Loading...
04/28/2019CITY OF GRAND TERRACE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - APRIL 28, 1988 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 April 28, 1988, at 5:33 p.m. PRESENT: Byron Matteson, Mayor Barbara Pfennighausen, Mayor Pro Tem Hugh J. Grant, Councilmember Dennis L. Evans, Councilmember Susan Shirley, Councilmember Thomas J. Schwab, City Manager/Finance Director Randy Anstine, Assistant City Manager David Sawyer, Planning Director Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney Joe Kicak, City Engineer ABSENT: Juanita Brown, Deputy City Clerk The meeting was opened with invocation by Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilmember Evans. ITEMS TO DELETE City Manager Schwab requested Item 2-1 -- Presentation "YES on Mojave County," requested to be placed on a subsequent Agenda and Item No. 3-D -- April 14, 1988 Minutes. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 2. Proclamation read by Mayor Matteson regarding "Voter Registration Day" - May 1, 1988. 3. Proclamation read by Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen regarding "Senator Ruben Ayala" and his contributions to the American Cancer Society. 4. Proclamation read by Councilmember Grant regarding "Senator Robert Presley Day" - May 13, 1988. CONSENT CALENDAR CC-88-56 MOTION BY MAYOR MATTESON, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM PFENNIGHAUSEN, CARRIED 5-0, to approve the Consent Calendar with the removal of Item A -- Approve Check Register No. 041488. B. RATIFY APRIL 28, 1988 CRA ACTION C. WAIVE FULL READING OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS ON AGENDA 0 E. RESCIND APPROVAL OF STOP SIGN AT PRESTON AND BRENTWOOD. ITEM REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR DISCUSSION A. Approve Check Register No. 042888 Mayor Matteson questioned and received clarification on Item A. CC-88-57 MOTION BY MAYOR MATTESON, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM PFENNIGHAUSEN, CARRIED 5-0, to approve Check Register No. 042888. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Sharon Korgan, introduced members of the Citizen Patrol who graduated on April 20, 1988: Bob Eckman; Wayne Pelren; Sharon Wheat; Bea Gigandet - Scheduling Coordinator; Hazel and Earl Shafer; Sheri Keeney; Ilse Bent; Harold Lord; Ralph Nichols; Howard Paner; Tony Petta; Leo Rooney; Dick Rollins. Dick Rollins, reported about a Drug Canine Unit Service which the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department is sharing with our Citizen Patrol and the City of Loma Linda. He reported that a drug bust took place Wednesday, April 27, 1988 on DeBerry. 11 Councilmember Evans, gave an overview of being involved in law enforcement and welcomed the Citizen Patrol. Mayor Matteson congratulated and thanked the members of the Citizen Patrol. Mike O'Brien, 12476 Warbler, expressed his concern about the rundown property surrounding the new retirement center at 22323 Barton Road. He presented pictures to Council of the houses. Councilmember Shirley felt the property belonged to the person who developed the senior home and believed he is planning on doing something with that property. Mayor Matteson reported that discussions have been held regarding developing that property. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen reported receiving complaints that the facilities are opened and being used by children. She reported that the owners talked to her several of months ago and promised her that they would take care of the problem, but as to date nothing has been done. Council Minutes - 04/28/88 Page 2 ORAL REPORTS Councilmember Shirley questioned if there was some recourse on this. Assistant City Manager Anstine, owners have been put on official violations and they do have a time will be meeting with the owners refrain from any further comments due to potential litigation. reported that the property notice; there are existing table to meet and that Staff Monday. He suggested to or discussion on this issue Bea Gigandet, 22743 Miriam Way expressed her concern about the entrance and exit from the new retirement center development. Planning Director Sawyer explained the conditions that the property owners have for the development of the retirement center regarding the entrance and exit. Tony Petta, 11875 Eton Drive, expressed his feelings regarding the Citizen Patrol and explained what Proposition 13 meant and gave his views regarding the same. 5A. Commission/Committee Historical and Cultural Activities Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen questioned the Minutes of April 14, 1988 -- The Secretary's report for March 7, 1988 was read and approved with the exception of Paragraph #7 -- equals a 100 cards was blank. Councilmember Grant reported pointing out this gross oversight and explained the reason for the blank. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen requested that the Committee send a memo to Council and fill in the blank portion so Council would know what the dollars are. 2. Crime Prevention Ralph Buchwalter, Chairman, expressed his feelings regarding the Citizen Patrol and gave an update of what has happened with the Citizen Patrol Unit in Chino Hills. He gave an update on the committee events. 