06/23/1988CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - JUNE 23, 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 June 23, 1988, at 5:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Byron Matteson, Mayor
Barbara Pfennighausen, Mayor Pro Tem
Hugh J. Grant, Councilmember
Dennis Evans, Councilmember
Susan Shirley, Councilmember
Thomas J. Schwab, City Manager/Finance Director
Randy Anstine, Assistant City Manager
David Sawyer, Community Development Director
Juanita Brown, Deputy City Clerk
Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney
Joe Kicak, City Engineer (arrived at 6:25 p.m.)
ABSENT: None
The meeting was opened with invocation by Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen, followed
by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilmember Shirley.
ITEMS TO DELETE
NONE
CONSENT CALENDAR
CC-88-121 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM PFENNIGHAUSEN, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER
SHIRLEY, CARRIED 3-2 (COUNCILMEMBER EVANS AND MAYOR MATTESON VOTED
NOE), to approve the Consent Calendar with the removal of Item D --
Approve 06/09/88 Minutes.
A. APPROVE CHECK REGISTER NO. 062388
B. RATIFY JUNE 23, 1988 CRA ACTION
C. WAIVE FULL READING OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS ON
AGENDA
E. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND
TERRACE, CA., ADOPTING A BUDGET OF ESTIMATED REVENUES
AND EXPENDITURES FOR FISCAL YEAR 1988-89.
F. ACCEPT AGREEMENTS, BONDS, CASH DEPOSIT & FINAL TRACT
MAPS 13205-1 and 13205 FOR T.J. AUSTYN.
G. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND
TERRACE, CA., CALLING THE ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 8, 1988.
G. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND
TERRACE, CA., TO CONSOLIDATE WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN
BERNARDINO FOR THE ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 8, 1988.
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR DISCUSSION
D. Approve June 9, 1988 Minutes
Councilmember Evans stated he wasn't here so he would
abstain from voting.
CC-88-122 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SHIRLEY, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER GRANT,
CARRIED 4-1 (COUNCILMEMBER EVANS ABSTAINED), to approve June 9,
1988 Minutes.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
ORAL REPORTS
Deborah Mueller, 22608 LaPayce, reported that the Crime
usters are required to do a good deed a month and then
proceeded to read a few of the deeds done by the Crime
Busters.
Mayor Matteson commended Ms. Mueller on the good job
that she is doing and thanked one of the Crime Busters,
Jodie Nicki, for the good deed she had done.
A. Committee Reports
1. Historical & Cultural Activities Committee
A. Accept resignation of Kathryn Harmon.
CC-88-123 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GRANT, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM
PFENNIGHAUSEN, CARRIED 5-0, to accept the resignation of Mrs.
Harmon and direct the Deputy City Clerk to post the vacancy and
advertise the application to fill the vacancy and accept this
resignation with deep regret.
B. Minutes of June 6, 1988 Meeting
Council accepted the Historical & Cultural
Activities Committee Minutes of June 6, 1988.
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 2
2. Crime Prevention Committee
A. Council accepted the Crime Prevention Committee
Minutes of May 9, 1988.
3. Parks & Recreation Committee
A. Council accepted the Parks and Recreation
Committee Minutes of May 2, 1988.
B. Council Reports
Councilmember Grant, reported that he attended the
Local Agency Formation Commission meeting on June 15,
1988.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Request from Fieldcrest Homes for Moratorium Exemption
CC-88-124 MOTION BY MAYOR MATTESON, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER SHIRLEY, CARRIED
5-0, to approve the request from Fieldcrest Homes for Moratorium
exemption.
B. Request by Mr. Ron Garret for Waiver of Site &
Architectural Review Fee
Community Development Director Sawyer explained that
they had received an application from Mr. Garret for a
fee waiver of $702.00, which is required for Site &
Architectural Review (S&A), explaining that this
property was recently involved in a Conditional Use
Permit Application and was approved by the Planning
Commission for a dry cleaning business. Since then,
the dry cleaning business has decided not to go forward
with it. Therefore, since all the conditions and
requirements that were placed on that application are
no longer valid for the property, Mr. Garret is now
requesting that a S&A Application be considered. The
Planning Department recommendation is that since much
of the staff work has already been done, the fee be
reduced from $702.00 to the $100.00, as represented in
the Staff Report.
CC-88-125 MOTION BY MAYOR MATTESON, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER SHIRLEY, to
approve the request by Mr. Garret to reduce the fee for waiver of
Site & Architectural Review from $702.00 to $100.00.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated that it appears that
the fee schedule we have is the same fee no matter what
the project is and that doesn't not seem reasonable.
She stated that she talked to Community Development
d
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 3
Director Sawyer about reviewing the fee schedule for
this type of thing and he's indicated that at the
direction of the Council he will review it and bring
back his updated recommendations. She suggested that it
be placed on the Agenda for action of Council to give
direction to the Planning Department for review of that
particular fee ordinance.
Mayor Matteson requested that the fee schedule be placed
on the next Agenda.
City Manager Schwab explained that it can come as a
mandate from Council, but it has already been requested
from the City Manager's Office and the Community
Development Director currently has that as one of his
priority items to redo the entire fee schedule.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen had concerns that this would
be one of the things that wi l l be put on a back burner
and a year from now Council will be asking about it, and
felt it was imperative that this adjustment is made.
City Manager Schwab replied it will be agendize with a
schedule included for Council.
Motion CC-88-125 carried 4-1 (COUNCILMEMBER GRANT VOTED
NOE), to approve the request by Mr. Garret to reduce the
fee for waiver of Site & Architectural Review from n
$720.00 to $100.00. I
C. Award Contract for Traffic Signal at Mt. Vernon &
Barton Road
City Engineer Kicak reported that six bids were
received from contractors yesterday for the
installation of the signal at the intersection of
Barton Road and Mt. Vernon. He explained that the
proposals varied from $96,582.00 to $110,498.00,
indicating that he contacted two cities, as well as
Caltrans regarding the performance of the contractor
who is the low bidder. All three agencies expressed
satisfaction of the performance of this particular
contractor, therefore, staff is recommending that City
Council award the contract for the installation of the
traffic signal to W.H. Moore Construction Company in
the amount of $96.582.00.
Councilmember Evans questioned when would they actually
start construction?
City Engineer Kicak estimated that the construction
could start in about 3 weeks and should be completed
within 3 calendar months or 60 working days. 0
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 4
'In
Councilmember Evans stated so everyone understands,
this is the upgrade of the signalization at Mt. Vernon
and Barton Road with left turn arrows.
CC-88-126 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER EVANS, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM
PFENNIGHAUSEN, to award the contract to W.H. Moore Construction
Company in the amount of $96,582.00 to upgrade the traffic
signalization at Mt. Vernon and Barton Road.
Mayor Matteson questioned what was budgeted for that?
City Manager Schwab replied, it was budgeted for
$100,000.00 in the current budget.
Motion CC-88-126 carried 5-0.
D. Award of Annual Landscape Maintenance Agreement
Assistant City Manager Anstine reported that the
existing agreement between the City and Los Amigos
Landscape Contractors will be expiring. Staff is
recommending that Council approve renewing the contract
with the current vendor based upon the quality of his
work that he has produced in the past two years in
addition to the money he is requesting.
Mayor Matteson questioned the increase of $100.00 per
month, pointing out that the increase happens to be a
16 2/3 percent increase.
Assistant City Manager Anstine stated that based on the
estimates received last year, the second lowest bid was
$750.00 per month, so even with the increase he is
still $50.00 under what last year's lowest bid was.
CC-88-127 MOTION BY MAYOR MATTESON, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER EVANS, CARRIED
5-0, to renew the contract with Los Amigos Landscaping Company.
E. Amend Schedule B to Schedule C of City Engineer's Fee
Schedule
City Manager Schwab reported that he has obtained, from
the City of Highland, the proposal for the provisions
of engineering services, which they just went out to
bid for. The IRA rates proposed by the four
individuals for Highland are significantly higher than
what Mr. Kicak is requesting, so staff is recommending
that Council adopt the proposed schedule fee.
Mayor Matteson asked how is it reflected in the bidget?
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 5
City Manager Schwab explained that he took the
potential increase into consideration when the budget
was adopted, pointing out that engineering is an item
that is a pay as you go basis and generally as the
activities are generated the fees are paid for the
services. He explained projecting a certain level and
generally at mid -year staff comes back to Council and
adjusts that level.
Mayor Matteson felt you have to consider that too when
redoing the fee schedule. If you reduce the fee
schedule and you are raising the cost, then that's loss
of income to the City and has to be taken into
consideration.
City Manager Schwab felt the primary emphases in the
fee schedule is to try and build in some fairness for
the people who just want to build on a room addition.
Councilmember Evans stated so he was clear, when staff
prepared the budget, this anticipated increase was
factored in.
City Manager Schwab explained requesting the same as
last year for engineering, but it was based on a
projection of what our activities would be which will
probably be less. But, yes, this was factored in with
everything that we knew at the point when we developed
the budget.
Councilmember Evans asked if he felt comfortable with
it? City Manager Schwab replied "yes."
CC-88-127 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GRANT, SECOND BY MAYOR MATTESON, CARRIED
5-0, to amend Schedule B to Schedule C of City Engineer's fee
schedule.
F. Appropriation for Park and Appraisal Fee
City Manager Schwab reported that May 26, 1988, in
closed session, Council directed staff to obtain an
appraisal for the potential acquisition of the Robert's
parcel for a park; staff came back with estimates in
the range of $2,000.00 to $2,500.00; Council directed
staff to solicit additional bids and gave staff a
couple of companies to contact in San Bernardino; staff
did so and it appears an appraisal may be obtained for
$1,500.00; staff will need an additional $1,000.00 to
the $500.00 that's already been appropriated if Council
wishes staff to do an appraisal.
Cl
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 6
CC-88-128 MOTION BY MAYOR MATTESON, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER GRANT, CARRIED
5-0, to approve appropriation of $1,000.00 for the appraisal fee.
` PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Sandy Collins, 22697 Brentwood, thanked Council and
staff for removing the stop sign at Brentwood and
Preston and reported a manhole on Brentwood was left
below grade level and asked if something could be done
about it.
CLOSED SESSION
Council went into closed session to discuss the pending
lawsuit between Forest City Dillion and Grand Terrace
at 6:00 p.m.
Council returned from closed session at 6:35 p.m.
Mayor Matteson reported that all of the input that
Council has received on this last General Plan from the
previous public hearing will still stand and be taken
into consideration. He explained that anyone wishing
to speak must fill out a card with their name and
address.
William Lewis, Attorney, representing Fred Thompson and
the Inland Lumber Company, was here to emphasize the
fact that the Thompsons and Inland Lumber Company on
Lots 57, 58 & 59 on the north side of Main Street are
seriously opposed to any change in their current zone
classification as industrial. We know they recommended
a residential zone for these properties which would
simply give you another big headache as being a
non -conforming use. Regarding Lot 60, which is the
undeveloped corner parcel, we would like to recommend
to Council that they seriously consider a commercial
zone re-classification for that parcel, it's logical.
