' iLat' as SLIUm.i .tci- bu T.J AUStyT1,-C_ie`_; 'F; L `_I-ie CiJ,uitIOMS OF 1ppro•''aa as SI.- iUlatc:d 17L CCJL.JnCiI StaF_ es�_•'�ates ,_ aa� .._ r the r t nn ` d t will C.OS iG _u a JCl O . matell _U `�i3 } (� Jv O ::�r0" at7C; instaii aii tale iiec:essary UiaL, gr-0-1--d GCLilpmen.ty., ar gar:, amerlities. CULiiIC ii s*-.ou1 i reec 1''i miiiil, that �il.i.s ;S1i1rC pr'O iect UJi11 CIerir`'uat2, ar;,ir C =.1Tla :e1_t�i IBP",Cr1C lr parK Leve'_U"'' er Fees . StaFF ttaUIcl aiSo I i ; e tQ ma'we Co--ii"1C;1 1 aujace OF `"' : a tld� if t. is Jar%" iS deveiccec, StaL may apuL'QaC i l uLi±Cis t`l a ai7UeSt FUC' liL'iiiG iddli:Iu-ia ma lnteianCe :7erso inei %iiE :.IJU malntei FliiCe pei iJniie Si7enC uppr—G..lmatcIU ' i/C Ca,S a weei. maintaining the e,,_st_.r,_, parks. his is In add,t_c tL; the i r- rccju I aL' mairtena-, ce.. GF tti'e C. _ ,u str ,--.etS and Storm G_ ainS . t F e prUposed pari, is deVe1cI7F:G` . StaF F estimates —at art c9udl.ti0 ai FUli LiaU U.OL. s De reC)U1rFri to i'ia i,tai_n t'e entire 'Uar}•. sl,Sl.Cm C)F tiI(- CitU n� ,:;"le i77-eSE1'1t StaFFi-,iu ie✓ei, a'i aadlt:i0ilai dau Ci. pa r malntBi"lu'10E. uJOUI CaUSe a mainle—a,, :7C >CJi 37i t1Jit 1 LTi tflE Str �✓% S'.aSi t^m , L t is not L;-ie .dP, r e CF s t a F F L.C'_ Give uUU a !-,eg'dt.;e s 1 Je CF t1 a E ;DEL' Juc3CL. S� prC `EGt. " �� a i1[Jri:i_;C' OVGr'V i E )i . F ��JLI i'a4JC' 2 iilu s:]-1 C i FiC CLic S LUGS , ^ spa 'o aliai 1a e iQ a�-s 'C r }.'eiir a E. CC"'me n QS %"'a O_ ,7777 ✓ 1� i_.UL f{ 'I THF :l-C J i �. .7 f _'J L l I I vJ ` i-1• ,.i v ^T cJ ^ r r . Y' . �.-'T _ T- ri :7 i `Li `Jl r%(�:�1\ ✓:' .,i-,� 't� j^ _ ^. L: �\ i�; ' `J Y t L.L. Water Aqueduct P", Nic Tahlr Liquidambar styraoflua American Sweet Gum Tolerant Slope Planting ILAMIDOCCAT E CONCEPT PI LAN AUSTYNDARK The City of Grand Terrace Proposed Tot -Lot Platanus a cerifolia'Bloodgood' London PlancTree Grain, NthK ey r—E—ung Water AqueJuet �Dmught I lerani Slope Planting 0 20 4p, 80 �:.' t•..w.,a t T.J. Austyn Co. • J r..w.a n, J.L. Webb Planning, Inc. C0141M9SSION &CON➢TTEE REPORTS COUNCIL MEETING DATE: DATE: -qRpt-RmhRr- P COMMISSION/COMMITTEE: PARKS AND RECREATION • PROBLEM: T.J. Austyn has submitted a proposed park development for the greenbelt for City/Committee review. T.J. Austyn has submitted a plan for review for developing the greenbelt over the California Aqueduct. The plans, as drawn, were adequate and met Council requirement as set forth with T.J. Austyn originally in 1986. Facts II: Committee has reservations with proposed drawing due to the minimum number of benches and n❑ equipment provided by T.J. Austyn for Tot Lot. The City will have to pick up the cost of these amenities. This Committee strongly feels an additional $20,000 may be necessary to have a usable greenbelt and to avoid the problem of unusable land that developed with the Griffin Park Site. Develop proposed site int❑ a street. 1. Accept the proposal as drawn, realizing it will take additional funds to complete the area with equipment. 2. Request T.J. Austyn to upgrade park to include City approved equipment. 3. Pave over the area and make a street Accept Alternative #1 above. COMMISSION & COMITTEE REPORTS COUNCIL MEETING DATE:_ ❑ctober 8- 1987 DATE: September 23. 1987 COMMISSION/COMMITTEE:_ PARKS AND RECREATION ■ PARK SITE N PROBLEM: Since the City Council has elected to accept and sign the Edison Pico Park Site C10 acres of land for $1,000 lease price per year for the next 10 years), the City needs to decide on what to do with the land. The City of Grand Terrace should be taking physical possession of the Edison Pico Park Site as of 1-1-88. With that in mind some development plans should be made concerning said property. (1) The Parks & Recreation Committee strongly feels that the Edison land should be developed along the lines of a day use Park adhering to Edison lease stipulations. (2) Attached is Staffs Report on development cost for said park. C3) Due to current estimated development cost, the P & R Committee recommends that the park be phased in according to availability of funds. Cq) Uery limited available land in Grand Terrace at present time. This is land we HAUE and can develops and use NOW. ALTERNATIUES Sign Edison lease with no intention or time line of developing the land. SOLUTION: 1. Develop land with an agreed phase in time line as dictated by available Funds. 2. D❑ nothing and and up with a dust and weed abatement problem. : •� • :. Accept► • ► :► l •C Alternative #1 above. M M SCE PICO PARK SITE COST ESTIMATE STATUS: SCHEMATIC PHASE ITEM/DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL REMARKS Site Analysis & Survey Design Concept & SpeciFic Plan Construction Documents Fine Grading of site `t3S,600sq.Ft. Irrigation System 392,OgOsq.Ft. Soil Preparation 392,OgOsq.Ft. Hydroseeding 392,OgOsq.Ft. Decomposed Granite q 3,560sq.Ft. Asphaltic Pavement `t3,560sq.Ft.1 $ 3,000.00 $ `t , 000, 00 $ 2,000.00 .06 $ 26,136.00 .65 $25q,626.00 *a .12 $ `17 , Oq5 .00 .05 $ 19,602.00 .50 $ 21,760.00 *b .50 $ 65,340.00 *c $` q3 , 729 .00 a= This Figure is based upon the construction of Four soFtba" baseball diamonds. b&c= This Figure is based upon the construction of a packing ict that would utilize approximately one Full acre. OPTIONAL PROJECT COSTS 1) Sport Complex Lighting $210,000.00 2) Restroom Facility $ `t5,000.00 COMMISSION & COMITTEE REPORT'S far COUNCIL MEETING DATE: ❑ctober B, 1987 DATE: September 231987 PROBLEM: The following 3 Commissioners have formally resigned from the Parks & Recreation Committee. Cl) Chuck Percy term exp. C2) Ken Rinderhagen term exp. (3) Louis Galvez term exp.,,/ :►: Parks & Recreation Committee has a current roster of 'l Commissioners. The above 3 positions need to be filled for the duration of their terms so the Committee can function effectively. Do not approve refilling the positions and disband the Committee and their activities. 1. Allow the positions to be refilled with dedicated residents with an interest in Parks & Recreation. 2. Do not authorize filling positions. 3. Illiminate the Parks & Recreation Committee. REQUESTED ACTION TO BE TAKEN BY COUNCIL AND/OR STAFF: Accept Alternative #1 above. September 21, 1987 Parks and Recreation Committee City of Grand Terrace 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace, Ca. 92324 Attention: Barbara Conley Chairperson Dear Barbara, Due to increasing time commitments involving my work, personal life and church involvement I feel it best that I resign from the Parks and Recreation Committee effective October 1, 1987. Although I could make a majority of the upcomming monthly meetings, I would not be satisfied that I was an effective member. I realize that this is not the most opportune time to resign because of the inactivity of other members, but it must be done now. I have enjoyed working on the committee and with the City Council during the several years that I have served on the Committee. Hopefully, new blodd will help revitalize the Committee. Sincerely, 4bF Louis Galvez HISTORICAL & CULTURAL, ACTIVITIES CCil,1ITTEE Minutes of the September 14th, 1987 Meeting The meeting was called to order by Chairman Viola Gratson at 7:10 PM. Those present were Irene Mason, Pauline Grant, Kathy Harmon, Linda Laufer, Ann Petta, and Viola Gratson. Hannah Laister was absent. The minutes of the August 3rd meeting were read and accepted with the following correction: Paragraph 3 - The artists contacted by Linda will be putting on Art demonstrations at the November Country Fair instead of at the library. Irene made a motion to accept the minutes; Viola seconded. 4 Treasurer's Report: The Country Fair flyers were printed at a cost of $23.85. Remaining balance in the budget,Zs $1,883.40. Fair Publicity: Irene is in contact with the Cable Co. regarding an ad. Pauline will call the radio stations. Linda will arrange for Country Fair articles in the Colton Courier and the Riverside Press Enterprise. Kathy will contact The Sun and the Foothill Journal for Fair coverage. Both Linda and Kathy will bring the articles they write to the next meeting. Kathy has placed a Fair ad in the Quilter's newsletter for September and October. She is also in contact with the local Girl Scouts to see if they can make 20 posters to advertise our Fair. If this does not work out, we will have them done professionally. Fair Discussion: The Committee is thinking of selling soft drinks and coffee along with the baked goods and chili that are entered in competition. Committee members may bake or make chili for the Committee to sell. A need for Fair signs along Barton Road on Country Fair day was discussed. Kathey will look into this. Fair Assignments: 1. Linda will set up the cooking competition. The Committee will decide on judges for the event at the next meeting. 