3. Emergency Operations Council accepted March 21, 1988 Minutes. Council Minutes - 04/28/88 Page 3 COUNCIL REPORTS CLOSED SESSION Councilmember Grant, reported that he represented the Cities of the County at the Local Agency Formation Commission April 20, 1988, informing that the Mayors of all Cities in the County will be selecting the new principal member to the Local Agency Formation Commission on April 29, 1988, indicating the reasons he is supporting Councilman Riley. Mayor Pro Tem Pfenni hausen, suggested that the San Bernardino Board of Supervisor be informed that Council did not receive notification on this important issue, which would enable them to have input, and likewise, if the Mayor should receive this information he should direct staff to share it with Council. She reported attending the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District Advisory Commission (SBVMWD) meeting with Councilmember Evans as alternate; pointed out that this is a Council -appointed position, therefore, the selection process needs to be put on the next Agenda, since it has to be taken care of by June 4, 1988. She informed that in light of the water shortage being reported, we have sufficient water in our area that could carry us through several years and explained what the SBVMWDAC is involved with and what their duties are. Mayor Matteson, directed staff to put that item on the next Benda. He commended the Sheriff's Department, particularly Officer Patrick Cavenaugh, and urged everyone to put the word out that we want to keep him in Grand Terrace, since rumors are that the City of Highland is trying to get him. Councilmember Evans, expressed his feelings about the officers who work days and the good job they are doing. City Manager Schwab explained the legal provisions that allow the legislative body which will include the Ad Hoc Committee and the Parks and Recreation Committee to go into Closed Session; described the four areas that have been narrowed down for park acquisition; informed that they were going into closed session to discuss the negotiated prices and will come back and have discussion in open session regarding anything to do with potential acquisition. The following is paraphrased discussion that ensued prior to going into closed session. Councilmember Evans, voiced concern as to what will be put on the acquired parkland; financing vehicle; maintenance cost; felt the Parks and Recreation Committee had some very definite ideas as to what they envisioned; questioned if we were to acquire a site, how are we going to pay for it; indicating that the only alternatives would be the certificate of participation or some other vehicle for financing. Council Minutes - 04/28/88 Page 4 CLOSED SESSION Councilmember Grant, concurred with Councilmember Evans that there is a need to indicate what is wanted on these parks, as well as location. Mayor Matteson, felt the problem is the limited amount and sizes of available parcels and if the land is not acquired now, there will not be any in five years. City Manager Schwab, stated the cost of the parcel(s) has not been discussed and would be dependent on whether you want one, two or all of the parcels; felt those are the type of things Council would discuss with the knowledge of what these things cost and if you come to a conclusion that you wanted X parcels, he felt Council would direct staff to come up with a method of finance; indicating that all of the policies are set by Council and Council would set the policy of what they would be willing to set aside. He stated that staff, with the direction of Council went out with the Ad Hoc Committee and took the policy directive to look at the potential of getting the land now, but couldn't say when we would be able to develop the property; we will have to determine our priorities between Pico Park site and any undeveloped land; it could sit for five years or more and not be developed, that would be the decision of Council as to where they would want to direct those resources. Mayor Pro Tem Pfenni hausen, made reference to each of the parcels and directedquestions to the Assistant City Manager relating to the parcels being able to accommodate the facilities the people want put on the site. Assistant City Manager Anstine, replied with a description of t e parce s and What he felt would be best suited for them. Because of the nature of the following discussion, it was suggested by the City Attorney that it be a more detailed version. Mayor Matteson explained the cost of the various parcels of land discussed in Closed Session and opened up to public participation. Tony Petta, 11875 Eton Drive, gave an overview of the area that he researched, Parcel No. 1, the 4.7 acre to the west of Terrace View School ending with a total of approximately 10 acres of land that might be available, which includes Edison property; property already owned by the City; Terrace View School playground and property belonging to a residents that might be available in the future; plus an additional 5 acres across from Vista Grande. He felt acquiring parkland, developing and maintaining it is a very expensive situation for Council Minutes - 04/28/88 Page 5 any city. He felt that prime commercial property like the property along the freeway, generates income to pay for the services to the City such as law enforcement. Barbara Conley, Chairman, Parks and Recreation Committee, 22285 Dove Street, gave an overview of her feelings regarding acquisition of parkland and felt we should not limit