It's needed to provide additional tax revenue for the
City of Grand Terrace and he can say that they do have
interested prospects for commercial activity at that
corner. To zone it as shown on the General Plan as
residential will be totally out of context and against
all rules and principals of good planning.
Jim Coffin, 222 E. Olive Avenue, Redland, CA, owner of
CY Development Company, Redlands CA., regarding two
parcels of commercial property that he owns on
Commercial Way, that portion of the street that is
completed from Michigan. The General Plan provides for
an increased right-of-way of what the improvements
presently are, so he asked City Council to amend that
and leave the standards or make the standards as it is
? improved. The 72 ft. right-of-way and the 60 ft. of
r paving. It would create a hardship on those
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 7
small parcels where all the street improvements are in
and all the infrastructure. The only thing I have to
do on mine is put the sidewalk in, all the other
utilities and drainage, sewer, water, electric,
lighting underground, all the improvements are
complete. I would like to go forward with the project,
but I'm waiting until this decision is made because I
will have to re -design if you won't amend that portion
of Commercial Way.
Jackie Perkins, 22038 Van Buren, asked Council to
seriously consider not putting in a business park in
the area that they have designated for that use,
stating "I think I speak for the majority of the
residents on DeBerry, Michigan and Van Buren and I
think all of them feel the way that I do that a
business park is not appropriate, it's a hardship on
the people who own property and live there to hold that
property in a no -win situation for 20 or 25 years. I
seriously urge that you change the present zoning from
commercial to residential because a large part of the
property is not suitable for commercial and I think if
Grand Terrace can get enough commercial to fill up the
other areas that are zoned commercial right now, the
City would be fortunate. I don't think there is enough
commercial interest in this area, I don't believe it
can ever happen and I do think that the people who are
living there who have residences should be allowed to
sell their property without worrying about financing
and I think that residential is the most practical use
for that area."
Leon Olszewski, 12458 Michigan Avenue, concurred with
Jackie -Perkins stating, lets try to keep it
residential, we are not looking for a business park.
Keep 660 feet from Michigan to the back -end as
residential, if you want the vacant land back there as
business park, go right ahead.
Tony Petta, 11875 Eton Drive, asked if the purpose of
this meeting was to reiterate from the last public
hearing?
Mayor Matteson explained, basically, to keep in
consideration of what we heard at the last meeting.
This meeting is for new input or for anybody who didn't
get to speak last time.
Mr. Petta, stated that he did not have any particular
new input, stating that at the last meeting there was
extreme concern by people in general as to the widening
of Michigan and the fact that some property was being
11
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 8
impacted on Michigan. He felt there was no need to
impact those properties because Michigan appears to be
wide enough to carry the traffic and it seemed
appropriate that if left as is, will not impact and
will not be detrimental to this City either. He
explained there was some concern of people on Michigan
being impacted by commercial. He pointed out that
along Michigan where there is a concentration of
residential clusters, there appears to be no need to
change that into commercial because those houses will
be there perhaps for the next 30, 40 or 50 years. He
pointed out that he will be addressing the area on
DeBerry between the U-store and the freeway and then
south to Van Buren, explaining that the south side of
Van Buren is already developed into a commercial
industrial with Wilden Pump and Harber Development that
goes almost down to the end of Van Buren to the Edison
property; to the north of Van Buren Harber owns most of
that also and he has plans to continue with the same
type of development; the north of that to DeBerry is a
strip where it appears to be the only logical thing to
do is to go on the basis of the recommendation because
north of DeBerry is zoned commercial. He explained
that his only concern is that the retail aspect is
deleted or forbidden, and if we are going to have any
kind of commercial, why forbid an operation that will
bring in sales tax to the City.
Lee Swertfeger, 12438 Michigan, explained that last
time he did not say too much about his history, but the
reason he bought the property was because it was an M-1
zone and he wanted to have a small industrial type
business. He stated that there were two different
water companies who owned wells next door to him,
neither one are active right now, but if they were
active, they would be making noise all of the time and
they are right up front by his house. He pointed out
that Wi 1 den Pump is not that far away and he can hear
their machines running all of the time. He pointed out
that there was a small grocery store and meat
processing company which was located real close and he
could not understand it if Council changed the zoning.
Danny Stouffer, 548 Main Street, indicated that the
property that's owned by Inland Lumber at the corner of
Main and Michigan, if that is zoned residential he felt
it should be kept commercial, explaining that one of
the reasons he purchased the house that he is in was
because that was commercial or industrial and felt it
should be left that way.
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 9
Daniel Green, 745 So. Hope Avenue, Pasadena, CA,
pointed out that he owns the property on Pico and it
was his understanding that it is intended that the
proposal would put a street directly through the
property that I now own and up until the end of April,
he had no knowledge of this, he was never notified and
it came as a big surprise to him. He recommended that
the feet widening not go beyond Pico because the
property he owns would be totally useless for any
future development and it would take all but 22 feet of
the property.
Mayor Matteson asked where his property was located,
between Pico and what.
Mr. Green replied, right off of Royal Avenue.
Community Development Director Sawyer pointed out on
the map where this property was located.
Mr. Green, felt that from the review of the parcels in
the area, it doesn't appear that any other parcel is so
affected as his in the terms of being made useless by
the extension of Commerce and for that reason he's
opposed to Commerce being extended beyond Pico. He
stated that the other properties in the area would be
enhancedby such widening in the future. It is his
understanding that the reason for this plan is to
enhance development in the area. However, it would
adversely affect my property as compared to all of the
others in the area.
Mayor Matteson asked if his property was vacant.
Mr. Green replied it is presently vacant.
Mayor Matteson stated that if that street goes through
his property you would have to be reimbursed for the
value of the land, it's not going to be taken from you.
Mr. Green, stated that presently the property is on the
market and he has had parties who are interested in
it. However, his concern is that while these
discussions are going on it does adversely affect the
sale of the property, and at this point, he did not
know if the City Council had any time -table for
compensating or determining when the street would be
widened. At present, he has not been given a
time -table as to when this might happen. The Planning
people have told him that they don't know, and that
it's just something he will have to live with and he
didn't feel that was fair.
Fix
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 10
Councilmember Evans had a question from Legal Council
for this gentleman in reference to the extension
through his property, we do have correspondence that he
had sent to us. Assuming that this document were to be
approved with the extension all the way down to Main as
originally proposed, and although there are no projects
ultimately planned right now, we just heard the
gentleman state that he has it on the market, would
that not complicate things for the sale of that
property as far as disclosure?
City Attorney Hopkins replied it could conceivably
complicate things ....
Councilmember Evans asked how about his argument of a
potential taking. Although it is designated as such
here, we are not taking it for a project right now,
does he have a legitimate argument that that could be
construed as a taking.
City Attorney Hopkins replied if he is precluded from
any use of the property, that would be a valid
argument, yes, if however, they did not preclude
reasonable use of his property, he did not think that
would be a taking. You have in any General Plan a
circulation element, you have certain amounts of
property that are going to be taken by the City at such
time as any development occurs and that has not been
considered to be a taking.
Councilmember Evans stated if he understood Mr. Green's
correspondence, if the street is designated as such or
a secondary highway which was the right-of-way 88 ft.
that's all but 22 ft. as far as your property would be
taken. Mr. Green replied, "that's correct."
Councilmember Evans stated so you would have a strip
that would be 22 feet in width and about 312 feet in
length. Mr. Green replied that the frontage is 110 and
the depth is 312.
Councilmember Evans stated so you would have a strip of
land that would then have .... Mr. Green stated with
the normal setback, the land would be useless.
Councilmember Evans stated so you are going to have a
strip of land 22 X 312. Mr. Green responded "yes," and
as indicated in the correspondence, the property is on
the market for sale and there are buyers ready and
willing to enter into an agreement with him based on it
being on the market.
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 11
Being there was no more public participation, Mayor
Matteson reverted back to City Council for discussion.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated that she would like
to make the following general statements and hoped that
she would not have to pull the book apart because she
literally could do that one page at a time through the
three elements that she was going to address. She felt
in the circulation element to widen Barton Road to the
width of 120 ft. and construct a median is ludicrous.
She indicated we spent a huge sum of money widening
Barton Road to 100 ft. east of Mt. Vernon to the City
limits, explaining there isn't anyway we could possibly
go back and widen this section and then we would have a
road going through our City that is a main road that is
two widths, and we have too much of that going on
anyway. She reported that in her investigation into
the serviceability of a median strip, found a median
strip, as recorded in eight surrounding cities, was a
killer to retail commercial and would from the input
she received from the residents along there, heavily
impact them, so the widening of Barton Road to 120 ft.
and installing a median strip is something that she
could not support and hoped that this Council would not
either. She felt Commerce Way extension should stop at
DeBerry, explaining if it does extend past that, it
becomes a culdesac, you are stopped at Van Buren, it's
a non -reality to run through the Edison property due to
the fact that it's going to bisect a park that we are
presently spending a great deal of money on and Edison
is not going to develop it and we are not going to take
the property away from them, so why put it on a map and
say it's going to be there and that most assuredly
solves Mr. Green's problem and therefore, we get out of
that one all together. If it stops at Van Buren that's
the end of that and those are her concerns with the
circulation element. In the land use element she had
many concerns that she has already listed, but she
cannot conceive of this Council adopting a plan that
becomes punative to the people that pay the property
taxes and will shop in the stores and any of the number
of things that go on in the City. She stated that she
could not imagine putting multitudes of homes in
non -conforming use status, so that they will have to
allow them to deteriorate to a slum because they are
not allowed to do anything positive to them, they can't
sell them and they can't get permits to upgrade them.
She stated she could not support the business park,
explaining recently receiving correspondence from Jamie
Butler who said that this Council had been negligent in
not addressing the re -location of the mobile home park
and she couldn't agree more. However, Councilmember
11
[i]
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 12
Evans and she did address that in a plan that they
showed and her conscience is clear. She realizes that
someday the trailer park is going to have to go because
it is in a highly desirable commercial area and that
the people had to be considered, feeling it is the
responsibility of this Council to address that. She
stated that her last concern was the housing element,
realizing that there was no direction from Council for
the general plan consultants to upgrade housing
elements and if they had left the housing element
totally alone she would have no problem with that
because they could just say you didn't tell us to do
anything with it so we left it alone.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated that at the
appropriate time we'll address the other things within
the housing element that are absolutely ridiculous,
explaining that she could not possibly vote approval of
a document that has so many inaccuracies in one of the
three major elements of the General Plan. She stated
that she will hold other comments for specific elements
within the General Plan because she is prepared to take
those elements apart.
Mayor Matteson explained doing the General Plan first
and then the circulation and that he divided this up
into five quadrants because there are so many concerns
and it is easier to take it a piece at a time. He
stated that the first quadrant that we will talk about
will be east of Mt. Vernon and south of Barton Road to
the county line and the City limits.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked wasn't the hillside
the only area of concern? She reported on a
confrontation with one of the representatives of a
developer up on the side of the hill and they did not
understand her concern regarding their development.