2. Hannah will buy the supplies: table clothes, plates, bowls for chili, paper cups, spoons, etc. 3. Ann will compile the list of Fair participants. 4. Ann & Pauline will arrange the Fall centerpiece for the front table which will also hold a sample of our scrap books. Display Case Plaque: Viola has received -=he "go ahead" to purchase the plaque. The Committee agreed that the following be engraved on the plaque: Historical & Cultural Committee of Grand Terrace Display Case presented June 1987. Nurse Tags: Viola will contact Betty Duarte for name tage for Kathy Harmon and Linda Laufer. The next meeting will be October 5, 1987 at 7 PM. Irene moved to adjourn at 8:06 PM., Linda seconded. Respectfully submitted, Ann Petta, Substituting for Hannah Laister, Secretary /� STAFF REPORT R A ITEM ( ) ;k,UENDA ITEM NO. ,,UBJECT COUNCIL ITEM y 4brUNDING REQUIRED 140 FUNDING REQUIRED ✓ BACKGROUND: MEETING DATE: October 8, 1987 Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial of SA-87-8 CLiS F:ngineeri_ng On September. 8, 1987, the Site and Architectural. Review Board considered SA-87-8, an application from CDS Engineering to place a 5,000 sd. ft. commercial structure on the site of the previously approved senior retirement hotel. At that meeting, the SAP Hoard denied the application based on insufficient parking and increased traffic impacts rel-ated to the project. The applicant has since appealed that decision to vour Council and is before you tonigbt. Attached to this report for vour information are the foIIowing items; Attachment B: Applicant's letter of appPai. Attachment C: Planning Commission Staff Report dated 9-8-87, regarding SA-87-8 Attachment D: Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 9-8-87 regarding SA-87-8 DISCUSSION: The issue before vour Council this evening is whether or not the placement of the proposed commercial structure is appropriate for this site. If your Council should decide that it is, this itern should be returned to the Planning Commission/SAR Board and the applicant advised to submit a reviser] siteplan which meets the requirements of the current zoning code and the approved conditions of approval for CUP-85-9. 'IhP Planning Commission/5AR Board wouid then consider the proiect for architecTura.t review as weI1 as the apt-)iicant's I " s o c i a t e d GPnPraI PI an and zoning 0rdi11a1-1 appI ic"ai ions. I f vour ( nunci. I shoo 1 d deci de I-h(- coinmerc i a l struci 1.1re i s not appropri at e and upho i d Y Ile ill arnni ng Commi ssi on/SAR hn irdi of the comrnerclaI structure, t-Ilc� applic"lilt Iles ti1(- ot-)ti()ri of Conti nu i nc� wI t h thc, genera 1 t' I an and !on i I-)g urd l nanc,e s will c It wou i cI a I I ()w t hem t c, move the i)arki nv around to t I1P Solt h side of t he I t i r(-?ruc,11 1oi.e l ( huI w) t boll t t he add I I I oil c,t t Ile cornmerc•i01 structure) or• to withdraw their Genera Piall anti Zoning Ordinance apl) 1 i cat ions and suhmi t, a revised parking and I andscapi I-)g n 1 an w I I i c h to I f i 1. 1 s the cond i t ions of appr()va I of CIJP-85-9. Regardless of wh i ch opt i on i s chosen the ann t i (-71111 will he required to meet the coed i tions of aphrova t of c i;F'-85-9 prior to completion of the retir-ernent hotel. RF.COMMENDATI:ON : The Planning 1)epart-meIit recommends the Cit.v Col_I11Ci I adOpl- tfle attached resolution (At tachrnent A) upho1.di.ng the P1anni11 Commission/SAR Board's denial of SA-87-8. Respectfully Submitted, David Sawver,7nning Director r RESO].UTION NO. 87- A RLSOIX f 1ON Ot� `I'H> C" I "I Y t u1,Ni= 11, 0h i Hh, CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALI 1�ORN I A . OENY I Nt, SA-87-8. AN APPLIC;AI i0N 110R SI Ch AN ARCHi i h.tCIiRAL REV 1 h 1ti OF A EVC I A 1, , 1 RLt;till's, A"1 22 i"l BAR i ON ROAD WHhRFAS , the Anpl i cant , (])S Fng) neeri rtg. applied for Sit(' F+rtd Architectural Review tor. a 5,(10U s<Yuare toot- commercial structure located at 22325 Barton Road; and WHEREAS, This structure i- proposed to be erected fronting on Barton Road in front of a previously approved retirement hotel, and WHEREAS, the r.eti.rernent hotel driveway also operates as a private street for the development in rack of the hotel; and WHEREAS, the proposed commercial structure would also utilize this driveway as its main entrance and exit; and WHEREAS, the proposed structure would cause a significant traffic impact in this location; and WHEREAS, there is insufficient parking pursuant to Grand Terrace Municipal Code Section 18.60 for a retirement hotel use and a commercial use; WHEREAS, the proposed site plan does not meet the approved conditions of approval for. CUP-87-9; and WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held by the Site and Architectural Review Board on September B, [9H7, regarding this applicat ion. At said pub] ic hearing the Sit( , ar,d Architectural Review Board found that: 1 }'}1e proposed? commerr 1 a I RI-ructtlre. wou 1 d i,anse a signifira11t Irattir irnnart ,itrct iti tiieretc,re n t suit_al�ie for -rhP proposed site; 1. 1"he narici jig reyu i rernent s a5 de i i neared i n grand l Prrare "lr1 i ci Pal t ode Section I h. 60 have not beery proc�er iv adciresseck fi>r u (ornrnerc:ial tine and 110t0l Site' 1u t}re s +roe ]oration 'S . 'i he- Proposed site plan dm-- not meat i he on,, i apprnvri i for SA-85-19. ATTACHMENT A WHEREAS, for the above -mentioned reasons. the Site and Architectural Review Board denied this Application on September 2J, 1987; and WHEREAS, the Applicant, CDS T ng:i neeri np . has appea i ed the action of the Site and Architectural Review Board hefore 'this (itv Count; i I . NOW, IHEREl-Of2h the c i t % ( ounc ] 1 of the ( , t v nt ('rand i (­rrar(� 11OE1; RF;S()I,V h a s f o l t ()ws : Section 1. Ihat this (,itv Council upholds findings 1 through `i. net out in full above, made by the site anti 4W Architectural wev1 ew Board. at their meeting of September H . 1 087 . Section 1. Thal the appeal of applicant, CDS Engineering, is hereby denied. ADOPTED this 8th day of October, 1987. ATTEST: city -Clerk -of the City of Grand Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace and of the City Council Terrace and of the City thereof. Council thereof. I, THOMAS SCHWAB, t'ity Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace. do hereby certifv that the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace held on the 8th daN of October, t987, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: K t v C I erK Approved as to form: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 1987 DRAYT CHAIRMAN CAOUETTE OPENED THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:00 P.M. Applicant/Stephen Fox CG Engineering TPM-87-5 The Planning Director presented the staff report on the revised plan for this parcel map. The item was continued after denial on a four lot subdivision. It was now resubmitted to the Planning Commission for a three lot subdivision. He presented the reviewing agencies recommendations. Chairman Caouette opened discussion from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if the dedication of Pico Street was included in this revised plan. The Planning Director stated that the conditions do not include the dedication for street frontage on either Pico Street or. Blue Mountain Court. Commissioner Sims referred to the conditions submitted by the City Engineer.. The City Engineer., he mentioned, had indicated the dedication of 30'f_or right of way. The City Engineer clarified that the conditions were based on the original parcel map, 4 lots, with 1 lot fronting on Blue Mountain Court. He stated that the applicant would not take access on Blue Mountain Court. If in fact the applicant did take access he would have to negotiate with the property owners that owned that street. He referred to his recommendations on his memorandum stating that item 3B and item 4B be deleted, specifically the offer of dedication of right of way 30' to the east of Blue Mountain Court. That street should remain a private street. Commissioner Sims asked how the grading in this site compares to the surrounding areas. The Planning Director stated that the surrounding areas to the south and the west were a slight slope and goes up the hillside and the greater slope to the east. -1- He mentioned in order to fit three lots here, staf_t felt that the grading that would have to be done would intensify the topographical impact on the building sites. Staff recommended a denial on three, but said it would be appropriate for a two lot split. Commissioner Munson expressed concern for the traffic impact on Blue Mountain Court. The Planning Director stated that since it was a private road the City would not be responsible for parking enforcement. It would be up to the owners to deal with it as a private matter. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the 3rd lot to the left and grading change would have a significance on the rain runoff down Pico Street. The City Engineer stated that any rain runoff from roofs and surfaces would have some significance but could not convey at this time what the impact would be. Commissioner Hargrave asked about the flood conditions down Pico. The City Engineer stated that at the vicinity of Pico and Mt. Vernon the problems are about as compound as anywhere else in the City. Commissioner Sims mentioned that since the City Engineer was revising his recommendations the lot fronting Blue Mountain Court, southeast corner, would increase approximately 4,000 sq. ft. If this map were revised to reflect that situation and Blue Mountain Court becomes a public street, he asked what impact this would be to the City. The City Engineer stated that it would be up to the property owners of Blue Mountain Court and if thev could show that thev could maintain the street- and conform with City standards then they could dedicate Blue Mountain Court as a public street. The City would not be involved in the dedication or improvements to that street. The City Engineer stated that, if it goes as a private street the 1t-0-A or setback is measured from the existing easement. if thev think in terms of considering Blue Mountain Court for dedication then same should be considered at this time. lti,th the parcel as it is being currently considered and the requirements as we have expressed they would have sufficient room for the R-O-A. The acceptance of the -2- i right of way should be deleted right now. The Planning Director stated that any huiidi.ng dedication would be handled in the Site and Architectural Review. CHAIRMAN CAOUETTE OPENED THE PU13LIC HEARING. David Boraquin 2627 S. Waterman Ave. San Bernardino, CA. CG Engineering Mr. Boraquin was representing applicant/ Stephen Fox. He presented the parcel map display. He stated that with their previous request for parcel. map subdivision being denied, their project was continued. He stated that what they have done with their new map was to increase the size of their lots. It was the applicant's intention as a compromise, to increase the lots and to have a different access avoiding impact on the private road of Blue Mountain Court. It is the applicant's purpose to comply with current standards. Chairman Caouette asked for public reply in favor of the project. Stephen Fox Bonnie View Dr. Rialto, CA. Owner of property Mr. Fox stated that his project would uphold the value of the area and stated he would be willing to comply with the property owners desire to maintain appropriate building standards. Dennis Kidd 22874 Pico ST. G.T. Mr. Kidd stated that he was opposed to the project due to the size of the lots already in the vicinity and the topography. Michael Stein 12711 Blue Mountain Crt. G.T. Mr. Stein was the representative of the property owners - 3- in that area. He stated that they agreed with the staff report and were in opposition to the project. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CHAIRMAN CAOUETTE OPENED DISCUSSION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION Chairman Caouette asked the Planning Director to review the overall history of the project from the start. fhe Planning Director gave a brief description of the parcel map and the status presentiv of the project. He obw explained the present zoning and the upcoming changes and their effect on the area. Commissioner Munson asked of the City Engineer the water title for that area. The City Engineer referred to the map and explained the location of the water line in surrounding areas. He was unable to clearly define the water line location for the parcel map. Commissioner Hargrave referred to the southside of Pico Street and the asphalt berm that runs along the street. The City Engineer reaffirmed this, stating there was a curb which came up to the easterly property which is to the west of the property in question. There is a berm which runs south, not in the best condition but there is a berm. Commissioner. Hargrave asked if during the General Plan Revision they might look at rezoning that area to try to retain the character of the area to larger acreage or larger lots. The Planning Director stated that be what starf would recommend. Chairman Caouette stated that there are questions on suitability and grading. Commissioner Hargrave stated on the subject of grading that the City Engineer seemed very comfortable with the project. He directed a question to the Planning Director for his objection to the grading. The Planning Director stated that visualizing the grading and retaining walls that would be necessary, -4- r m would not- be In character wiTn the surrounding areas. The incompat i hi I itv Nvith the delis tv around it won Id have a strong impact to the nPiahhorhood. Chrr i i mare (:aou0l t e -,farad Ilt �, Support of staf fs rec,ommendat T ons . He wou i d ha i r support t he pro j ec t , but would suggest a subdivision of two lots. CoFri Fri i 5s i oner Van l'e 1 der asKPd i f t he pro I ect were a subdivision of 2 lots would kracling and retaining walls he ijecessarv. The. Pl anr1i ng I)) rector- staIPd that grading cou l d he possihio for a suhcii,,i,iion two ;ots, but at this time w(cs not cent ai n to what ex tent i t would he lle( sarv. ;`10TI ON Commission Hargrave moved t hat then accept staff recommendations to adopt- the resolution of denial of TPM-87-5. Commissioner Munson seconded. `lotion carried, al 1 AYFS. !!.7M CITY OF GkAND TERRACE NOTICE OF APPEAL Date Please let this form serve as a request for an appeal of the Planning Commission's determination of use decision for the above -referenced project on Enclosed is my check for the appeals fee. 4 I understand that my appeal will be considered at the City Council meeting scheduled for at 6:3O P.H. Signed ATTACHMENT B BYRON R. MATTESON Mayor BARBARA PFENNIGHAUSEN Mayor Pro Tom Council Mombors HUGHJ GRANT DENNIS L. EVANS SUSAN CRAWFORD THOMAS J SCHWAB City Manager TO: Planning Commission FROM: David Sawyer, Planning Director DATE: September 8, 1987 SUBJECT: Staff Reports, Z-87-3, GP 87-3 and SA-87-8 APPLICANT: CDS Engineering LOCATION: 22325 Barton Road BACKGROUND On September 16, 1985, the Planning Commission approved CUP-85-9 and SA-85-9 permitting an 88 unit retirement hotel to be built on the site subject to certain Conditions of Approval, see Attachment "A". Construction is now in progress at the site. Prior to the completion of the project, the applicant must submit for approval, a detailed landscaping/parking plan. The applicant is now requesting a modification of the site plan to include a 5,000 sq.ft. commercial structure fronting on Barton Road and a redesigned parking layout. The revised parking layout includes property to the south of the retirement hotel which was previously not a part of this project. In order to include this property in the project a General Plan amendment and a Zoning Ordinance amendment is required. The addition of the commercial structure requires additional site and architectural review. Revised plans are included in your packet for review. Color renderings of the project will be displayed at the meeting. The applicant is requesting a total of three actions tonight, one from the Site and Architectural Review Board and two from the Planning Commission. Although these are separate actions, Staff has combined these items into one staff report and your Commission should consider all of the related issues at this time. ATTACHMENT C 99745 RARTr1N ROA11 a r;RANn TFRRAr:F r:a. 49.194-5^' • r 