ourselves to only one parcel of land. Barbara Bayus, Ad Hoc Committee, reported that her assignment was Area 4. She reported that the church on that property is not for sale, the only land that is for sale is the vacant corner lot which is a little bit over 2 acres. Lenore Frost, 11987 Honey Hill, Parks and Recreation Committee, felt according to the State's recommendation for parks per thousand people we're at about half of the State's recommendation. She felt land is rapidly disappearing from our area and that we should purchase as much land as we can with the eye towards the future. Phyllis Ann Forbes, Ad Hoc Committee, made reference to Parcel 1, which sits across from the Edison Company, stating if the lights were faced toward Edison's land, they would be going over the hill and would not bother residents; indicated that she talked to three members of the School Board who were very favorable to the City and the School Board doing a cooperative effort and felt we might be able to consider our ball park being on the school ground. She felt that might help with the maintenance and the water from the School District. Dick Rollins, 22700 DeBerry, Parks and Recreation Committee, reported that several years ago he had investigated the triangular piece of land owned by the Edison Company at the top of the hill at Mt. Vernon Avenue and gave an overview of that investigation. He felt the Terrace Hills Community Park in its joint use with the School District on its 14 acres gives us a very viable recreational area and understood the State Law, that when a school campus is not in use during school hours the school grounds are then made available to the public. He felt it would be wise to utilize the land with the Terrace View School and surrounding available land for recreational purposes for this City. Mayor Matteson reverted this issue back to the City Council. Councilmember Evans, pointed out his concerns regarding Pico ar and questioned what was ultimately hoped to be developed on Pico; how much were we willing to spend on Pico and where the money was going to come from to develop Pico. He explained he was aware that the development of a park site is extremely expensive and land is in short supply, but felt before tying up Council Minutes - 04/28/88 --- land, there needs to be some visions as to ultimately what would be put on that parcel of land. He disagreed with Parcel 3 being prime commercial property and felt that as it stands right now, for what we are ultimately looking for, that's probably the closest to being the ideal situation. Councilmember Shirley, referenced Parcel 4, stating that with the church not being included made it not possible as parkland. She agreed that Parcel 3 is a good prime commercial piece of property because Grand Terrace does need a larger scale tax base in order to provide the services for present residents as well as future residents. She felt that Parcel 2 would be more difficult to develop as a viable park than any of the other parcels, but found it attractive and would like staff to pursue the possibility of the owner financing on that. She felt Parcel 1, property adjacent to Terrace View School was ideal, since the owner has offered to finance this piece of property. She pointed out that Council has already allocated a hundred thousand dollars a year for park acquisition and development. CC-88-58 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SHIRLEY, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER GRANT, to move that Council direct staff to proceed with purchase of Parcel No. 1. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen, pointed out that the statement that the Council has allocated one hundred thousand dollars a year was incorrect because this Council can only allocate money one year at a time and because Council allocated a hundred thousand dollars last year did not mean that a hundred thousand dollars would be allocated this year because of our financial position. She agreed that Parcel 4 without the church being included should be removed for consideration of possible parkland. She felt Parcel 2 should be withdrawn from consideration because of the amount of monies that would have to be spent to prepare it for park use. She felt Area 3 was only prime commercial property if circulation is opened up into it and that would require the City to spend too much money to open that up. Therefore, she felt Parcel No. 3 would be her first choice for a parksite, but felt Parcel No. 1 would be the best alternate because it is near a school site. She felt there were some drawbacks such as the dangerous intersection at Mt. Vernon and Grand Terrace Road. She was concern that if you put a park site there, people are going to be accessing that intersecton with more regularity, which would bring about more injuries and deaths. She voiced concern regarding children's safety, stating there should be a public hearing to get input from the public and felt all residents in the area surrounding the potential park site should be notified as to what is intended to be put on the site and what it will look like. She suggested keeping Parcels No. 1 and 3 open and get some options to both before making any decision. Council Minutes - 04/28/88 Page 7 Councilmember Grant, agreed with Assistant City Manager Anstine that with proper design in three of the parcels, you could pretty much