She expressed concern regarding the San Jacinto fault
which happens to run right through Reche Canyon. She
had concerns and it was based on that that she did vote
on some things precisely the way she did. She thanked
the General Plan Consultants for pointing that out,
feeling it is something that we have to address as we
look at that hillside and below the hillside
properties. She stated that she would like
to see space between those houses very specific and
flood control type plans implemented before that
hillside area is opened up and that some kind of
overlay does need to be put on it.
Mayor Matteson felt that would be addressed when
addressing the zoning.
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 13
CC-88-129
CC-88-130
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen
wanted to
know if that is
the only time that could be
addressed?
Community Development Director Sawyer
replied we could
put general comments as far
as adding
to the goals and
policies that are included
in the General Plan, but
those then would be carried out by
an overlay zone
which would be done in a
zoning map
and the zoning
ordinance.
MOTION BY MAYOR MATTESON, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER SHIRLEY, CARRIED
5-0, to approve Quadrant 1, as presented by the Consultant.
Mayor Matteson stated that the second quadrant would be
east of Mt. Vernon and north of Barton Road to the City
limits, indicating having no major changes in that
area.
MOTION BY MAYOR MATTESON, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER SHIRLEY, CARRIED
5-0, to approve Quadrant 2, as presented by the Consultant.
Mayor Matteson reported that the third quadrant would
be between Michigan and Mt. Vernon and Barton Road
south to the county line and did not feel there were
any changes in that area either.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated there was one change
that we dealt with in the last General Plan Update and
that was the designation of single-family residential
of a horse -ranch property that is on Pico. She
explained that the area on all sides of the horse ranch
is single-family residential and she did not
understand. The resident is in failing health, but
still wanted the horse -ranch designation. She stated
that the resident understood that as long as she had
horses at the time it changes, she could keep horses
and, therefore, she did not see that as a problem in
that area.
Mayor Matteson stated that again will be in with the
zoning and it is still residential.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated, no, she had an
agricultural designation in that little triangle.
Community Development Director Sawyer explained that
the General Plan designation is currently residential
and we are not changing that, again that will be a
zoning issue. The zoning is A-1 and when we come back
for the zoning to bring that zoning map into
conformance with this map, we will be looking at what
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 14
properties should be A-1 and which should not have that
designation on it; this will not keep us from doing
l either way later on.
i Councilmember Grant referenced the mobile home park on
Michigan, stating the total area vertually to Mt.
Vernon is being proposed as general commercial, asking
if the mobile home park is incompatible with the
commercial designation.
Community Development Director Sawyer replied the
residential use would be non -compatible with the
commercial use. Of the residential uses that we could
have single-family on down the line, mobile homes would
probably be the best or high -density apartments next to
the commercial, but residential ideally would not want
to be next to that.
Councilmember Grant stated that mobile home park is
obviously not a commercial designation and it is
obviously easier to eliminate a mobile home park, if it
is designated commercial, than it is if it's not, is
that correct, procedurally.
Community Development Director Sawyer replied
procedurally, yes, less steps.
Councilmember Grant stated for that reason he would be
opposed to the designation of that area where the
mobile home park is located as being commercial.
Councilmember Evans asked if all of the homes along
Barton Road on the south side, are they not
non -conforming right now between Michigan and Canal?
Community Development Director Sawyer replied, "that's
correct." Councilmember Evans asked if he knew when
those homes were changed to a non -conforming use?
Community Development Director Sawyer replied, not off
hand, he was not sure if they were done in the 1984
revision or when we adopted the General Plan.
Councilmember Evans stated so they've been sitting
there for some period of time without any problems.
Community Development Director Sawyer replied, at least
since 1984.
CC-88-131 MOTION BY MAYOR MATTESON, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER SHIRLEY, for
approval of Quadrant 3 without any changes.
Councilmember
designating the
located between
Canal?
Evans questioned the purpose of
single-family homes that would be
DeBerry, Van Buren, Mt. Vernon and
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 15
Community Development Director Sawyer replied, that
staff and the Consultant took a look at that area as
far as the existing facilities that are out there and
most of that property would fit into the existing R-3
development pattern. He stated that currently there
are multi -family developments on those properties, a
church property. Staff looked at the existing
development there and felt that was the most
appropriate zoning.
Councilmember Evans stated and yet there are homes
along the north side of Van Buren.
Ross Geller stated there are no changes from the
existing General Plan, the existing General Plan shows
there's multi -family ....
Councilmember Evans asked what is the current zoning
for that whole area. The response was "R-3."
Councilmember Evans asked if we are going to go under
the premise that's come up in discussion regarding
difficulties that people could possibly experience,
would it not be better to allow those homes to be
designated R-1 to preclude any future potential
problems or hardships to these people?
Community Development Director Sawyer replied that he
did not think that staff had come up with that for the
basis for recommendations.
Councilmember Evans stated he was just asking because
some of the discussions that had gone on in previous
meetings and again this evening.
Mayor Matteson asked how many apartment units are there
right now?
Community Development Director Sawyer stated that he
doubted if he had an exact count right now.
Mayor Matteson asked if he could give an estimate?
Community Development Director Sawyer replied you can
count them on the aerial.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen reported that Terrace Mesa
had 228 apartments, complex on DeBerry and Mt. Vernon;
condo project further down Mt. Vernon are all rental
units ....
Community Development Director Sawyer indicated the
areas on map. 0
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 16
Councilmember Evans questioned the estimated acres, the
single-family homes. The response was approximately 10
acres.
Councilmember Evans asked what in land use planning is
considered a significant size parcel?
Community Development Director Sawyer replied for
single-family homes our minimum size parcel is 7,200
sq. ft.; for a church, minimum acreage required is 3
acres; for an apartment project, depending on what we
are looking at, I think we would want to see 2 or 3 at
a minimum.
Councilmember Evans asked Mr. Sawyer in his opinion,
would he consider that a fairly sizable area for single
family?
Community Development Director Sawyer replied there are
a number of lots that are already subdividing that, of
course 10 acres of property is a sizable piece of
property.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated if she recalled in
the last General Plan Update, those people came in and
had little negative to say about their re -designation
as R-3. She wasn't sure that we have a problem in that
area unless somebody has been in contact with one of
the other Councilmembers.
Motion CC-88-131 carried 3-2 (COUNCILMEMBERS EVANS AND
GRANT VOTED NOE).
Quadrant 4 Mayor Matteson stated the boundaries for Quadrant 4
will be north of Barton Road, west of Mt. Vernon to the
freeway, it covers from the liquor store, that whole
section down to the freeway and everything north of
Barton Road. He reported having two items of concern
on this one. One, the down zoning from R-3 to R-2 on
Mt. Vernon for the apartments; the other one is low
density, it could be R-1 or R-2. The other item is on
the corner of Barton Road and Canal, down zoning that
from C-2 to AP.
Councilmember Evans stated as it stands right now Mr.
Bill Darwin owns two parcels on the northwest corner of
Barton Road and Canal, if he reads this correctly, he
is in an AP Zone, is that correct?
Community Development Director replied staff has been
interpreting that as an AP Zone, pointing out that if
you look at the map, it has two designations that are
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 17
very similar to each other and when the map was drawn
up they were not
divided or separated
and identified as
separate pieces,
so on our zoning
map, yes, it is
identified as AP
and that is how we've
looked at it
0
during the staff
review of the General
Plan.
Councilmember Evans believed there was other
correspondence in reference to the areas between
Vivienda and Canal, north of Barton Road, that's the
AP, and thought that many of those people would like to
see that go commercial.
Community Development Director Sawyer replied he was
only aware of Mr. Darwin's request to have that changed
to commercial, indicating there was another request
received up north along Vivienda Avenue and at the
corner of Vivienda Court in the residential area that
they had requested their lot be changed first to
commercial property and then subsequently to a higher
density residential property designation.
Councilmember Evans stated Council received some
correspondence from Mr. Lee Grable of Grable Company,
dated June 15, 1988, indicating his specific concern is
the median along Barton Road. He also sent a copy to
Mr. Bill McKeever, Civil Engineer. Councilmember Evans
asked Mr. McKeever if he knew what Mr. Grable's
position is as far as the land -use designation in that
area?
Mr. Bill McKeever, 12714 Blue Mt. Court, replied they
would like to retain a commercial designation on that
property.
Councilmember Evans stated in your opinion, and I'm
assuming that what is currently AP would be changed to
commercial designation. The response was, we would
like to see that, yes.
Mayor Matteson asked the Consultant to give his opinion
on this particular area.
Mr. Ross Geller stated they had proposed an office
designation, explaining there was an awful lot of
commercial along the Barton Road corridor, so to
balance with the other services, there are established
offices in the area, they proposed to continue offices
between Canal and Vivienda. He pointed out other
things that were worthy to note in terms of the office
designation in the General Plan, indicating when you
get into the zoning aspect, the AP Zone does allow some
types of commercial use, so it's not exclusive all 0
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 18
office type uses, although, the overall balance is
intended to be offices.
Councilmember Shirley asked what type of commercial
uses were compatible with that?
Community Development Director Sawyer explained that
the permitted uses that are allowed in the AP Zone are
different types of offices, and with the Conditional
Use Permit, you can have a Veterinarian Clinic,
Mortuaries, clubs, restaurants and various retail
stores, including a bakery, barber shop, book stores,
beauty shop, candy stores, clothes, cleaning
establishments, hardware, drug store, florist, jewelry
stores, shoe stores, tailors, photographers.
Mayor Matteson pointed out that it opens it up quite a
bit.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked if it was zoned C-2
commercial, can offices with lesser use be put into a
C-2 Zone?
Community Development Director Sawyer replied that our
C-2 Zone allows professional offices to go in, but it
does not allow some of the other types of offices such
as medical offices or dental offices.
UMayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen questioned doctors and
dentists are not considered professionals?
11
Community Development Director Sawyer replied, not
according to our codes, explaining that it is broken
down in a very general sense for the C-2 use and then
in our AP Zone is is broken down very detailed and
fine, it does call out a professional office as a
permitted use in an AP Zone and then goes down and
identifies medical and dental offices as a more
sub -category of professional offices, so then
interpreting the code in order to be consistent
throughout the code, we would then read the fact that
the C-2 Zone is allowing professional offices, we would
interpret it to mean that it would be just the type of
professional offices that would not include medical and
professional....
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked what offices are we
talking about? The response was retail offices,
insurances offices, real estate offices, financial
investment offices.
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 19
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen reported having a letter
from Bill Darwin regarding properties that are in the
area that we are discussing at the present time. Bill
was here at the last public hearing and she stated it
was her understanding that he was not going to be able
to be here for this one. She read the correspondence
received from Mr. Darwin regarding the two properties
(approximately 1 1.4 acres) located at 22324 Barton
Road and 22310 Barton Road, north west corner Barton
Road and Canal Street. A copy of the correspondence
will be filed in the City Clerk's Department. She felt
that we definitely need retail commercial more than we
need more office spaces to set open and hoped that
Council would allow that property to remain in C-2.
Councilmember Grant felt that Mr. McKeever and Mr.