1Vlr r_FNTFR — 171AI 1119d_AR91 ZONING AND LANll USE Properly GP Zone Land Use Subject Property GC C-2 Vacant To the North GC AP Shopping Center To the South MDR R-3 Apartments To the East GC C-2 Ottice Building To the West GC C-2 Single family Residences DISCUSSION Site and Architectural Review Approval of the revised site plans which include the addition of a 5,000 sq.ft. commercial structure and a revised parking plan. The design elements of the proposed structure are intended to match that of the hotel. The buildings are white stucco with red and blue trim. The roof is a spanish adobe style concrete shingle. The applicant is proposing five 1,000 sq. ft. shops to be located in the proposed structure. General Plan and_Zoning_Ordinance _Amendments In order for the applicant to build according to his revised plans a General Plan Amendment is necessary. This is because the original southern property line is the dividing line between the General Commercial and Medium Density Residential General Plan Designations as well as the line between the C-2 and R-3 Zones. Moving the parking to the South of the hotel pushes the project across this line will effectively cross the line between the two designations. Therefore, the applicant needs to change this parking area from MDR to GC on the General Plan Map and from 11-3 to C-2 on the Zoning Map.. Currently, this area is occupied by a portion of the apartment complex owned by the applicant located to the south. The applicant intends to demolish this portion of the apartment complex. Parking Moving the parking behind the Hotel is a change that will promote a safer living environment for the residents of the Hotel by reducing a dangerous pedestrian and vehicular conflict in the previous parking layout. There are, however, some problems that need to be resolved. There is insufficient parking for the residents and staff, see Conditions of Approval, Attachment "A". These Conditions state that there must be one parking space per unit and one per employee. There are 88 units in the Hotel and the applicant has informed us that there is estimated to be between 10 and 15 employees. Therefore, at a minimum, the applicant needs to provide 100 parking spaces (88 + 12). In addition, according to City Code, there must be 4 loading spaces provided. The proposed site plan shows 84 acceptable parking spaces to the south and to the east of the Hotel. The site plan provides 27 acceptable parking spaces for the commercial structure. Several of the parking places indicated on the site plan do not meet code requirements. The current parking requirements for the commercial structure is 34, seven more than aw are legally provided on the site plan. Overall, the revised project requires 138 parking spaces with III legal parking spaces shown on the site plan. This is a shortage of 27 parking spaces or twenty percent of the required parking spaces. En zneerin Issues The City Engineer has reviewed the revised site plan and recommended several conditions of approval which are included in a Memo dated September 2, 1987 and included with this report as Attachment B. RECOMMENDATIONS SA-87-8 Based on the fact that the project does not meet the previously approved conditions of CUP-85-9 and the requirements of Chapter 18.60 of the Grand Terrace Municipal code, dealing with off- street parking requirements, the Planning Department recommends the Planning Commission deny SA-87-8 as submitted. An alternative to this recommendation is to continue this item until the applicant resubmits a revised site plan which is in conformance with the City's parking regulations and which meets the recommended requirements of the City Engineer's memo (Attachment B). GII-87-3 AND Z-87-3 If the Planning Commission Denies SA-87-8, the Planning Department recommends the Planning Commission ask the applicant if he wishes to withdraw their applications for GP-87-3 and Z-87- 3. if the Planning Commission continues SA-87-8, the Planning Department recommends the Planning Commission continue GP-87-3 and Z-87-3 until the applicant resubmits SA-87-8. Respectfully Submitted, C� �Davi�f� d Sawyer, Ping Director IM 1.2-8.5032 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-9 SENIOR CITIZEN REST HOME PUBLIC WORKS: 1. Barton Road. a.) Install curb, gutter and sidewalk along front of property and Gage Canal right of way. b.) Install new asphalt paving between new curb and existing pavement. c.) Install sidewalks along Barton Road frontage. d.) Relocate power poles, as required, to provide for new curb and driveway openings. e.) All improvement plans shall be to the City Engineer's satisfaction. 2. Relocate power line easements that run north and south through property as necessary. 3. Provide driveway access to property west of the site. 4. Provide plans for and relocate all utilities serving the parcel to the south; not limited to sewer, water, telephone, electric, Cable T.V., and gas. 5. Relocate water lines as required by the Riverside Highland Water Co. 6. Install fire hydrants and fire protection as required by the Fire Department and Uniform Building Code. 7. Reed Street provide additional right-of-way dedication. a.) Plans shall be prepared to the City Engineer's satisfaction. b.) Install curb and gutter 18 ft. east of street centerline for the north 400 ft. c.) Install new asphalt paving between new curb and existing paving. d.) The two east and west streets .in the housing development south of this project are to be extended to Reed Street. Paved widths shal_1 be per Fire Marshall's requirements. H. Provide easements for access and egress to parcel to south; and for access and egress through parcel to south. 9. All utilities to be served underground. Pay all applicable fees. I . Building plans shall conform to the 1982 Uniform 44W building Code and all state regulations. 12. One elevator shall be large enough to accommodate an ambulance litter. PLANNING: 1. Plant landscaping as required by Section 18.27.160 of Title 18. 2. Construct 6" high curb between landscaping and vehicle area. 3. Provide facilities to accept drainage from the Gage Canal right—of—way. 4. Install sprinklers for all landscaped area. 5. Maximum height of building shall be no more than 50 ft. 6. Any signs shall be submitted for separate approval by the Planning Commission. 7. Provide one parking space for each living unit, plus one for each employee. 8. A pedestrian walkway shall be provided from the building to Barton Road. 9. A 6 foot solid masonry wall shall be installed along the westerly project boundary. I.O. Units shall be rented to senior citizens only, Condit Lon s of Approva 1 12-8.503-2 Page 2 SEP ;? m r,(�r1 I I I%,. r rr >or� PLANNING DEPAf2iMFN1 May", HAHIIAHA III n, 'iHAUS,-', M4 iyw r',,, ; :•r„ W.O. 12-8.5080 mpmnP A KMT fM To: David Sawyer, Planning Director, From: Joseph Kicak, City Engineer Date: September 2, 1987 7 Subject: G.P. 87-3, S.A. 87-8 Barton 88 Partnership Icllr,l{ I -,nl ;UiAN (,H,•,';i (AID I I l0l,4A', J : MAH (,tly "Ja As condition of approval of the above project following are the recommendations to be considered by the Planning Commission: 1. Barton Road a) Design street improvements along Barton Road frontage. b) Obtain the necessary clearances from Gage Canal Company and the City of Riverside to install said improvements over the Gage Canal within the Riverside Right of Way. c) Construct the improvements as approved by the City of Grand Terrace, Gage Canal and City of Riverside. 2. Align the driveway from subject property as closely as possible with the southerly extension of Canal Street. 3. Pay proportionate shard of traffic signals to be .installed by th(' Cl1-Y at th(� ilit erscc.l ions of Barton Road acid Canal Str (,(,t iInd B<rr toll Ro,rd and Mt . Vernon. 22795 BARTON ROAD - GRAND TERRACE, CA 92324-5295 • CIVIC CENTER — (714) 824-6621 MIv cl szlwycr Septcmhe r ?, 1987 Page Two 4. Record a one Iot subdivision on the commercially Toned properly Lo .111c.lude Lhe 88 unit Terrace Retirement Hotel property boundary. 5. Pay off any outstanding sewer bonds. 6. Comply with all of the City of Grand Terrace ordinances. 