put the various things that were set forth quite a while back by the Parks and Recreation Committee and felt size should be determined. He also agreed that prices for land was going to go up and agreed land is a good investment for the City. He felt the statement made regarding what the City could afford applies to all of the areas involved. He disagreed with having a park at Mt. Vernon and Grand Terrace would create more accidents, but felt Phase I would create accidents at that intersection. Mayor Matteson, stated that he liked Parcel 3, except for the fact that the cost is prohibitive, but with the Pico Park down there and the DeBerry Park up there, Parcel 1 is the strategic location for a third park. Councilmember Evans, felt cost wise it is not any more costly or three than it is for one when you pencil it out, it's well within the ball park. He questioned how much are we willing to shell out on Pico Park and felt staff needs to specifically tell Council over what time -frame you plan to develop it; how much it's going to cost us and give us a ball park figure as to where all of these monies are going to be coming from. City Manager Schwab, felt that if the motion passes, Council was directing staff to pursue the negotiation and when the negotiated price and the potential owner and bond financing is brought back to Council, should they find any of those terms disagreeable to them, we would not enter into any contract to buy that property. Regarding Councilmember Evans' point about Pico Park, Council is going to have to direct the resources as to where they want parks to be developed, pointing out that there is a limited amount of resources. He felt that parcel(s) that are purchased may lay undeveloped for many years unless the focus is shifted from Pico Park, but that would all be a policy decision from the Council. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen, expressed her concerns to the community regarding justifying land that is going to sit empty and justifying expenditures out of the budget every year, explaining that we don't have a lot of extra money. She pointed out that the 8.4 or 5 acres is not going to generate enough commercial dollars and retail sales tax to help us afford to do this. We need to consider carefully how we are investing our money. We need to pursue every possible avenue of new funding to help supplement what we can put together. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Dick Rollins, 22700 DeBerry Street, expressed his feelings regarding the Parks and Recreation Committee's abilities and El� Council Minutes - 04/28/88 Page 8 requested that Council table any motion regarding purchasing parkland and allow the committee to participate in the decision of what property to purchase and the use of the park. He invited the City Manager and Assistant City Manager to attend the next Park and Recreation Committee meeting to advise and consult us both ways so that the committee can come to some decision as to what to do with the land. City Attorney Hopkins, explained that Mr. Rollins was using the term participate in the decision in the broadest sense possible, and that he only meant the Committee would like to have input in making a recommendation to the City Council who would be making the decisions. Stan Hargrave I would like to raise a point of order Mr. Mayor. I'm looking 12048 Canary at the Agenda for tonight's meeting and if this Agenda is Court correct and it may not be correct and the Council or the City Attorney can correct me, but I believe that it's precipitated upon Councilmember Shirley's attempt to raise a motion for approval of a particular site. That may be out of order since this decision has not been properly aired and my Agenda does not say anything about final decision for acquisition of a site is to be made at this meeting. If that is so, then perhaps tabling this for the next meeting would be appropriate. If that is not so, then I am out of order in my raising a point of issue here, then I, in sitting in the audience have heard no discussions whatsoever on what your executive meeting decided and I have not heard any discussions as to cost of certain sites that the Council may decide to approve this evening. If we are going to go to an approval tonight, I would like to hear what the costs are on the properties that the Council will be voting on and what the terms would be. City Attorney Of course that's the reason that you went into Closed Session Hopkins as far as I'm concerned, was to discuss those costs and unless the Council determines otherwise that's not one of the items that needs to be disclosed at this time for obvious purposes. I don't think this is a final, I don't interpret your motion before you as a final decision. In fact, you can't make that final decision because you haven't gotten all of the information so it's my understanding that that's all you're really doing by this motion is asking staff to come up with that information on that site. Mayor Pro Tem That wasn't my understanding of the motion. Pfennighausen Mayor Matteson The motion was for them to proceed with negotiations on a certain parcel. Council Minutes - 04/28/88 Page 9 City Attorney Well, that's because everything is going to have to come back Hopkins to you, there is nothing you can, you don't have anything, and so all you are really doing at this time, is giving staff