Darwin have certainly attempted to set this Council
straight on the reasonableness of commercial
development in the area which is being proposed for
office commercial. He agreed that this town is
saturated with empty offices that are not being filled
up and the rates that are being charged for available
office space is going down in a desperate attempt to
fill them. He agreed we are in desperate need of
retail and sales tax in this community and felt that
that part of Barton Road was very appropriate for this
purpose. He opposed the recommendation that was
indicated here by the Consultant for office commercial
and would support general commercial. He stated that
Mr. and Mrs. Darwin had also indicated to other areas
of concern to them and the part of thei r concern that
interested him the most is the large number of
multi -family dwellings according to their statement, on
the north side of McClarren Street. He asked if it was
correct that out of the 13 lots 7 are duplexes?
Mayor Matteson stated that this will be addressed in
the Zoning ....
Councilmember Grant replied he realized that, he would
just pretty much like to ....
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen felt that Councilmember
Grant had a point, that we are talking about land use
designation, they are designating this as a
single-family use and ....
Mayor Matteson replied, no they are not, they are
designating as low density which could be R-1 or R-2.
Fl�
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 20
Councilmember Evans asked the Community Development
Director to clarify that, does it make much difference
if it is reflected R-1 or R-2?
Community Development Director Sawyer replied, no not
at the General Plan level. The General Plan low
density residential designation would then allow us to
zone property either R-1, R-140, R-172, R-120 zone or
R-2. He explained that the difference between our low
density designation and our medium density designation
is basically, the medium density is going to be zoned
R-3, pointing out that we have all the flexibility
that's remaining in the code for the low density.
Mayor Matteson questioned so we do have to consider
this other parcel whether it's going to be low density
or medium density in this General Plan, is that
correct, the one on Mt. Vernon that we have changed
here showing that it is reduced to R-2 property?
Councilmember Evans, speaking to the Community
Development Director, stated that Mr. Darwin indicates
that the current zone on his parcels is C-2 and I
thought you said it is AP, what is it?
Community Development Director Sawyer replied, in
preparing the General Plan that is before Council
tonight, we did not go back and research the history of
every single parcel in the City, we worked off of the
Zoning Map and the Zoning Map indicates that that
parcel is AP.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated that the General
Plan, if you go back and you do research it, you will
find that that was clearly designated as C-2 and there
was discussion as regards to that corner at that time.
CC-88-132 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER EVANS, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER GRANT, that
that strip currently designated between Canal, Vivienda and Barton
Road, north to whatever the distance would be, currently AP, move
that it reflect general commercial.
Mayor Matteson asked him to repeat those boundaries,
are you talking about Vivienda on up to Canal or are
you talking ....
Councilmember Evans stated Canal west to Vivienda, the
north side of Barton Road what is currently designated
in AP or office commercial.
Mayor Matteson asked regarding the doctors office down
r there, would he be in a non -conforming use?
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 21
Community Development Director Sawyer replied, we are
changing to C-2 as we are interpreting the code right
now, yes, with our current code he would be
non -conforming.
Mayor Matteson asked if that would prohibit him from
every selling his practice?
Community Development Director Sawyer replied, no, not
according to the way we are interpreting our
non -conforming use, you can sell the use as the use is
currently.
Mayor Matteson asked if it prohibits him from any
expansions. The response was, any major expansion,
yes.
Councilmember Shirley asked if we changed that to C-2
would that mean there would be no restaurants in that
area? The response was, it would allow restaurants.
Councilmember Shirley questioned if it would allow some
of the other things that the AP would allow, such as,
bakery, small retail store?
Community Development Director Sawyer explained that
what we are talking about now is changing it to a
general retail use which would allow all of those uses
plus more, it would restrict some of the office type
uses that could go in there, but the general every day
business offices would be allowed in there.
Councilmember Grant stated that in terms of capability
and technicality, he would like to extend, and hoped
that the maker of the motion would be willing to
modify the motion to also provide for that part of the
land at the corner of Canal and Barton to extend to
McClarren adjacent to Canal.
Councilmember Evans pointed out that that has already
been designated.
Motion CC-132 carried 5-0.
Mayor Matteson stated that the next item is the density
between Mt. Vernon and Canal.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen expressed the feeling that
it was time that the City Attorney brief the people in
the audience on what's happening on that site as
regards to the lawsuit.
1�
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 22
Councilmember Evans requested City Attorney Hopkins to
give the potential on that site of what it is right
now.
City Attorney Hopkins reported that the Superior Court
upheld the petition of Forest City versus Grand
Terrace, indicating that the City Council in the past
through contract had approved the development of the
apartment project known as Phase II and that they can,
therefore, in accordance with that judgment, proceed
with the development. That would be in non-conformance
with the General Plan designation which is proposed
R-1. However, they may proceed, in fact, the judgment
would be prior to your changing the designation to R-1
and so it would be in conformance with the current
General Plan and that's what the judgment indicates
that it would proceed with the proposal as approved by
the Planning Commission in September 1987. If the
judgment stands and you do not appeal it then, or if
you appeal it and the judgment is upheld, then that
would not be in conformance, it would be a
non -conforming use to the General Plan. However, it
would proceed if that continues, with or without the
change of designations.
Mayor Matteson asked how did he suggest Council should
proceed this evening?
City Attorney Hopkins replied that unfortunately the
Council has not made a determination as to what they
want to do with the judgment, but felt it ought to
continue as the current designation and not be changed.
Councilmember Grant stated that Council has not really
made a decision on what we are going to do as a result
of this decision by this one judge. In terms of what a
person's chance is and the probabilities of success on
appeal, you can go by the educated advice and opinion
of those that we depend on and you can make a decision
based on that or make a decision on the fact that it
would be a different court, a court of a higher level,
you will have to take into consider the other
extenuating side affects that could result whether we
pursue this beyond the decision of this court or remain
where we are succumb to this decision, it's a legal
decision and at this moment it certainly has very
binding qualities to it. We are being asked as result
of that information from the court to permit this
Phase II area, which the people of this community made
very clear that they did not want apartments there. We
are being asked now to continue that present zoning due
to the decision of this court and what the repercussion
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 23
could conceivably be for this City if we do not choose
to do that. He felt we have fought long and hard to
prevent that, explaining that he was not prepared to
change his last vote on this, he was firm and he would
like this to continue to be as is proposed in the
General Plan Land Use Map, and that it should continue
to be a down -zoned to R-1. Notwithstanding what we may
find out and discuss in the next several days or
whenever the Council again convenes, he was not
prepared to change his mind and was still opposed to
that area being multi -family.
City Attorney Hopkins said the he did not know if it
substantial or any affect because if the development
proceeds and it stays as R-1, all we have is a
designation, it's not conforming, if you change the
land use zoning to R-1, then you have a non -conforming
development so that they could not substantially expand
it. Quite frankly, the Phase II is expanded to its
ultimate in any event so in perpetuity would simply be
a non -conforming use.
Councilmember Grant stated that is true, what he is
saying is that they may very well build apartments on
land that has been designated as single-family
dwellings and if that ultimately occurs, so be it, he
will be disappointed and unhappy, but that's the way it
goes. In the meantime, until this Council decides on
what it's going to do in terms of an appeal, he was not
prepared to throw in the towel on this.
Mayor Matteson reported on having a special meeting on
Monday to decide which way we are going to go, we are
going to adjourn this meeting to that meeting. We can
hold this one item off and make the decision at that
time after our decision on which way we are going to
go.
Councilmember Shirley stated that in light of the input
that we've had from this town and input from our legal
council, if the court mandates that we allow the
apartments in there, they are going to go in there
anyway and she would like to place her vote with the
desires of the people of this community and maintain
that as a low -density area at this time.
Mayor Matteson stated so then our decision will be
after we decide whether or not we are going to appeal
it and if we are going to appeal it, then we can
down -zone it at Monday night's meeting.
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 24
Community Development Director Sawyer stated regarding
Quadrant 4, he was asking Council to consider that
we've got a small portion of the north side of Barton
Road as AP, that's Town & Country Center and that's the
only piece of property on Barton Road that's left AP in
that area. You may want to consider continuing the C-2
Zoning through there. That center has been designed
for AP -type uses. However, there's a mixture in there
now and he was aware of only on dental office that sits
in there now that would be affected by any
non -conforming uses, so before we pass, since we've
made the change further down the street, you may want
to consider that.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked because the dentist
is already there and he's professional, can he stay?
Community Development Director Sawyer replied, he would
be a non -conforming use just as the dentist would be
that's further up that we just changed.
Mayor Matteson stated that he was in favor of this, his
concern is are we going to lock out all of the AP and
limit any medical facility that wants to come into the
City.
Community Development Director Sawyer replied, we would
be doing that in that area right there, but when we
redo the Zoning Code we can change the C-2 to allow
more of those uses to come in there. We would be
putting a limitation on it temporarily until we look at
the C-2 Zone, we can adjust the C-2 Zone to allow the
uses that you feel would be appropriate in it.
CC-88-133 MOTION MATTESON, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER GRANT, CARRIED 5-0, to
change that to C-2 to conform with the rest of Barton Road.
Quadrant 5 Mayor Matteson explained that Quadrant 5 would be from
Barton Road south, from Michigan west, to the county
line and to the freeway. He suggested starting from
the southside with the Thompson property. He explained
that at the present time it is industrial and the
General Plan is recommending that we go residential.
Councilmember Shirley stated that in light of what is
already on that property and the magnitude of the
development there she would highly recommend that the
remain light industrial.
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 25
}
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked if the owner of the
property is requesting that it be down -zoned to a
lesser use which would be retail commercial, if indeed
that does happen, she would like to call to Council
attention that valuable retail sales tax dollars are
sitting immediately across the street with 146 new
homes coming in and many hundreds more potential with
no place to shop and they could realistically leave
their tax dollars in the City of Grand Terrace and
leave no tire marks on our streets.
Councilmember Grant concurred with Mayor Pro Tem
Pfennighausen, at least that portion, we are talking
about two areas, the narrative indicates three, but on
our Land Use Map there are two, but that portion
specifically adjacent to Michigan would be extremely
valuable commercial property and we have a tremendous
customer to the south of this county line and felt it
would be a great idea.
Mayor Matteson felt that parcel should be split
because you already have an industrial unit going down
in the east end and if we made it all commercial, they
would be non -conforming.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she was talking
strictly about the vacant ten acres. Councilmember
Grant concurred with Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen.
Mr. Ross Geller stated that there was a lot of
discussion at the Planning Commission relative to
changing that particular parcel to commercial use and
when it came up, ten acres is a substantial shopping
center, we are not talking really talking about our
Stater Bros. with a Oscar Drug, ten acres is a lot of
land to fill up in terms of commercial use and it's
above a community level shopping center in terms of the
size of that parcel, so that's something else that
should be considered rather than a blanket change on
that whole entire parcel, it is a big parcel and would
take a lot of commercial uses and a substantial center
there to fill up a ten acre parcel.
Mayor Matteson asked Mr. Thompson and Mr. Lewis if they
would address this issue, you requested that to become
commercial, what is your purpose.