7. A]_1 improvements be designed by owner's civil. engineer to the specifications of the City. JK:wl PLANNING COMMISSION `11NUTES DRAFT SEPTEMBhk 8, 1987 CDS Engi.neeri.ng SA-87-8 Barton Road Chairman Caouette opened the `iito and Architectural Review on SA-87-8. P] anni ng D] rector presented the zombi nevi staft report for the site and arrhi te(- rura I review iter(I, as well as the zon1ng and general t)lail change. Chaff rrnan CaouetI e asked for questions, 4W from staff Di scussi on was brought up on the 1)arki ng requireriients and rlarifiration cif. the parking shortage. Manning Director stated that the hotel project itself has a requirement of 88 uni.ts; 1 unitper each of the 88 units for parking spaces and l per employee. That would bring the total up to 100 parking spaces required for the hotel, plus a need for. 4 loading spaces whichare not identified. There are presently 84 spaces, which is a shortage of 20 parking spaces. Chairman Caouette opened the di-scussion for comments from the applicant. Michael Palmer CDS Engineering 15002 Skypark Circle Irvine, CA. Mr.. Palmer referred to the original staff report which had approved 88 parking spaces on the original project. He referred to a utter su.brnitted by the deveioper, Tsang, that the", felt due to the lack or vehicle usage 1>1v senior cit -1 7ens t hP. 88 parking spaces wou 1 c1 he sufiIrient. He mentioned that thev wort Id he prepared to eli_mi.nate a sidewalk to the front that would give them the 24' setback for turnaround )n the parking, which would allow lU additIonaI parking -,pares. ATTACHMENT D Commissioner Van Gelder referred to condition %r12 s t a t i n g th:, usage of an elevator. She asi:ed for cJariticarion of the project as a convallescent hospital c,r a senior citizens hotel. Mr. Pcilmer stated that it was a senior ci ti zen-s hotel. Commissioner Hargrave asked what would he substituted instead of a sidewalk. Mr. Palmer stated that pedestrians would probably wall, down the easterly part of the project. Commissioner Hargrave asked the Planning Director taw for c.1ariticat i.on of the conditions and the original 88 parking spaces in the original project . He stated that when this project came before the Planning Commission one of the conditions of the CUP was that there he, one per each employee, and one per each unit. There is flexibility in the code but was not used. Commissioner Hargrave recalled the original - project . The two problems thev had with the parking on the project at that time were the required amount of spaces and the location of the parking lot or. i gi_na 1. l y. Commissioner Hargrave asked of Mr. Pairner it there was any way- to make parking availahie to the north of the retirement home. obw Mr. Palmer stated that those spaces were set asi de for the comrnerci al center. He mentioned that was the on-ginal design for the property and came up w i to a better pl an putt i ng them to the south of The property. Commissioner Hargrave stated that unless thev can find specific documentation on the variance for property requirements then he did not see any reason to exempt the applicant from parking requirements for the retirement hotel. Commissioner Van Gelder asked the Planning Di.recior to research this issue for the Planning Commission. 2 The Planning Director stated that they could research this but in preparation for the meeting he did not find anv exemptions and the Clip re(Tuirements are still in effect. lit order to have that- eliminated there would have to be a re- hearing of the CUP to remove anti- r-ondition pending approval by the Planning ComllliSS i On . The Planning Director presented the statf report dated August_ 51 1985, which contained the conditions for the CUP and it was the conditions that were made a part of the motion and passed and not the text of the staff report which was referred to by the applicani-. Chairman (;aouettP clarified that there was no condition stating it had to navefar tt8, and the Iequirements of the cone would stand. The Planning Director answered that there. was a condition stating thev had to have ati phi-, t,s 1 for each emplovee. Chairman Caouette mentioned that he remembered discussion on the possihiIity to aci_uaIIv extend the parking lot without gutting another structure on the property. 'that was a possi_biIiry and taking out the apartments to the rear and using that area for necessary par.lcing. Commissioner Hargrave referred to the (A)P-85-9, condition #7, ..."provide one parking space for each living unit, plus one for each empioyee." Chairman Caouette asked about the proposed commercial facility with 5 units 1,000 sq. feet. He mentioned that they seemed limited and asked what plans they had for that area. Mr. Palmer was linable to answer the question. CHAIRMAN CAO};ETTE OPENED THE DISCUSSION TO THE PUBLIC. Mary Lou Williams 22227 Barton Poad G.11'. Expressed ogposi t i on to the cornmerria l dPve J c>grnPnt in this (area. kenge l.).ng 3 CDS Engineering 15002 Skvpar]c Irvine, CA. �11'. I,ing, C1P-\'e10Per, referred to the furl J(-r al)prova i of t he parking conditions of 8H spaces . He stated that the 12 ernplovPes thev nave, are part time also so they would not need thr tuli time parking spaces. He .referred to the s11e pian that showed 50' space in the front, enough for 3-4 loading spaces. In reference to the commercial plaza, it could be 5/ 1 , OOO sq. ft . or 5 , OOu s(f. 1.t . ur further breakdown whatever the tenant wants, r)or restricted to 1,000 sq. ft. He referred to the problem of the neighbors to the westsi.de of the property, they do have access. He requested approval of the site plan 1)v the Commission. Commissioner Van Gelder asked for clarification if the front 4 loading spaces are loading/unloading for supplies or people. Mr. Ling clarified that thev have supplies delivered on the service area on the southside of the building. The front 4 loading spaces are for people. Helen Stringfield 22273 Barton Road G.T. Expressed o»posi t i on to the restaurant ar t fiat location Clue to insufficient land space Obo and parking area. C'HAIR`IAN CAOUETTE CLOSED THE PUH1 I.(; HEARING;. CHAIRMAN CAOi)ETTh (:ONVENED PLANNING COMMISSION Commissioner Van Gelder suggested that she would rather sPP a landscaped area. walkway~, park benches in fror)t of the retirement hotel. Commissioner Hargrave stated that the dinner house was not part of the original proposal. He stated that the app]icant approved the project before without the dinner house. He recommended that S1- M 87-8 should not he approved. Chairman Caouette referred to a COPY of. the 1985 original conditions which reconfirmed problems at that time on parking, ingress -egress sites. The original conditions call for improvement to the access to the project immediately behind the site. Commissioner Van Gelder asked of Chairman Caouette if he recalled what use the devejoper had for this area in front on the l.st Site and Architectural Review. Chairman Caouette stated that it was originally planned for parking. `1OTJON Commissioner Hawkinson made a motion that the project he denied and resubmitted with a revised plan. Chairman Caouetto seconded. Chairman Caouette asked for clariticati_on it that resubmittal would he for landscaping and parking only. Commissioner Hawkinson answered yes. The Planning Director mentioned that the item could be continued and ask that the revised plans he brought back. 'rbe other alternative would he to have a resubmittal it the project_ is denied. Commissioner Hawkinson stated for clarification purposes that it be a resubmittal in regards to landscaping and parking only not including the commercial plaza project. 4„ The Planning Director stated that thev are hearing Site and Architectural Review for. the project with the Commercial structure. 