directions as to ..... Stan Hargrave Excuse me for interrupting you, but unless I heard incorrectly, may be it's in the minutes, but I think Councilmember Shirley, perhaps she can clarify, was getting ready to make a motion for approval of Parcel No. 1. I will stand corrected to Councilmember Shirley's clarification of her motion, but as I understood it from the audience, she was attempting to make a motion for approval of Site No. 1. Mayor Matteson Her motion was to proceed with negotiation of Parcel 1. Wait a minute, another point of order, I'm out of order because I've opened up to the public and we have a motion on the floor. City Attorney Yes, you do have a motion. Hopkins Mayor Matteson With the consensus of the Council is this permissible. Council concurred. Barbara Conley I would like to agree with Mr. Hargrave in the fact that when I 22285 Dove St. read the minutes and when I read what was sent out to us, I Parks and understood that the Closed Session was to discuss the terms Recreation of the property. I am very unclear by what is on the Agenda, Committee of what we are trying to accomplish tonight. If somebody could clarify that for me because I'm like Mr. Hargrave, I understood that what we are saying, is to pursue negotiations of certain pieces of property when we are trying to decide tonight which pieces of property to pursue. I think at this point in time, we're still at the point where we're just discussing the properties and we possibly need more information of what potential funding is available and what potential grants are available. I also don't think we should sit here and say we can't afford one or the other at this point and time, we need a little bit more research into the situation before any decisions can be made. City Attorney I agree with what Ms. Conley indicated, but I think that's what Hopkins the motion entailed. However, that you directed it to one site, but if you wish to broaden the motion and direct it to more than one site, that's also permissible. You're not at this stage making a final decision and you can't make it as to the acquisition of the property, but simply as I understand it, to the negotiations of the property which is what you were involved in although I wasn't back there which you should have been involved in, at least just to the cost. Council Minutes - 04/28/88 Page 10 J Tony Petta Mr. Mayor, the questions that have been raised are valid and necessary, there's a need for not only the Council, but also the public to know more details of what was suggested through the motion. I believe the motion was saying to enter into negotiation and negotiation doesn't tie the Council to anything, all that you are saying is see what the best that you can do and then we go out; it is going to take a little time to make contact because the owner is an out of state owner. What we would do with these negotiations, is merely, get specific information as to what is the best that we can do and bring it to the Council. So, the motion is essentially saying, get more information for us that we can consider. I'm sure that the intent is not to tie the Council to a decision on the site, but merely to bring in information as to what is the best deal that we can do on this land. You will have it; you can accept; you can rewrite; you can reject; you can do anything you want with it. You are not bound to do anything other than look at it and determine whether you want to go on it or not. Mayor Matteson Okay, this is the last speaker and then we are going to turn it back to Council, this could go on all night. Stan Hargrave Excuse me Mr. Mayor, but this is an issue that may be necessary to go on all night, with your approval of course. Butdon't you in a sense eliminate a property from potential discussion by going into negotiation on a specific property? What happens with the other three properties now that they are not part of this negotiation and as Mr. Petta pointed out which is a good point, if you go out and negotiate with one property owner and the report comes back to the Council and you say we don't like those terms, now, do we go back and negotiate with property No. whatever and if we don't like those, do we continually go through perhaps four negotiations. It would appear to me as a layman that based on the discussion with Council so far in the attempt to make a motion here, that there is some unclearness regarding what's specifically going to occur here. Are we going to negotiate with one property owner only, and in a sense exclude the other three or are we going to say, we'll negotiate on this property, if we don't like the terms, we'll come back and look at the other three properties. These are items that I think when you give staff direction, staff needs to clearly know so that they can help to do their jobs in a more economical fashion or we might be in a position for a number of Council meetings, which I agree, may be a waste of a lot of time, effort and emotion. Perhaps some clarity in the beginning would help us all and get this issue behind us and get moving, thank you. Barbara Conley I would just like to suggest to possibly expand the motion to include not just one property, because I think the point is well taken, if you have negotiation on only one property, you are excluding the others, and good business sense would be Council Minutes - 04/28/88 Page 11 until you've gotten