Mr. Lewis stated that Mr. Tom Thompson, of Caldwell
Bank, was present and they were requesting that Lots
57, 58 & 59, which are presently industrial use, be
left as is, indicating if the Council wants to buffer
that industrial use property with a commercial use, 0
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 26
they have an excellent chance. He suggested
designating vacant lot 60 at the corner of Michigan and
Main as commercial which would in term offer to the
area an additional possibility for commercial
development and thereby bring the tax dollars that you
are looking for. He felt we had enough bedrooms here,
but you could use commercial and that is a good spot
for it to serve that area that Mayor Pro Tem
Pfennighausen has indicated that there is going to be a
need for some commercial property. He stated that Mr.
Thompson ....
Mr. Thompson stated that ten acres is too big for
commercial, but that's alright, lets keep it simple and
we will deal with that when it comes up, we will leave
the Inland Lumber Company property as a industrial
property as it is and perhaps we can develop some
commercial there for the benefit of Grand Terrace in
the future.
Mayor Matteson stated it does work out as a good buffer
even if it may not ever develop as such because of the
problems we've had with the residential homes against
that lumber yard already.
CC-88-134 MOTION BY MAYOR MATTESON, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER SHIRLEY, CARRIED
5-0, to leave the lumber yard industrial and the northwest corner
commercial.
Edison Property Mayor Matteson indicated the Edison property located
between Van Buren and Pico.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated there is one portion
of the Edison property that was recommended to be
residential and the other part of it is a park and the
other part of it is heavily impacted with easements and
the remainder is a buffer or expansion property for
Southern California Edison. Mayor Matteson asked for
some boundaries.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated we are talking about
the Edison property north of Pico, between Van Buren
and Pico, the portion that they have zoned residential
is the little flip part over to the east.
Mayor Matteson stated that is accepted, but we can
still put the park in a residential zone, right.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen replied it doesn't make
sense, in the first place it is theirs and they are
leasing it to us, we don't own it, so it's kind of
ridiculous to her to take one little piece of their
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 27
property, designate it as
property that is not
residentially and have the
nonsense, the rest of the
remain as industrial.
residential on a piece of
big enough to develop
rest of it industrial, it's
Edison property needs to
Mayor Matteson stated that they were not requesting it
to be industrial, they are requesting it to be a
business park.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen replied, no, Edison Company
is requesting that it is industrial.
Mr. Geller, pointed out that the terms of zoning, which
are going to implement the business park, the City has
not even taken that step to define what is allowable
and what is not allowable in a business park
designation. A good example of that is the discussion
we just had with the general commercial versus the AP
in the zoning at the next level. We found out through
the Community Development Director's research that a
lot of commercial uses are allowed within the AP
Designation and felt before throwing everything out,
the overall plan for this area is to create a commerce
center for the City for the long-term
viability of the City and that's what the plan
proposes. He stated that the exact detail in terms of
designs, terms of size of buildings, terms of allowable
uses, there is nothing to say that when you start
creating a development standard, you can't allow
something that Edison might want to do with the
property in the future, allowed within that zone, it's
wide open right now. He felt in the overall sense,
everything west of Michigan Avenue, we are really
talking about a concept. Are we going to save this for
future development or some sort of employment base and
taxes for the City or are we going to start cutting the
whole area up and allow other things to happen. He
stated this is a long-term plan and we haven't worked
out the specifics of how it's going to come together;
when it's going to come together; if there was going to
be any special conditions for the existing residents
there, explaining that's all zoning, that's all at the
next level. He felt first and foremost, we have to
decide whether we think this is a good idea and if we
don't think it's a good idea and you don't want any
employment base in the City and you don't want
additional tax base in the City, then it probably is a
good ideal to go ahead and start chopping the whole
area up and forgetting about the concept. If the
concept has any viability at all, you still have
[1
0
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 28
additional levels of review; they are still going to
work with the Community Devlopment Director in creating
a zoning specifying what's allowed there; the manner in
which it's going to be allowed there; whether the
Redevelopment Agency is going to get involved; what
level of involvement the agency is going to have and to
see a program for an equal transition for this area
into the future. He felt none of that stuff has been
tied down now and all we are talking about is basically
a concept.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen felt it is a stinking plan
and she did not like the business park concept period,
and why put a designation that will never become a
reality for the simple reason that the amount of land
necessary to make it successful and viable does not
exist. She stated there is a whole area in the Edison
property and you can't do anything because of the
high -power lines, it just tears that property up, it's
vacant sitting in the center of it. If we talk about
listening to the people and the people that have
testified up to this point about the area from Van
Buren to DeBerry, have expressed their opinion that
they would like to see that area remain or go to
residential. She stated that the members of this
Council have to decide what people it is that they
listen to.
Councilmember Evans reported that in 1979 shortly after
we incorporated, there was a course of action that was
set upon by the powers to be at that particular time,
to bring in major commercial development to this City,
massive scale development into this City. He felt that
that type of development was going to radically impact
the type of character of this City, bring a lot of
problems to this City, maybe bring in some money,
questioned whether or not it would, but we need to take
a look at commercial development that is compatible
with our size. This was blown totally out of
proportion, we are now asked to take a look at a
concept, if you are dealing with just straight, pure,
undeveloped vacant land, maybe the concept is good.
However, we are now being asked to do something again
major called business park development which he felt
would have a negative impact as to what the character
of Grand Terrace is all about and if it's residential
he did not feel it was a crime to emphasize residential
development. He felt that when you drew this plan up
you did not get the pulse of this City and if he reads
the general concensus of the community correctly, there
is nothing wrong with residential development, they
want to retain that atmosphere and anything that we
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 29
bring in of a massive scale would change that,
therefore, he could not support the business park
concept.
Councilmember Grant concurred that the business park is
an inappropriate recommendation and would be an
inappropriate action for this Council to take for
several reasons. He agreed that the realization and
the fulfillment of such a project would be in such a
distant future that we may not even be around when that
kind of thing materializes. He felt more important to
him is the recommendation of the geography of this
business park, feeling the recommendation to go right
up to Michigan was nonsense. He felt if you would like
have anything, whether it be business park or
commercial or anything of that nature, it certainly
should not go that far to the east. He has heard and
believes that the business park is not going to provide
the type of revenue that this little community
desperately needs. It's not designed for that
purpose. You are not going to get sales and use taxes
out of that kind of thing. He felt one way to
alleviate this thing was to first ask ourselves if we
want residential, if so, do we want apartments down
there, explaining that hasn't been proposed and he did
not know of any Councilmember who was proposing that,
but it's not too far, we are seeing it now happening on
the north area. He explained that he was not in favor
of this kind of proposal for a business park at all,
particularly to the area to the east up to Michigan,
pointing out that those people and houses are going to
be there for a long time to come and the idea of doing
that is unrealistic.
Mayor Matteson stated that it made sense to him and if
you look at the overall plan, it is very sound and a
very well planned thing, but the problem is you are
dealing with the human element and they are the ones
who put us here and they are the ones who want us to
answer for them and so we have to respond to that. He
felt the concept was great and could concur with Mr.
Geller.
Councilmember Shirley concurred with Mayor Matteson
indicating liking the idea of the business park, taking
into consideration what he just said and the Consultant
just said about the zoning which would, if it ever
happens, determine the use of that business park. She
stated she liked the idea of maintaining a large
composite price of real estate within Grand Terrace for
some type of future development, but she has to concur
di
totally with what the Mayor has said because the people 0
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 30
of Grand Terrace have spoken and after all, we all live
here and this is our town. She stated that she liked
the concept, but felt for Grand Terrace it is not the
time and place for it.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated it is true that when
we are dealing with present problems and current
developments that will exist well into the time and
past the time when your plan is to be in affect. She
explained that if indeed IBM or whatever large
corporation came in saying that they would like to
locate in Grand Terrace and they wanted all of the
property west of Michigan, south of DeBerry and north
of Van Buren and could convince all of those people
that they wanted to sell to them and would give them
what it was that they were asking, they could
immediately come to Council and request a General Plan
Amendment and they could put in their business park
facility.
Mayor Matteson disagreed.
Mr. Geller stated in the planning efforts the first
step is the land use and everything filters down after
that, pointing out that there has been a lot of concern
about non -conforming aspects. He explained and listed
the system of implementation that has to be taken,
indicating that the General Plan is a long-term land
use tool, it sets out the direction, it's a statement.
He explained that the point he wanted to make was that
there are a lot of tools that are available to Council
after there is an agreement. He stated that there are
ways to placate everybody and if you wanted to work
your way through as a recommendation to the Planning
Commission, there's ways to deal with existing
residential areas and setting up a phasing program
which is the last area after everything's developed and
projected in terms of buffers and development of the
area based on the development standards that haven't
been established yet. He stated there is a lot of
planning that needs to be done, so in his own defense
he has thought that through.
Councilmember Evans stated that in concept, he agreed
with all of Mr. Geller's comments made as far as
different vehicles, indicating that one vehicle, the
City's RDA. He stated that this City, as far as the
Redevelopment Agency, can't do dilly -squat and the
reason for that is that the Redevelopment Agency has
over a $2,000,000.00 debt to the City. He stated that
with the size of the City, it takes a lot of what we
are going to be able to do so whatever course of action
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 31
we set out, we have to think it out very thoroughly. He
stated that this year is the first year that the City
did not have to loan to the RDA money to make its
payment on this Civic Center and over the next 10 to 20
years they are going to have to start paying back the
principal on that loan, that's money that will be able
to go into the General Fund to help provide services and
some of the other major projects. Although in concept
he could agree with everything Mr. Geller said, in
reality you don't understand the pulse of this City and
what you have presented to us is not going to resolve
those problems.
Mayor Matteson told Mr. Geller that part of this is the
lack of knowledge and experience on this City Council to
put the programs in effect that you are talking about
like some of the neighboring cities have and one of the
reasons is we are a small city and we don't have that
expertise.
Mr. Geller stated there is a contradiction even in what
Councilmember Evans said, and just based on the fact
that we had commercial there in the past, we know that
that doesn't work, yes it produces sales tax dollars,
but what's the reality in terms of the cost of the
benefit to see a regional shopping center happen there,
we know that's not going to happen. We know that
residential is going to be a further burden on the
revenues of the City in terms of providing services in
the long term. His concept, even though we haven't
decided on how we are going to do it, what manner we are
going to do it, is to do something that does produce
revenues for the City, does produce a daytime population
to spend money in the City; and it's an alternate to
(a) it's not going to happen and (b) it's going to be a
further burden on the City.
Mayor Matteson indicated the area north of DeBerry
between Michigan and the freeway. The area that the
Consultant has recommended be all commercial. He stated
that the Planning Commission gave an alternate, cutting
out that corner at DeBerry and Michigan as residential
area.
CC-88-135 MOTION BY MAYOR MATTESON, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER GRANT, to accept
that area as the Planning Commission has provided us, Alternate 2
for that particular area.
Councilmember Evans asked Mrs. Dodson if her parcel of
land was currently on Alternate No. 2, general
commercial?
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 32
Councilmember Evans stated that's what is being
proposed.
Patricia Dodson, 21974 DeBerry, I am also representing
our mother Helen Dodson, 21992 DeBerry.
Councilmember Evans stated in your letter that we
received in April 1988, you indicated that you were in
objection to the change from R-1 to commercial on your
property. The response was, "right."