71-iev have to come back to us with the landscaping parking detail as the project stands already. If we take out the current commercial structure then we are eliminating the actual need for the current Site and Ar.chiAectural Review. Commissioner Cole asked if tinder the original agreement, if the parking and landscaping were for staff approval. The Planning Director Stated that it was for staff approval and referred to condition ac7, 1985, and pointed out that nothing requested them to come hack foc, 'Site and Architectural approval. Commissioner Cole stated that he understood it to [lean tt1at if it was staft approval, then the. course. of act i on thi s eveni ng woii ) (I he to reconfirm or deny. Chairman Caouette asked it it-, would he approved or den i ed by t 1 a I A n ir1g 1.)i.rector c,r P 1 anrIi ng Commission. The Planning Director Stated that it would he a s t a t f item. `IOTION Commissioner Hawkinson moved that this project bp denied as submitted, SA-87-8. Chairman Caouette requested that it he brought hack as a cursory review and seconded the motion. Planning Di.r.ector stated that i.t could be reviewed during the workshop. MOTION CARRIED ALL AYES Chairman Caouette suggested that the General Plan and Zoning revisions on this project be handled at a later date. The Planning Director stated that the applicant could appeal the Site and Architectural decision but may wish to have the General Plan and 'Zoning applications continued thus leaving open the opportunity to move the parking without the 4W commercial structure. Chairman Caouette stated that the General Plan and l_,oni.ng denial would toliow since the Site and Architecture was denied. The Planning Director stated that when the apartment complex to the rear is .redone, changing te-ie area from resident is1 to commercial redevelopment changing this area from residential t o commerc i a 1 at t h i s t. i.me may cause a pro h l em later if the hotel' -, parking is not moved. He meat ioned that coat i nu i.ng wou I keep the i teni open. Mr. Ling agreed to a continuance. 6 MOT IO\ Chairman Caouette moves} that GP—H7-3 and X-67-3 he continued to September 2l, 1987, with conditions of landscaping and parki ng. commissi oner c:ol e seconded t-he motion. MOTION CARRIED, ALL AY};S. 19 2-9 STAFF REPORT C R A ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM ()() MEETING DATE: October 8, 1987 AGENDA ITEM NO. �)ULJECT Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial of TPM-87-5 (CG Engi.neering%Fox) 4KNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED BACKGROUND: On September 21, 1987, the Planning Commission considered 7PI-87- 7, an application from Mr. Steve Fox to subdivide a l.1 acre lot into three individual single familv lots. At that meeting, the Planning Commission denied the application based on the fact that due to the topography of the site and the required grading, the site is not suitable for the proposed density of development. The applicant has since appealed that decision to your Council and is before you tonight (see Attachment B). DISCUSSION: Attached to this report for your information are the following items; Attachment B: Applicant's Letter of Appeal Attachment C: Planning Commission Staff Report dated 9-21- 87 regarding TPM-87-5 Attachment D: Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 9-21-87 regarding TPM-87-5 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department recommends the City CollnciI ad()pt the attached resolution upholding the Planning Commission's denial of TPM-87-5 (See Attachment A). Respectfully Submitted, Havi.d S�cwver, f' +tcw RESOLUTION NO. 87- A RESOLUTION OF 'I*HF C I'IY COUNCIL. OF THE, CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, ('Al_: E'URN I A , DENY] N(; TPM-87- 5 , AN APPLI CA'I ION i'O SUBDIVIDE A SINGLE 1 . I 6W ACRE R-1 PARCEL. INTO 1HRFE R-1 PARCELS WHEREAS, the Applicant, `Ir. Steve Fox, applied for a tentative parcel man splitting an existing I.1 acre R-1 parcei into three parcels located at the Southeast corner of Pico Street and Blue Mountain Court; and WHEREAS, the property is surrounded on three sides ov developed A-1 property with minimum lot sizes of_ 43,560 square feet; and WHEREAS, the tentative parcel mat) submitted by applicant would create one lot of 14,255 sq. ft. and two lots of 14,235 sq. ft. which is not conducive to the surrounding development; and WHEREAS, substantial grading would be needed to develop the parcel into three lots which would substantially amplifv the difference in lot sizes from its surrounding development; and WHEREAS, it is anticipated that this area will be reviewed for a zone change during the General Plan revision this year from an R-1. zone to a RI-20 or R1-40 zone; and WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on September 21, 1987, regarding this application. At said public hearing the Planning Commission found that: 1. The proposed subdivision surrounding development; 2. The proposed site 7s proposed development: is out of character to its not plhvsically suited for the WHEREAS, for t he ahove-men i i oiled rem sons . the Nl (Ili rc i ng; Commission den i ed t h i s A1)p I i ca t I on on Sep t e m h e r 2 1, I Q 8 7 ; and WHERE AS, the app i i ra1)t , °Ir. Steve Fc,t , has anpea i ed ( he ac•t ion of the P1anniow Comrni sSIOn hefOre i i)i ti ( i tv ( ounci I . ATTACHMENT A NOW, )HFRI-FOR1-,, the City ( oimr,i 1 or the City of GT-and Terrace I)0InS RFSO [,k, P, a s f c, l l owti : Sect on i i I)a1 t-hP appea 1 or Appl i cani- , Steve Fox, i s herehv deri i cad . ADOPTI-,1) this 81-11 day of Oc-t-ober, 11487. ATTES`[' : City Clerk of the city of Grand Mavor of the City of Grand So Terrace and of the Citv council Terrace and of. the Citv thereof. Council thereof. I, THOMAS SCHWAB. City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace, do herebv certi-fy that the foregoi-ng Resoluti.on was introduced and adopted at a regular meeti-ng of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace held on the 8th day of October, 1.987, by the following vote: AYES NOFS : ABSENT: ABSTAIN: (6r Approved as to form: Citv Attornev Citv Clerk CIiY OF GkAND rERRACE NOTICE OF APPEAL D a t e _ I. ��.�. 4 ��` /RE Please let this form serve as a request for an appeal of the Planning Commission's determination of use decision for the above -referenced project on Enclosed is my check for the appeals fee. I understand that my appeal will be considered at the City Council meeting scheduled for �'G���L (V, ; at b. 30 P. i,i. Si g ned ATTACHMENT B BYRON R. MATTESON Mayor BARBARA PFENNIG'`IAUSEN Mayor Pro Tem Council Members HUGHJ GRANT DENNIS L. EVANS SUSAN CRAWFORD THOMAS J SCHWAB City Manager 10: Planning Commission k-ttwl: David Sawyer, Planning Director SUBJECT: Staff Report, TPM 87-5 DATE: September 21, 1987 APPLICANT: Steve Fox LOCATION: Southeast Corner of Pico Street and Blue Mountain Court IZQUlST: A three parcel minor subdivision dividing 1.1 acres into three individual lots - one measuring 14,255 square feet and two measuring 14,235 square feet; pZONING AND_LANDUSF. Property GP Zoning Landuse Kula iect Property LDR R-1 Vacant To the North LDR R-1 Citrus grove Fu the South LDR A-1 Residence I'o the writ LDR A-1 Residenc(-! 10 the East LDR A-1 Residence ENV1RONl RINITAL ANALYSIS this project is categorically exempt, Class 15. HAUKG1?0UND I'he subject Property is located at the Southeast Corner of Pico buteett and the Privately owned Blue Mountain Court. Thu Property is surrounded on three sides by developed A-1 zoned property, ATTACHMENT C 22795 BARTON ROAD • GRAND TERRACE, CA 92324-5295 • CIVIC CENTER — (714) 824-6621 which allows lots with a minimum of 43,560 Square feet and agricultural uses. The su1)iect property is zoned R-l, which allows lots with a minimum of 7,200 square feet of area. On August 17, 1987, 1Te applicant requested the Planning Commission to divide this same parcel into four lots. phis request was continued by the Planning Commission with the approval of the applicant until after- the General Plan and "Zoning Ordinance revisions are completed for this area. The applicant has since requested the Planning Commission to consider a revised version of the tentative map prior to the upcoming hearings. DISCUSSION The Applicant is currently requesting the Planning Commission to consider a revision of the proposed map creating a three lot subdivision with one 14,255 sq. ft. lot and two 14,235 sq. ft. lots, all three of which front on Pico Street (see Attachment H). Under current minimum lot size regulations these lots are permissable, however., as was discussed during the previous hearing for this property, it is anticipated that during the upcoming General Plan and 'honing Ordinance revision , this property will he recommended for a zone change to the A-i (R1-40) or the R-1-20 residential designation to better blend with the surrounding zoning and land use. During the previous hearings on this map, substantial opposition was voiced by property owners in the neighborhood r.egaroing the splitting of this property into four lots, several of thorn indicated that a compromise of two lots would be acceptable. in reviewing the sub iect sire, its topography and its surrounding land uses, staff feels that a suhdivi.sion of this property creating two iots could be appropriate. Due to the topography oi- the site, -the creation of three lots would require substantial grading to create a pad for the most easterly proposed lot. Limiting the subdivision to two lots would eliminate the need for much of the grading thus allowing the site to blend better with the neighboring properties both physicaiiv with relation to land contours and with relation to the density of development. Attached as Attachment C are the recommended conditions of approval submitted by the City Engineer if the Planning Commission should approve this application. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Department recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution (Attachment A) denying TPM-87-5 based on the findings stated in said resolution. Pesl,r ct fu l I Submi teed , Ravi d 5iiwver, , Pl ann 1 ng Di rector '� c• I I e1.VF MOUNTAIN ._"- -- - T-sl--ia..c.r � II C x I ! Lq �T—T - -M nfS'r 7T -/C - 7C - L1 2r)il'-- a •a o 0 n M --. I Y."— I A"..,. � 0 i; �;..1a 4° -, O- NO 1 G 7 �J I 4W N RECEIVEL) AUG] „I _? PLANNING D@PANtM€NT MRM(1D n NtT)ITM 13YRON R MAI EESON Mayor BARBARA PFFNNIG' 1AUCF Mayor P-o lom Cour., '.4vrblvrs Iffj6h i GRAN I 1,FNNiS ! EVANI rHOMA-' .I (tivi4R G�f , laraggr W.O. 12-2,1060 TPM 10915 Steve Fox Blue ML. Court & Pico To: David R. Sawyer, Planning Director From: Joseph Kicak, City Engineer Date: August 13, 1987 Subject: Tentative Parcel Map No. 10915 Steve Fox - Pico & Blue Mountain Court Following conditions should be imposed as prerequisites to approval of TPM 10915. 1. If the above referenced application is approved, applicant and/or property owner shall comply with the standard development requirements of the City, 2. Prepare Final Nap in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and submit to the City Engineer for review, 3. Ded:icate to provide for: <�. 1'hi.rty-three (33) feeL of hall -street r 1 �;ht -of-way on Pico SLreel_ . 22795 BARTON ROAD • GRAND TERRACE, CA 92324-5295 • CIVIC CENTER -- (714) 82r1-6621 David R. Sawyer August 13, 1 87 Page Two b. Offer for dedication for right-of-way to thirty (30) feet East of centerline on Blue Mountain Court.. 4. Prior to approval of Final Map, submit street improvement plans and construct the following: a. Improve Pico as to standards required by General Plan. b. Blue Mountain Court to be improved in accordance with requirements of General Plan. 5. Provide the City with a "will serve letter" from Riverside Highland Water Company. 6. Provide plans for sewer extension to serve each lot and construct the required sewer system. 7. Pay off any outstanding assessments for sewer on subject property. 40r 8. The improvements to be installed shall be designed by the owner's civil engineer to the specifications of the City of Grand Terrace. 9. The water system and fire hydrants shall be installed in accordance with requirements of the State Health and Safety Code, and in accordance with plans approved by City Engineer and the Fire Marshall. 10. Prior to recordation of final map, obtain a letter of non-interference from any utility company which may have rights of easement within property boundaries. 11. Utility lines shall be underground. 12. Install ornamental street lights. 13. Prior to obtaining bui_]d:ing permit, owner shall process appl-i(-Ation for Site Plan and Architcc_tural Development. approval by the Planning Commi.ss-i-on. 14. Comply with ulL City or(Ii.nancus and pay a1I lees. JK : wl_ ATTACHMENT D (Minutes will be provided at meeting) P9 O STAFF REPORT R A I TEM ( ) ;�UENDA ITEM NO. >UU'JECT UNDING REQUIRED COUNCIL ITEM (X) 110 FUNDING REQUIRED . ' P-- BACKGROUND : MEETING DATE: October 8, 1987 Consider Extension for T.J. Austyn's Tentative Tract Man 1 1050 On September 24, 1987 your CounciI considered a request from T..J. Atistyn, Inc. for a one—year extension on Tentative Map 13050. At that meeting ,your Council denied that request, however it was learned after the meeting that the applicant had not received proper notice of the meeting and therefore was not present- at the time of your deci.si.on. Consequently, staff_ has scheduled this item for a rehearing by your Council at this time. The original staff report dated September 22, 1987 is attached to this report for your information. The Planning Department's recommendation remains as stated in the attached report. Respect y Submitted, �) David R. Sawver, Planning Di. recto. STAFF REPORT C R A ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM ( ) MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM NO. Considered Fxtension for T.J. Austyn Tentative SUBJECT Tract Map 13050 FUNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED ✓ BACKGROUND: On August 5, 1985,.the Planning Commission recommended approval of Tentative 'Tract. Map 13050 and Specific Plan 85-10 to the City Council and on September 1.2, 1985, the City Council approved both items. Tn accordance with the California State Map Act the approval of Tentative Tract Map 13050 was set to expire on September 12, 1987. Consequently, staff received a letter from the applicant, T.J. Austyn, Inc. requesting a one vear extension of said Map (see Attachment A). On August 17, 1987, the Planning Commission recommended the Citv Council approve the applicant's request for a one-year extension. DISCUSSION: The applicant is actually requesting a one-year extension on only a portion of TM 13050, this portion being phases 5,6, and 7 as illustrated on Attachment B. Phases 1,2,3 and 4 which have been sold by T.J. Austvn to Fieldcrest Homes have received final map approval and are currently under construction. The California State Map Act allows the Citv Council to extend the approval of a tentative map for a period of time up to three vears from the original expiration date. tipon application for an extension by the subdivider prior to the expiration date, the tentative map automatically receives a 60 day extension or until such time the Citv Council either approves or denies the application, whichever occurs first. As illustrated on Attachment ( ' the subiect area is located hetween current I v deve 1 oped R- l propert v ( mini mum 7,200 s(r . f t . lots) to the west, A-1 zoned property (minimum 43,5oo -;q. ti. lots with allowed agricultural uses) along with nublic ()pen space to the east, both R-1 and A-1 zoned property to the soulh and R-1 zoned property to the north. 'Fhe existing land uses for these properties are illustrated on Attachment 1). The subiect property is currently zoned R-1 as it was at the time of the tentative map and specific plan approval in 1985. However, considering the subject property's location between two significantly different residential landuse designations, it would he appropriate that there be some type of buffer area between the two residential zones (R-1 and A-1). The current zoning for this area does not provide for. this. The upcoming General Plan and 'Zoning Ordinances revision for this area will be considering this issue and a change of land use designations is a possible recommendation. At that time the City Council may decide that a change of zoning (to R-1-20 for instance) may be appropriate for certain properties in this area including a portion if not all of the land contained in TM 13050 phases 5,6, and 7. If this is the case, the Council now has the opportunity to deny the requested extension and prevent the development of this land at the higher density and smaller lot design. If the map is extended for the requested year, it is possible that the subdivider will move forward with his plans to file a final map, and the property will be developed as it is currently planned. RECOMMENDATION: As a result of preliminary research, staff feels that the concept of rezoning some of this area does have some merit and warrants OAW further analysis and should be considered during the upcoming Zoning Ordinance Revision. If the Council agrees with staff that the issue of rezoning some of this area to a larger lot requirement such as the R-1-20 zoning should be considered during the 'Zoning Ordinance Revision hearings, Staff recommends the City Council consider one of the following three alternatives: ALTERNATIVE ONE. - deny the request for an extension of TM 13050 phases 5,6, and 7 thereby forcing a new tentative map to be filed which if filed after the Zoning Revision will need to meet the requirements of the revised 'Zoning