to the point of where you sign the contract, you would want to leave your options open. You don't want one owner to think, he's the only one you are talking to, we want to have two options on what we might or might not purchase. Mayor Matteson Okay, I revert back to City Council. Councilmember I have a hard time identifying a site and I'm trying to Evans understand what in the heck this Ad Hoc Committee has been doing for the last several weeks. I thought that this was the best cost figure and now I'm hearing that gee whiz, just give me the okay to go ahead on this one site and may be I can dicker. I don't understand what has happened to date, but I come back to, if I understand what you're saying Dick, we have certain needs in this City and your committee has not been listened too and you feel that you want the input, you representing the committee, as to what the citizens in this City feel are the viable recreational amenities they want to see. If that is the way I interpreted it, I couldn't agree with you any more and I've come back to the point that I've made all along, you don't go out there and buy a parcel of land and then you decide what you want to put on it, you have to have some concept as to how you are going to utilize that land and what you ultimately want to see on that land. So, you need to prepare some schematics, and this is what I'm saying, I don't know if we start at the committee level or if we start at the committee level in conjunction with staff and planning. We need to see some idea as to what ultimately you would like to see. We need to get the cost figures as to how much it's going to cost us, not only to develop it with whatever you desire, but also how much we are going to pay for the land. So, it now brings me back to the other point on Pico, how much are we willing to commit to Pico Park, because if we are going to Continue to develop Pico Park, I cannot help but feel that park in of itself is going to be contingent upon park acquisition. Personally, I think Pico Park is a bad site and any money that we have spent should be for our own personal park, but until we have decided what is going to go on that parcel of land, it's foolish to sit there and say, go out and buy this land, we will worry about what we want to put on it later, we should have some idea of what we want to put on it right now. Mayor Matteson This park thing could go on forever, Mr. Schwab would you put on the next Agenda that we would decide what parcel we want and we will pick a parcel at the next Council meeting. Councilmember Shirley do you want to talk with them (Councilmember Shirley nodded NO), okay.... Mayor Pro Tem Well, there's a motion on the floor. Pfennighausen 11� Council Minutes - 04/28/88 Page 12 U Mayor Matteson I know there is, I'm quite aware, please cast your vote. One point, Mr. Hopkins are you satisfied with the motion that's on the floor? City Attorney The seconder and the maker of the motion seem to confirm it Hopkins that all you are really doing is directing staff to come back with more information on Parcel No. 1, including the negotiations; that you have not made a decision on selecting it, but the comments were certainly appropriate, but by doing that you sort of leave the others in the dust when you did that because the others are put on the back burner, but the decision will have to be made on that as the site that you were selecting at some later date when it is properly agendized. Mayor Matteson Okay, please cast your votes. Motion CC-88-58 CARRIED 3-2 WITH COUNCILMEMBER EVANS AND MAYOR PRO TEM PFENNIGHAUSEN VOTING NOE. Councilmember If we are going to do this and I don't know if it's the next Evans Agenda, I don't know if we need a form of a motion or just to direct staff, I want every body that lives in that immediate area notified so they can personally be in attendance here to give their input as to whether or not they would like to see that developed. If it requires a motion, I'll make that a motion. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen Councilmember Evans City Attorney Hopkins Councilmember Evans City Attorney Hopkins I would prefer to see that by certified letter please. Ivan are we to direct staff to do that? You will have to direct, you can't make a motion... Well, I will direct staff to do that. You have to have the Mayor to direct staff... Mayor Matteson Is this the consensus of the Council? Councilmember Mr. Evans and his eagerness, what is he really asking for, do Grant you know, tell me again Mr. Evans, I want to hear it again. Councilmember I want all of those people in that area notified of what is Evans being considered to go into their area so they can share their input. Council Minutes - 04/28/88 Page 13 Councilmember Isn't that normal procedure when you are going to do something Grant of this nature Mr. City Attorney? If it's not, then I concur with what Mr. Evans is saying. City Attorney I don't think it's normal procedure and so I think it is a very R Hopkins valid request. Councilmember Great, then I fully concur with him, certainly. Grant City Attorney I would say, although, I don't disagree with Mayor Pro Tem that Hopkins if you do it by certified letter, that's not normal, we never give notice to such issues by certified letter, but simply by first-class postage, but certainly we can if you wish us to go by certified but it is more