Councilmember Evans stated right now, today, have you
changed your position on that. The response was "yes."
Councilmember Evans asked what was her position in
reference to her property?
Mrs. Dodson replied, they want it to go ahead and be
zoned commercial.
Motion CC-88-135 carried 5-0.
Edison Property Mayor Matteson indicated the Edison property, 40 acres
between Van Buren and Pico.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated that Edison owns a
piece of property adjacent to the Thompson property on
the south side of Pico.
Mayor Matteson stated that we just want to address the
part that is proposed to be changed.
CC-88-136 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM PFENNIGHAUSEN, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER
SHIRLEY, CARRIED 5-0, that the Edison property located between Van
Buren and Pico be zoned light industrial, therefore maintaining
consistency with the rest of their property.
Mayor Matteson indicated the property between Van Buren
and DeBerry and Michigan west.
Community Development Director Sawyer asked for
clarification of the property from the last motion.
Mayor Matteson replied that the Edison property remains
as it was.
Community Development Director Sawyer stated all of the
Edison properties....
Mayor Matteson said industrial, south of Van Buren, it
was light industrial before, was it not?
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 33
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen replied at one time it was
commercial and Edison requested it be changed back and
she thought they were told we were going to do a
General Plan Update, indicating not being sure that
what you are being told is true. 0
Community Development Director Sawyer made indications
on the map.
Mayor Matteson stated that the Planning Commission had
recommended that that be industrial also so that we
don't have that break in there, on Alternate No. 2.
He asked Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen if that was her
motion.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated that her motion was
for all of the Edison property be light industrial, so
whatever that includes, that includes.
Mayor Matteson asked if the second concurred on that?
Councilmember Shirley replied, "yes."
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated that the Wilden
property and the Harber property is presently light
industrial and her motion would include for that to
remain as such.
City Engineer Kicak stated that beginning just west of
Garden Street where you have, just north of Pico and
west of Garden, the residential development, that
little yellow strip right there (indicating to the
map), that's Edison property, and there is one parcel
that does not belong to Harber or Edison and that is
that thin parcel just to the right (making indication
on the map).
Councilmember Shirley stated that the second concurred
with that.
Motion CC-88-136 carried 5-0.
Mayor Matteson referenced the area between Van Buren
and DeBerry.
Councilmember Shirley stated that in light of what the
Consultant has said about phasing in the project, she
would like to know if there was some way that we could
make a phased -in plan that would move from the west to
the east, leaving the existing residential for last.
She asked if we could make an overlap of the existing
residences so that they could be R-1 or business park 0
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 34
or whatever designation, indicating liking the idea of
keeping the vacant land there a composite so that it
could be used as a large whatever rather than breaking
i it up into small pieces, but also keeping the existing
residences at this time and for as long as they want it
with the ability to sell them as residences.
Mr. Geller replied, that he was not going to give a yes
or no answer, you have asked a very complex question
with a lot of components to it. He said the way to
accomplish what you are saying is to not make any
changes on the majority of the residential properties
today, leave them as they exist today, not even as they
exist because in a great extent a lot of them are
already non -conforming, but try to come up with some
logical boundaries that leave the residential closer to
Michigan designated low -density residential. He stated
that the areas where the large vacant parcels are,
you're going with this light industrial category,
perhaps when you go through the zoning you could
specify a minimum parcel site so that you don't see a
little 1-acre or 1/2-acre industrial type project going
in there and chop the area up. He stated that the
first step would be to save or create a Specific Plan
that ties all of that property together. The larger
parcels through a designation, and as the area expands
and develops and interest gains in the area, then you
can start looking at re -designating some of those
residential areas, that is the only way to do it at
this point.
Mayor Matteson stated you can do a Specific Plan
overlay for the larger parcels.
Community Development Director Sawyer replied that he
did not know if overlay would be the right
terminology. He felt that Mr. Geller was saying that
we would zone it industrial and then develop a Specific
Plan to cover how that property is to develop and in
what phases, timing and manners ....
Mayor Matteson asked Mr. Geller if he was saying that
the residential along Michigan be residential?
Mr. Geller said he was saying if that is Council's
direction. He explained that the question was "is
there a way that we can phase it." He felt that the
Planning Commission or at one of the earlier Council
meetings, we talked about a concept similar to that,
indicating to focus in on an area, plant the seed for
the type of development that we are looking for.
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 35
Mr. Geller agreed with Councilmember Shirley that if
you are going to do it, do it on a level where you are
going to create some significant development that's
going to provide for the future.
Mayor Matteson reported that that block has
multiple -residential, commercial, single-family
residential and light industrial, how do you handle
that.
Mr. Geller asked how is it shown right now.
Community Development Director Sawyer replied, it is
C-2, it's a mix. He stated that right now the General
Plan and the Zoning Map shows the majority of it as the
C-2 with the CPD Overlay and a small 10-acre portion of
that overall block is residential.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated that since the
Dotson's have expressed an interest in having their
property commercial and if you would come straight down
past their property going along the U-Store, straight
down taking all of the properties east of that where
the major portion of them are residential of some sort
with the exception of Lee Swertferger, who should be
allowed to run his trucks in and out. The little store
on the corner that does a vital service by giving some
place for the Wilden and the Harber people and
everybody to go and get their afternoon refreshments,
that we could have all of that property west of that
line as industrial or whatever it is we want to call
that. Commerce Way for the time being should be
stopped at DeBerry until something opens up in that
area, stating Council has already voted to take the
trailer park out and we have given no place to put it.
Mayor Matteson replied we have not taken the trailer
park out, there are no plans for there and until we
come across that, I think you are misinforming the
people when you tell them that.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked where are you going
to put them?
Mayor Matteson replied we will have a developer come in
and make a plan, then we will work on that, but to say
right now, take it out because it's commercial, felt it
was irresponsible.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she was not saying
take the people out, I'm saying where are you going to
take the people when you take it out. 0
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 36
Mayor Matteson replied when we come to a developer that
wants to put a project in, then that's what we will
have to work on.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated if you've no place
to put them, what are you going to do?
Mayor Matteson explained that when the problem comes
up, you take care of the problem, you can give
hypothetical solutions for all of these things all
around, that trailer park might be there forty years
from now, we don't know that, just because we zone
something doesn't mean it's going to be developed.
Mayor Matteson asked what was the plan to make the area
closest boarding Michigan R-1?
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen indicated on the map what
she was referencing.
Mayor Matteson indicated having a problem with that
corner on Van Buren and Michigan, pointing out you've
got commercial in there; trucking company; it should be
commercial in there with the trucking company,
Swertfeger's property should be commercial and on down
to the corner.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen suggested not changing
what's existing in there, leave it the way it is, Lee
should be able to run his trucks until IBM wants to buy
his property.
Mayor Matteson replied if you took that corner, the
horizontal line that runs up to Michigan, we took the
one side and made it residential and the other side
commercial. He asked the Community Development
Director to go to the map and point to that horizontal
line that runs to Michigan all the way down to the
south, follow the white line south, indicating
everything above that is residential and everything
below that should be commercial.
City Manager Schwab replied which is exactly what is in
the existing General Plan if you look up there.
Community Development Director Sawyer suggested
changing our thinking of what the business park is and
change the emphases of it from large corporations to a
retail commerce, we can then consider the small
properties that you are talking about on the east side
of the yellow line that we've just drawn. He stated we
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 37
could go basically with what the General Plan is now,
we can establish the upper residential as residential
and the commercial as not a CPD regional shopping
center commercial, but we can establish it as a
commercial ...., we can come up with a name for it, for
a new designation and in our General Plan it could be
just commercial, just as it is now.
Mayor Matteson asked the Community Development Director
to go to the map and show them exactly what he is
talking about.
Community Development Director Sawyer indicated it on
the map.
CC-88-137 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SHIRLEY, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER GRANT,
CARRIED 4-1 (COUNCILMEMBER EVANS VOTED NOE), to LEAVE IT ALONE AND
COME UP WITH A NEW DESIGNATION AT THE TIME OF THE ZONING CHANGE.
Councilmember Evans stated for clarification, you are
going to have that small pocket again surrounded by
commercial in what would be the southeast quadrant.
Community Development Director Sawyer replied, both the
southeast quadrants, there would be two pockets
adjacent, that area is going to be surrounded by
commercial.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated for clarification,
so she understood that what is residential has remained
residential.
Community Development Director Sawyer replied that all
of the residential property in that quadrant that we
are talking about that was zoned residential is still
zoned residential with the exception of the Dodsons.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated so all of the other
residential uses that exist now ....
Community Development Director Sawyer replied, not
necessary uses, but zoned property.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated Mrs. Perkins'
property now is commercial and all of the people along
Van Buren are commercial.
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 38
Community Development Director Sawyer pointed out some
of the things he felt that needed to be covered
(indicating on the map). All of the properties that
are zoned residential in this area are still going to
be zoned residential with the exception of the Dotson's
property, there are, however, scattered residential
properties that are now non -conforming that are located
in that area.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen replied, yes, everything
from the meat locker west.
Community Development Director Sawyer explained this
larger area here (indicating on map) one house on this
one piece of property, two duplexes on this small piece
of property and one house on this large piece of
property and we've got ten units here that are now
going to be commercial and have been commercial, no
changes, they are still non -conforming.
Lee Swertfe er, stated that Fran Carter to the north of
im wanted her property commercial also. Mayor
Matteson replied that, yes, hers is commercial.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen reported that she liked her
line the way she drew it in the beginning and if there
is anyway, I'm going to withdraw my vote from that
approval. She felt that line needed to be clean all
the way down just the way she had it before, without
coming around the corner. She stated she would prefer
to see Mr. Swertfeger run his trucking business
non -conforming because he is still going to run trucks
and he can do that forever or until he decides to do
something major industrial on the property, so I
withdraw my vote from that because I'm supportive of
the residential all the way down to Van Buren.
Councilmember Evans asked if a motion was needed on the
area just discussed. The response was, "yes."
CC-88-138 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER EVANS, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER SHIRLEY,
CARRIED 5-0 to remain residential.
Barton Road Mayor Matteson asked Community Development Director
Circulation Sawyer to address the Barton Road Circulation.
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 39
Community Development Director Sawyer stated that
staff's, as well as the General Plan Consultant's and
Planning Commission's recommendation was that Barton
Road be widened to 120 feet, but since then, they have
met in a workshop session and with the concensus of the
property owners was recommending 100 feet. He stated
staff also is now recommending a 100 foot right-of-way
for Barton Road, as long as the six lanes previously
talked about are obtained.
CC-88-139 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM PFENNIGHAUSEN, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER
EVANS, CARRIED 5-0, that the ultimate right-of-way on Barton Road
be developed to 100 feet, therefore, continuing with the area that
we've already improved, and that no median be installed in that
area.
Recessed at 8:40 p.m.
Reconvened at 8:50 p.m.
Mayor Matteson indicated that the next item would be
the circulation on Commerce Way, Michigan south.
Councilmember Shirley stated before going to that she
would like to re -address Sector 2 and finish the vote
on that so that we get the .... Mayor Matteson stated
Quadrant 4. Councilmember Shirley stated Quadrant 4,
which is the area north of Barton Road and west of Mt.