Ordinance. ALTERNATIVE TWO - approve an extension of. TM 13050 phases 516 and7 until after the Zoning Ordinance is revised K month extension). After which, if the zoning remains the same, a longer extension may be granted. This alternative does allow the subdivider time to submit a final neap and obtain building permits prior to the time the zoning issue is decided. ALTERNATIVE THREE - approve a 4 month extension of 1M 11050 phases 5 and o and deny the extension of phase 7. This alternative will ensure that phase 7, which extends southward into the area of larger parcels and undivided acreage, will not be developed at the smaller lot si;Ps before the zoning issue is decided. It also allows the subdivider a window of time to prepare a final map ror phases 5 and 6 j)rior to the zoning ordinance hearing's whicii will dictate whether or not phases 5 and 6 should he extended or denied at the end of the 4 month extension period. If the Citv Council decides that the issue of rezoning portions AW of this area should not be considered during the upcoming zoning hearings or that the area of land covered by TM 1.3050 should not be considered for rezoning during the hearings the City Council may choose the following alternative: ALTERNATIVE FOUR - approve a one-year extension of Tit 13u50 phases 5,6 and 7 as requested. Respectfully Submitted, ]avid Sawyer., ]arming Director OW T.J. AUSTYN, INC. 500 N. Newport Boulevard Suite 201 Newport Beach, Califomia 92663 (714) 642-6659 July 15, 1987 Mr. David Sawyer City of Grand Terrace 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace, CA 92324-5295 Re: Tract Maps 13050-5, 13050-6 and 13050-Final Dear Mr. Sawyer: T.J. Asutyn, Inc. is currently getting ready to record Tract Maps 13050, 13050-5 and 13050-6. Our tentative maps expire September 12, 1987. In the event our construction loan does not fund promptly it will be necessary to extend our tentative maps for 1 year. Please consider this letter a request for extension for all three maps. MAE/ejs Sincerely, V pOtA,� Mary Anne Eliot Project Manager RECEIVED TA�f YA'614h'&1 JT A c c Tr"C& MCI., 02,0,1 rr,-1z;44 Mcn6w YAV pa"m cOROFAT� �AT W- jo, .i rr 7YPICAL MCrIOM VICIIV17�1' AUP P/co 7MC41 "FC770V 1,761. INIX"ll Trp" Jamom TrPMAL SECT/ON f-Lr rx a", TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 13050 ATTACHMENT B 1 1 .i t ., 1.-.. i ��j. 1. •r� C r '( �4 r.!-�I�IY `�4 � *'�_�• p,��Y, `` •.•..w.'r.r.w rlsr'""•r►+r'' ".eMc s+�: �r �,p,�.,,/,yP Y3, ':` t itstr l 9 + -,. �.. - i,•w..rr•tY.w�.•..+.r�•'rw'.,........n.fiy:A' *f r,�="I'•.,.. +. •.^t� t.•y. ,t+`Ss 'i t �'RP' 4 ^t. ik:L ,�.yr�w....w•-.Mt.A/""�. 7.,�."rvl+ w �..s•. ^ 1y1 _ i y.�.�r.ar.� ww+ry +tr v �w"e�•n' o� ',Y ,jj( .,ter•. �(•'�,owrw.wr+..+. ' � r ',,a�yt• ; \ '�``�1. �....� •.�+ vt Y s fit+ '` • �_...:j t«r++w+ ���,�•..yws+rwlne.� � . � . �'�r M�t� �► ± ` t•Y♦ r 't�t5 � 4' or O, ■■-�" �MnvaN� r z,ar� r i- '°�c'F yt��� � tR � �5� y ---111 IV}r.w�s •.+MrM►'.�'M. "+nrr711@ • !� t yrib f •.\ (, 'iS I i -1 i v.••' av • '•„'w"w•'o••w•...•++r•r++wrNn •sri t w .ter AW- _ 4' .. 1 i� F r t - 1 �t�ii5 ,,,,.. w.+•...w..,.........w.... ' . s; >rr�+--=Y .� A t �;,i I{}}tii ti ..,1 "?7r (•rw+M•'••wtf+w+.••.� ♦w.w.w� v'.�i Y,:.'..rr r.M" M' .-{ I;*.:r tel:E.s n +.i"ti J.�'! `\ , •1 { ' +.fwrJiMMr'�•M�••'••IMA�Iw, ; ! ♦ I!! �. a t•triL.rtr G�'� �"1 �i �t� ) (I � .� .-; ...w.,y....�++.+...w•sr-• ��lr+^ • we i'w . - IAS? a .'.:.diSy--,sei,.,. : yr w Y" •� � . *+rwr r'W+'i�nF . �� T s� i a•..=" � � rat 3�'► 1� � } 1 1 s ;r , �} - ! 5 ,t.♦r•�r•rwwwt�•yr.nr�^t . t . . l -,+• i 1 � Y. t i s...: .i• x ! syy�yyn,ryr--i �'• Ii . -. ♦ . . `Y t i • S ui' . i . + tl' c y7 ,'� z . a � t J wvNr�+r�w -` �•sr� 1r��/rr•. ww—t+w's s./�era4=iat�e ~ ~ r~ , 1 4 � VF - f'>•M•.a�. rrr• sbl.at"rYf rLr } t fk ,.,ram � -�� �� �: � ' 7'V! ./•/•��, T t•u�T.A' 7 7 ♦ • I` _ - T 1"a . ` � -i � f i •" 5�. � 6 �C: r�-lo.w...ranwvrwl.+�4Vrr.A��r-'1?s.' tiYouYl�l/' i t f ti � . y: t ` - d'� j._ i !'� �ii - ' .:i " ♦ � _ - FFF i•nY.wr7 w w9w~ a w. w�•.^r . t � r - �nr �,,... a - . �s ••��V '1bra4!• 11+IiSA 1 S? 1 i a " JL, �!!"r Off � � J Y 9•� r i�� �� r i +..y.•...wrrr.r� enwtc�b • t yr�a- - + fT`e ''"�7 � � � �•'�.'♦•+t �M;1• �M'�+"/�:. -.T bM-FT 1 f Y Y +'/tE-.r_�-�rx� _ - f♦. a ���� t}•,f �l�F % �� �f _.� ! i. ..-. 1 I � � • � ` � • •' . 4 •.r I � � ^.fir � � ' rl 1* .•� .. , r 4 i , ,... ♦ . • ' l - : S t i-r . +. + ` .f , : b '� . • � wel♦•' � f :'' 1• _ ; - r{. t t T,4If �'!�-��.�. aw • f r r ' d . r 1 t L 6 �•e . 1 .•y t - `.»�z 1W.,, � i��ci(��, iSt '; if �.'i{' �•i i•y .. �.-;, ti,-,-_. .♦;. �•, a � lit -( O A111h1w:10111aONE: M ZONING MAP LEGEND 13,A-1 (LMT. AGRICULTURE) R-1 (S.F. RES.) El PUB (PUBLIC) ATTACHMENT C EXISTING LANDUSE MAP 19 DEVELOPED R-1 R-1 UNDER CONST. GROVES Ei SINGLE RESIDENCE RES. W/HORSES CHURCH CONVENT RESERVOIR ATTACHMENT D DATE:9l16/87 C R A ITEM C) COUNCIL. ITEM C X? MEETING DATE: 10/08/87 4bv AGENDA ITEM NO, SUBJECT: DESIGNATING CERTAIN AREAS OF GRAND TERRACE ROAD AS 9&i0 • "2 111�2 FUNDING REQUIRED X NO FUNDING REQUIRED A request has come to the City Council to designate certain areas of Grand Terrace Road as "no parking" areas. The areas in question are: Grand Terrace Road, East side, approximately 312 Feet ncrth of Barton Road. Grand Terrace Road, West side, approximately 312 Feet north of Barton Road, The property owners affected by this request have signed the attached letter, indicating their support For this designation. As Council is aware, there is an ongoing problem with individuals parking their vehicles within this area, and soliciting work From the Stater Bros., vehicles as they exist the Freeway. StafF has no objection to this request of the property owners. It is anticipated that the cost of installing the required number of signs For this project is approximately $500,00. Staff Recommends that Cou-,cil: APPROVE THE REQUEST OF HE PROPERTY OWNERS FOR THE "NO PARKING'' DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN AREAS OF GRAND TERRACE ROAD, ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. B7- . APPRCPRIATE $500.00 FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED FUND I3AL.Ah,10E TO FINANCE T;-i : S PROJECT. R I__ A COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM # 8A ' l.fT7pN ��••�� ,..r r D �. AYE TV PROJECT LOCATION BARTON CI TY LIMITS THY IT SCHOOL Sc RESOLUTION NO. 87- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A "NO PARKING" ZONE ON BOTH SIDES OF GRAND TERRACE ROAD FROM BARTON ROAD 312 FEET NORTH, EAST AND WEST SIDES. WHEREAS, Section 22507 of the State Vehicle Code permits local agencies to restrict by resolution the parking or standing of vehicles on certain streets; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: #46V SECTION 1. The parking, stopping, or standing of vehicles is prohibited on both sides of Grand Terrace Road, 312 feet North of Barton Road East and West sides. M SECTION 2. City Staff is directed to place necessary signs providing notice of this action. ADOPTED this 8th day of October, 1987. ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Grand Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace Terrace and of the City Council and of the City Council thereof. thereof. I, Thomas Schwab, City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace held on the 8th day of October, 1987, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Approved as to form: City Attorney City Clerk L-2 77 Z �i$s9 �o?i853 „3,4 R7'o N (;u /Am P&P P,4e6lwa I -bT- GRA�t10 ' yO rrnnbLIlub-%to/V0 l �RRAC•� r?• D 12131 Gr?AAJL) iEPRACE DATE: October 1, 1987 S T A F F R E P O R T 0 O"W-" CRA ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM ( X) MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: Volunteer Banquet Update FUNDING REQUIRED X NO FUNDING REQUIRED At the May 28, 1987 Council Meeting, a Volunteer Recognition Program was approved by Council. At the July 9, 1987 Council Meeting, Council authorized appropriation in the amount of $2,700 from the unappropriated General Fund Balance for the banquet and awards. The awards were ordered and have now been received. Tentative arrange- ments have been made with Bing's Cathay Inn in San Bernardino. The following dates are available: ' October 30, 1987, November 6, 1987 and November 13, 1987 STAFF REECOMMENDS THAT: Council choose which date would be the most convenient for this program. TS NITA BROWN DEPUTY CITY CLERK