expensive. Mayor Matteson I think it's over reaction, I think through normal channels to notify those people. Mayor Pro Tem Well, I don't know how we are going to handle this because I Pfennighausen have very strong feelings about it. I'm not sure that the normal mail gets the attention that's required and this is almost a kin to changing zoning. Even though by title that is not what we are doing, that is exactly what we are doing and it's been the policy of this Council after the things that went on in 1980 that people directly affected would be notified by certified mail and I think it is incumbent upon this Council to continue that policy. Everybody that surrounds that area should be notified by certified mail that we are planning to put a park there and that we are planning to put facilities on there that will require lighting. Mayor Matteson That's incorrect, we are at this particular time not planning to put a park there, we are only negotiating an offer to purchase some property. Councilmember I would like to see staff in conjunction with Park and Rec give Evans me a schematic drawing if that site is selected as to what they want to see on there and how much it's going to cost us. City Manager Well, I think just from the staff's standpoint that if we are Schwab going to develop a park in maybe five to ten years it's going to be a little difficult to try to say give me an idea of what's going to be on there. Potentially, the City in five years might sell that parcel off to be developed as single-family homes if we couldn't afford to develop a park. Councilmember We are playing semantics like she said, this discussion has Evans been on parks and that's what we're looking for and I want to be able to say if somebody asks how much are you willing to spend, what are you planning on developing on this parcel of land, so they will know kind of where we're sitting, if they don't, then it's foolish for us to continue to go down. Council Minutes - 04/28/88 Page 14 City Manager If it's with the concurrence of the Council, we'll develop any Schwab plan that you would like to have and we'll work with the Parks and Recreation Committee. I'm unclear though, as to whether we are still sending out certified letters, and I would like for you to define adjoining properties. Mayor Pro Tem There are single-family residences to the south; there are Pfennighausen single-family residences to the west; there is a particular resident to the north that doesn't look to kindly on us as a City anyway, so I sure don't want to get him anymore irritated, and a single-family residence to the east. Now, you can say you are going to direct those lights away from those houses, but I'm telling you that when lights come on the whole sky lights up, the people need to know and I don't want to sit through two more years... And if we are going to invest in property that we are going to let sit and take our dollars and do that, then let's invest in buying some commercial property and sell it off to a developer so that we can get a tax base to do what we want with it. City Manager So adjacent then means, physically adjacent to the parcel with which we are considering for acquisition? Mayor Pro Tem Right. Pfennighausen City Manager Do we want certified or just regular letter? Schwab Mayor Pro Tem Certified letter is what I want and there appears to be at Pfennighausen least two sites that we need to consider and that would be affective to both of those sites. Councilmember Probably to be more specific, it looks like three houses that Evans face Mt. Vernon right at Grand Terrace Road, and I believe, either one or two houses on Grand Terrace Road that come over there; all the houses from Mt. Vernon east to where they dead-end at the school on the north side; all the houses on the south side of Brentwood up to that first little street between Brentwood and Eton, I think it's Holly; I think those will have the major impact as far as if lighting were to go into that area. City Manager So that all the Council understands, and we are all looking at Schwab the same thing, we are now changing the definition, it's not adjoining properties you're talking about, now we're saying just homes in the area is what you're saying, if we're going to be going down Brentwood on ... Councilmember I would think that those would have the major impact. Evans Council Minutes - 04/28/88 Page 15 Mayor Pro Tem I don't have a particular thing against the ones on the south Pfennighausen side, but I think that the houses on the north side to the east and the west have to be specifically noticed. Mayor Matteson I think that this is the only viable piece of property that we really have that the Ad Hoc Committee has come up with, but apparently there are several Councilmembers that are totally against it and they think it will die and we will end up with no park. Tony Petta Mr. Mayor, I feel a need to make an observation. In the young life of this City, the City has relied considerably on volunteers, it is now and it will to a larger extent in the future, and in all cases when the City has needed help, volunteers from this City have stood up to be counted. We've seen it in the Citizen Patrol here this evening, the Parks and Recreation Committee, Historical and Cultural Committee all of the committees of this City and in the future, this will be magnified. Of tremendous concern to me when a