Vernon to the freeway. Mayor Matteson asked the
parcels that are being recommended for low
residential.
CC-88-140 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SHIRLEY, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER GRANT,
that it be accepted as designated with the changes that we've
already made.
Councilmember Grant asked for clarification of what
Councilmember Shirley was saying.
Councilmember Shirley stated that what was recommended
go to low -density residential, go in as low -density
residential.
Councilmember Evans stated that whole area is a very
complicated problem and it has now been intensified
with the lawsuit that has been adjudicated against us
and saying that apartments are going to go in there no
matter what. So, it's academic what we put in there,
it will be up to this Council to decide to appeal the
decision. He stated that the appeal in itself creates
some potential problems for us financially and
something that each one of us is going to have to 0
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 40
decide whether or not we want to take the risk. He
reported that the whole problem goes back to 1984 when
the Council adopted the General Plan that allowed the
apartments to start. They should have had the courage
once that plan had been made to tell the people why
that area was zoned multi -family. They have deceived
the people for the past four years, they should have at
least had the courage to tell the people why it has to
be multi -family, so he can't support this because of
the previous input that went in in 1984 for that
General Plan and in light of that lawsuit that has gone
against us.
Motion CC-88-140 carried 3-2 (Councilmember Evans and
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen voted NOE).
Community Development Director Sawyer stated that
Alternate No. 2 was the Planning Commission's
recommendation. He stated that Alternate No. 1 was the
original recommendation that came from the Planning
Consultant and staff and went to the Planning
Commission and that was Commerce Way be aligned to come
down through this (indicating on the map), the property
alignment that is existing now all the way to Main
Street. There would be a secondary highway and be
designed to make the traffic that was generated from
this area of industrial uses off of Michigan; Michigan
would then be reduced from a secondary highway down to
the major collector past Commerce Way, that went to the
Planning Commission and the Planning Commission then
recommended that the alignment remain the same and the
width remain the same down to Van Buren; from Van Buren
south, the Planning Commission recommended that a
Specific Plan be designed and implemented that would
determine where Commerce Way should come all the way
down to Main Street. They felt it should come to Main
Street, but did not know exactly how or where, but that
should be determined at a later date. He stated that
the Planning Department recommendation at this time,
after all that was through remains that the width and
alignment be the same as Alternate No. 1 was. We do
recognize this is an acceptable alternative and can go
with Planning Commission's recommendation. He stated
that was before we changed the land use designation in
that area and felt that was something we would want to
talk about and perhaps question Mr. Hauss regarding the
traffic generation whether or not this still needs to
be widened, whether or not we still have the intent of
taking that traffic off of Michigan.
Councilmember Evans asked the current width of the
street referring to Commerce Way north of DeBerry?
City Engineer Kicak replied, 60 feet.
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 41
Councilmember Evans asked what was the recommendation
for the street to go to? The response
was 64.
Councilmember Evans said so we are
talking
about 4
additional feet, 2 feet on each side.
Are you
not kind
of creating a little squiggly in the
road if
we went
from 60 to 64 to currently where it stops
down to
DeBerry?
Mr. Geller felt the whole aspect of the circulation
needs to be re-examined based on the action of this
Council today, he felt we had some major changes
there. He stated theoretically when the street is
built out, it will be 64 feet everywhere, whether
there's a need for 64 feet are unknown at this point.
Councilmember Evans felt it would be a little
presumptuous for us to think with the existing
infrastructure that is in that will ever go over 64
feet that is currently in from Michigan where it dead
ends, don't you.
Mr. Geller felt it would depend on the level of
activity in that area, to say whether that street needs
to be widened, but probably not .....
Councilmember Evans felt realistically anybody that's
going to come in with a project will be excused the two
feet depending on lot size. He felt as far as Commerce
Way is concerned to extend it down to DeBerry we should
follow with the consistent 60 foot. Do you have any
problems with that?
Mr. Geller replied, "no."
Mayor Matteson questioned why it was designed for 60
feet to begin with, if it requires 64 feet in that
area.
Mr. Geller explained that the General Plan called for
it to be 64 in the previous General Plan, it was built
to 60 feet....
Jim Coffin stated that when Walkie & Merrill filed a
plan, there was a specific alignment done at that time
for Commerce Way and it was decided by the County that
that width should be 72 ft. right-of-way and 60 ft.
paved section and that was just prior to incorporation
and so Walkie proceded with his engineering and built a
street that was determined by the County.
I
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 42
Mayor Matteson asked if the County foresaw that street
going all the through at the time that they did that?
Mr. Coffin replied, yes, they did a specific alignment
which went down close to the freeway, the old alignment
of Commerce Way, Industrial Way at that time.
Mayor Matteson asked why would it require 64 ft. versus
60 ft.?
Jerry Hauss, Willdan & Associates, stated that 60 ft.
curb -to curb really is an industrial street width, it's
mainly based upon providing capacity and turning
movement necessities for trucks in an industrial area.
He explained that the past General Plan called for it
to be 64 ft. curb -to -curb thinking in terms of it being
a commercial street instead of an industrial street.
He stated from a realistic standpoint, capacity turning
movement and everything concerned, the loss of 2 ft. on
each side could be made up of lane width, reduced lane
width, prohibiting parking, there are all kinds of
solutions to traffic capacity that you can get at least
a 4-lane section through on a 60 ft. curb -to curb.
Councilmember Evans asked Mr. Hauss if he was saying a
64 ft. width curb -to -curb is for industrial development
generally in an area, is that correct? Mr. Hauss felt
that has to do with County standards.
Councilmember Evans stated that explains why it is
60 ft., because prior to incorporation, the biggest
percentage of that area was all designated as
industrial, so when their projects came in they were
complying with what was in the code at that particular
moment.
Mr. Hauss stated that if he understood correctly, the
man on the floor before him, it was a Specific Plan
based probably on the anticipated growth more than just
industrial, they probably took into consideration the
whole plan.
Councilmember Evans replied they show the extension,
but probably felt it would build out at 60 ft. He
asked if he had any problems going to 60 ft. to
DeBerry. The response was, "no." Councilmember Evans
asked if we could take just that section right now.
The response was, "sure."
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 43
CC-88-141 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER EVANS, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM
PFENNIGHAUSEN, that the section of Commerce Way, if extended to
DeBerry, be at the width of 60 ft. curb -to -curb right-of-way and 72
ft. existing right-of-way just to the north curb of what would be
DeBerry, and follow the alignment as designated by the Consultant.
CC-88-142 MOTION BY MAYOR MATTESON, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER GRANT, CARRIED
4-1 (COUNCILMEMBER EVANS VOTED NOE), to amend the motion to carry
it down to Van Buren.
Councilmember Evans questioned what was just done.
City Attorney Hopkins replied, you voted to amend the
motion, we now have an amended motion before you that
you need to act on.
Councilmember Evans stated you have no problem with
60 ft. to DeBerry right now, is that correct?
Mr. Hauss stated that from the original plan, the
original study standpoint of what we looked at on
traffic generation with the industrial park, the
overall situation, I have no problems with the 60 as
compared to the 64. The capacity looked at should be
able to handle the turning movements with the trucks
and everything should be handled with a 72 ft.
right-of-way street. However, you, by your action
tonight, have changed substantially the anticipated
traffic generation for this area starting with the
approximate 10-acre site at Main and Michigan,
especially the non -change of the existing commercial
zone, which I told you previously had a few problems
with that situation before on the other plan in taking
a look at numbers. For me to say that this 60 ft. will
handle the whole situation as we presented to you in
the overall plan, I think it's kind of an error, but to
say that it will work under the other plan that we
submitted as far as land use traffic generation, fine.
I do suggest there has been substantial changes
different than what we used when we did traffic
generation in that area to try to determine the need
for both east/west and north/south trips in that area
bounded by Michigan west.
Councilmember Evans stated so to understand the motion
that we are going to be asked to vote on now, is to
extend Commerce Way as reflected on the Consultant's
plan, down to Van Buren and at 60 feet with a
right-of-way.
El
I
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 44
Mayor Matteson replied, that's right", indicating if
the heaviest traffic is going to be at Michigan and
Commerce Way, so if it's going to be opened there, the
traffic would get less and he could not see widening
�- the street down there.
Councilmember Evans stated that the gentleman just said
that his traffic studies were done with the Business
Park land use. He is suggesting, if I understand him
correctly, that since you have changed the land use, it
will necessitate possibly re-evaluating and having a
wider street down into that area. He stated his
recommendation was going to be to stop Commerce Way at
DeBerry and just let any potential developer in the
future come in and let them show what the best course
would be for Commerce Way because they then would be
able to utilize that land and see how the circulation
element would fit into their overall development. He
suggested instead of going down to Van Buren, we stop
it at DeBerry and any future developer then will have
to present a plan for approval and take into
consideration the best circulation in that area given
the land use.
Mayor Matteson stated if we don't designate that that
street is going through, somebody could develop in
there and block that whole area and then we would never
get it through.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked if that is true, they
can just go in there and do anything, stating we do
have ultimate right of review.
City Engineer Kicak replied, no, should a development
occur anywhere south of DeBerry, the development would
have to go through the planning process and the
planning process determines what is actually needed in
the way of circulation and everything else. It would
be more or less a Specific Plan and would have to tie
into whatever is in up above.
Mayor Matteson asked if it wouldn't be better to show
that that street is going to go down there?
City Engineer Kicak stated that his major problem of
going down to Main Street is what it was doing to the
parcels just north of Main Street, but what you are
really doing about adopting that particular alignment
is you are really setting a very specific location for
the center -line of Commerce Way even through it's only
a General Plan.
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 45
Mayor Matteson asked if he felt it was better not to do
that?
City Engineer Kicak replied if, in fact, we are talking
about commercial development in that area, he somewhat
agrees that we know that there is no other way to go
between Michigan and DeBerry except the way it has been
started, and smooth out the curb coming to DeBerry. If
there is no large development and the parcels on both
sides of that black line south of DeBerry came in, if
that line goes down to Van Buren as proposed right now,
he would have to request, based on the General Plan,
that that parcel dedicate a minimum of half -street and
that would be the alignment you would set. If there is
no line there, then he felt that determination would be
made at the time of the planning process.
Community Development Director Sawyer stated that's
true and the only problem he can see with that is that
you are really going to be putting something on the
Planning Commission for an on -the -spot decision whether
or not this property should have a road on it or not
and if we are not real careful, we can get to the
situation where whoever gets in first doesn't have to
put the road in and what properties are left to get in
last are the ones who are going to get stuck with the
road going through it. That's exaggerating, but that
would be the problem in not designating a road so that
staff would have something to say, yes, the road goes
here or at least a general description of it.
City Attorney Hopkins stated, in addition, it would be
difficult for anyone to deny the development of that
property and to require a road if they are consistent
with the General Plan, and they would be in that
instance, they would be consistent with the General
Plan which has no road designated in it.