Councilmember in a derogatory manner says what in the heck has this Ad Hoc Committee been doing. This Committee is composed of professional people, people that have stood up to be counted to work for the City at no cost to the City and they have thousand and thousand of dollars for the benefit of this City. They have done the job that they were requested to do and I think that Council can have more consideration than to use such a derogatory remark. Mayor Matteson I hope the Ad Hoc Committee does not take that remark as coming from the whole Council because the majority of the Council really appreciates the work that you've done and you've done a fantastic job and you've come up with parcels that have not been recognized before. I do appreciate your service and I apologize for the Council if any derogatory remarks were upsetting. Councilmember I certainly concur with what you and Mr. Petta have said that Grant this committee has devoted hours when converted into dollars and cents, it's a tremendous amount of money and my personal gratitude to them. I still think we are leaving the City Manager hanging on what we want, I don't think he's really gotten the precise answer on two issues. One of the Councilmembers is asking for certified return -receipt mail. I don't think it's the consensus of the Council is that that's what we want to do, if I'm not mistaken, is that correct. My impression is the normal procedure of notification is what the Council is asking you to do. In terms of which homes are actually to be notified, I know that Mrs. Pfennighausen was very definite and I agree that those homes on the north side of Brentwood and those three dwellings on the westerly portion of this proposed site and the others, I think there's one on one strip of land there, possibly one to the north that she made Council Minutes - 04/28/88 Page 16 reference to. We can either do it or not do it on the south side of Brentwood. I think the Council ought to give you more precise direction on what you are supposed to do, we're leaving you hanging on this thing. I personally feel that if there is a chance that those people to the south side of Brentwood would be affected, so be it. You can keep going further and further south eventually you'll reach my house. If the lights are going to shine at what point is the illumination not going to affect anyone, it depends on the intensity of the light and again depends on the thing is being aimed. I think we need to say something to Mr. Schwab. Mayor Matteson Currently the consensus is that you send the mail normal procedure to all those properties that are adjacent to the site. City Manager The one that Councilmember Grant just reiterated? Schwab Mayor Matteson Yes. Councilmember Like I said, I have no objection to the south side, but at what Grant point do we draw the line on this thing, do we keep going further and further south. Probably that light pole is high enough for the light to be seen throughout the whole city. City Manager Concur to send notices to all of those adjacent properties Schwab identified by Councilmember Grant as .... and they will go normal mail. Have we concurred anything else that..., so there's been no other concurrences? Staff will do that. 6A. General Plan Amendment City Manager Schwab, reported that staff has advertised the General Plan to be continued tonight to May 12, 1988. We continued the meeting pending an opinion from the Fair Political Practice Commission (FPPC) regarding the ability of members of Council to vote on issues in the General Plan due to the proximity of their homes. They have requested additional information from the City Attorney. He has obtained that information and has transmitted it to the FPPC. We anticipate that we will have a written response by May 12th so that we will be able to hold that hearing on that night. Mayor Matteson questioned if the FPPC was aware of the urgency of this request? City Attorney Hopkins replied that he hand delivered the request to them and indicated that to them. Mayor Matteson reported going into Closed Session. Council Minutes - 04/28/88 Page 17 City Manager Schwab pointed out needing a motion to continue the General Plan. CC-88-59 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM PFENNIGHAUSEN, SECOND BY MAYOR MATTESON, CARRIED 5-0, to continue the General Plan to May 12, 1988. CLOSED SESSION Mayor Matteson reported going into Closed Session on personnel matters, the City Attorney and the five Councilmembers. City Attorney I might add for the public eye the Agenda says personnel, since Hopkins we are not going to be making a decision on another item I'm also going to discuss with Council a matter of litigation, but it is for your information only and cannot be a decision. City Attorney The only decision that you reached was to meet this coming Hopkins Wednesday at 8:30 a.m. May 4, 1988 on a personnel matter so you should adjourn this meeting to that time so that the audience of those of you who are present will be aware that the Council will directly enter Closed Session and that will be the only matter of the day...... You have to make an Agenda, yes, as only in Closed Session with personnel matters on it. Mayor Matteson adjourned the City Council meeting until May 4, 1988 at 8:30 a.m. 3t:5--- MAYO the Citjf of Grad Terrace BEPWTY CITY CLERK of the City o Grand Terrace Council Minutes - 04/28/88 Dann 10