Councilmember Evans stated that he has some problems in
taking it down to Van Buren as it is currently
reflected, because where does it go south. He stated
if you are going to stay with a general commercial
designation, there is only one way in off of Michigan
and Commerce Way down or down Michigan and then in. He
stated if he understood what Mr. Hauss was saying about
the land use, it's going to change traffic patterns and
there is a very great potential that that will now be
designated to 4-lane traffic, is that a safe statement?
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 46
Mr. Hauss replied without doing an actual number
crunching effort on it, he can't really answer whether
4 lanes is appropriate or not. However, he could see
two issues raised by the changes that you've come up
with and that is not only the north/south problem, but
the east/west. Even if you develop more traffic on
Michigan, whatever the situation is, you're still going
to have to maybe consider some other alternatives for
the east/west streets in that area. Another thing is
that the other plan that had a little bit more
commercial area in it had an additional freeway
interchange as a mitigation to all of those trips. The
plan diverted the vast majority of those trips out of
that commercial area into that freeway area. All I am
saying is that we need to do some number crunching on
it before I say what number is necessary as far as
number of lanes. You changed the ball game, the
attraction of commercial as compared to industrial for
the residential on the eastside of Michigan is changed
if you make that commercial in there.
Councilmember Evans stated that he was convinced that
Mr. Hauss' study will show that it has to be 4-lanes
and he based that statement on the 1975 General Plan
that was done under the County auspices which shows
Commerce Way, at that time, going down into that
general area and they had designated Michigan with all
the residential development still designated as
generally this evening, then Michigan would have to be
4-lanes, that's 1975. We incorporated in 1978 and now
we come to a General Plan in 1984, felt that between
that time there has been consideration for the shopping
mall to go in, that you are going to have a 4-lane
Commerce Way, feeling they could stay consistent with
Michigan. The 1984 General Plan with all this
commercial, they show that it's a 4-lane roadway. He
felt Mr. Hauss' study will show, given the land use
that we have come down with, will go to 4-lanes. That
is a concern that he has had all along, if we try to
bring major, whether commercial or industrial or call
it business development in there and you are going to
change the entire completion of things, we are a
residential community.
Mayor Matteson stated with 60 feet, can you have
two -lanes going each way plus the center -divider lane
of 12 feet that gives you 60 feet?
Mr. Hauss replied you might not want to stripe it that
way, but you could have a "5-lane section with no
parking."
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 47
Mayor Matteson
traffic and any
and out of that
could not conceive requiring any more
more streets than traffic getting in
area.
Mr. Hauss stated when
Director covered their goal
with its connection to Ma
statements and the fact t
Commerce Way to reduce
Michigan. He stated he has
to do with Commerce Way so
the zoning drastically, as
and the attractive type of
to be coming to and fr
complicated the issue as fa
the amount of trips in that
the Community Development
with extending Commerce Way
in Street in his beginning
hat we were trying to use
the impact of traffic on
no idea what you are going
uth. You've already changed
far as the number of trips
trips where they are going
Mr. Geller stated to add to that, the commercial
designation, if it's a pure commercial designation as
we know it and as it has existed in the last four years
in that area, there is going to be a substantial change
through it, but I heard the Council saying they are
looking for some high-grade commercial area, some
commercial business park type of area and Jerry is
going to have a hard time crunching any numbers until
we define exactly what we are talking about for that
area or it's going to be run out basically just as the
previous study had run it out in terms of the number of
trips based on commercial development.
Councilmember Evans asked what did he suggest they
should do?
Mr. Geller replied, we need to define what that area is
or get the worst case analysis, indicating not knowing
what it is going to show, but it is going to provide
trips generated in that area.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated ultimately the
solution is to take it all back to residential and
forget it.
Motion CC-88-142 fails 3-2, (Mayor Matteson and
Councilmember Grant voted AYE), to carry the road down
to Van Buren.
Mayor Matteson asked Councilmember Evans if he wanted
to make another motion.
U
11
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 48
Councilmember Evans replied, no, his motion stands,
felt Commerce Way should stop at DeBerry.
Mayor Matteson stated to make another motion because
that motion was changed, that failed.
Councilmember Evans stated his motion stands that we
stop Commerce Way .....
Mayor Matteson replied, it doesn't stand, it was
changed and it failed.
Councilmember Evans stated he was not going to change
it, he felt it should stop there.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated that you can make it
the way you did originally because he amended it and it
failed.
Councilmember Evans replied then his motion will stand,
current alignment of 60 feet.
Mayor Matteson stated we need a new motion.
Councilmember Evans stated all he wants is Commerce Way
to stop at DeBerry with 60 curb -to -curb 72-foot
right-of-way.
CC-88-143 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SHIRLEY, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM
PFENNIGHAUSEN, CARRIED 4-1 (COUNCILMEMBER GRANT VOTED NOE), for
Commerce Way to stop at DeBerry with 60 ft. curb -to -curb 72-ft.
right-of-way.
Community Development Director Sawyer asked if that
meant that we were not going to carry Commerce Way
beyond DeBerry at all?
Councilmember Shirley stated that no, her understanding
is the Councilmember Evans' concept was that when there
is a proposed development that goes into the new
commercial business park, that at that time the road be
looked at.
Councilmember Evans stated that he understood the
concerns, but the reality of the whole situation is
going to be, if we take a look at the current
alignment, east of Commerce Way, approximately 8 1/2 to
9 acres, owned by one individual, will probably be
purchased as a unit, you go south of that which is
north of Van Buren, that's another solid unit, so if
anything is going to happen in there, he felt that the
property will be purchased as large parcels and then
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 49
they can plan the circulation that would best fit their
development, taking into consideration the extension
south that would then be reviewed.
Mayor Matteson stated that the problem is that when
each development comes up, it's taken into
consideration, it's not taken into consideration the
future development and that's the problem....
Councilmember Shirley replied we could make a
stipulation that when someone wants to go in and
develop a part of this that the Specific Plan for that
area be developed.
Mayor Matteson replied that is what we tried to do.
Councilmember Shirley stated that parcel being as large
as it is, if you take the whole area that we have now
designated as a separate thing, you could have a
circular road through that that comes back out.
City Manager Schwab felt that the issue is if the
individual that bought the first parcel south of
DeBerry could make a culdesac and you couldn't say
because the General Plan designated that that street
must go through. But on the other hand if he brought
to you a specific plan and said because of these great
reasons in my Specific Plan, we should make this one
big circle that makes a big circle and goes back out
the same direction. He then felt you could say with
that Specific Plan, okay, we'll let you deviate from
the General Plan, but we are putting the shoe on the
other foot, the person could make a culdesac or put his
building right on top of where you said that would go
through and you really wouldn't have any basis to say,
I'm going to deny that because we want a road through
there, but we want you to tell us where you want it.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen gave an example using IBM,
if they came in and fulfilled our dreams regarding
needing a road.
City Manager Schwab replied if they brought that plan
to you even if we had Commerce Way extended to Main
Street, you would say, do it and then we'll change this
General Plan.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated probably not,
because once we make rules, we never change them.
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 50
Mr. Hauss stated that this document is intended to be
the blueprint for development for the next 25 to 30
years. The developers coming in here, have known that
the City Council intended that there be a connection
between those two streets. He said you can amend the
General Plan four times a year, certainly there's no
reason why you cannot entertain a re -alignment of that
road based on a development proposal on that property,
but you have to give somebody some idea now of how you
intend to provide for circulation in that area.
Councilmember Shirley asked if there was anyway of
putting a hypothetical road through there without going
through all of the condemning and taking.
Mayor Matteson replied that is what the Planning
Commission is recommending.
Mr. Coffin stated that
alignment of Commerce
alignment shown on the
DeBerry, questioning if
72-ft. right-of-way and
DeBerry includes the nee
plans.
the existing General Plan
Way is different from the
proposed alignment even to
the motion to make that a
a 60-ft. paved section to
i alignment shown on the new
Councilmember Evans replied, yes, the reason for that
came up during the discussion with the potential
developer, felt the drainage pipes in the area that
will cause developmental problems. We felt (Council,
staff and Consultant) that this alignment would
facilitate everyone in bringing in a nice project and
that is why that alignment went like that.
Mr. Coffin stated he supports that alignment,
indicating his only question was did that motion change
to the new alignment. The response was, yes it did.
CC-88-144 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SHIRLEY, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER GRANT,
that Commerce Way then be extended from DeBerry south to Van Buren
with a 72 ft. right-of-way and a 62 ft. curb -to -curb.
Community Development Director Sawyer asked for
clarification, if this was going to be designated or is
it to be determined. He stated that the Planning
Commission established the location down to Van Buren
and then said a Specific Plan should be done at a later
date for Van Buren to Main Street, asking if that was
the motion.
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 51
Councilmember Shirley stated that means from Van Buren
to Main Street doesn't exist until a Specific Plan is
made. Community Development Director Sawyer replied,
that's correct and when we get to a point where we do a
Specific Plan then we will prepare that and bring it to
Council.
Councilmember Shirley stated and at that time Council
can make a decision whether or not that is what they
want to do.
Community Development Director Sawyer replied, that's
correct, and you can do the same thing extending that
up to DeBerry if you would like and we then can take
into consideration what that zone is going to be for
that area up there, if we are going to have a Specific
Plan to be determined later from Van Buren on down,
then we might as well do it from DeBerry and we can
consider what the zoning is going to be before we do
that Specific Plan.
Mayor Matteson asked for clarification.
Community Development Director Sawyer stated that is
deferring it basically, which means to accept the
Planning Commission recommendation with the exception
that the Specific Plan is to be done from DeBerry south
instead of Van Buren south, indicating before doing
that he would like to see if the Consultant agrees if
that is possible.
Mayor Matteson had concerns regarding Mr. Green's
property. Community Development Director Sawyer
explained that Mr. Green's property will still be in
limbo because we wouldn't be identifying how his
property is going to be affected yet. Councilmember
Shirley stated that will come when the Specific Plan is
made and then we would address that problem
specifically.
City Manager Schwab stated when we talk about a
Specific Plan, we are talking about the City coming
back with a Specific Plan. He stated that he
preferred the Planning Commission recommendation only
because he felt they were saying look at it with a
Specific Plan with the area below Van Buren because of
the problems it has created for people like Mr. Green,
but there is clearly no problem between DeBerry and Van
Buren. He stated that the situations aren't similar.
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 52
Mr. Geller stated that before the General Plan is
adopted, we are going to have to take another look at
the environmental impact report with the major changes
that have been made here this evening. He stated by
working on this General Plan, and he did not even know
if we need Commerce Way to go past DeBerry at this
point. He has no knowledge, the whole thing has been
entirely changed, perhaps we can forget this part of it
right now, let's amend the EIR because you can't really
adopt the General Plan until some of that stuff has
been modified and then take a look at it at that point
then you will be off the hook and have some information
to make a decision.
Councilmember Evans said if he understands this, put
this on hold until you do some more studies. Community
Development Director felt it is appropriate that
someone does the studies. He asked how long would this
take.
Mr. Geller replied, he could not answer that question
right now because he did not know what we are talking
about in terms of what you've created in that red area,
so we have to define that.
Community Development Director Sawyer said if he could
bring up the sore point of the Consultant/City
relationship, we've come to the end basically of our
contract with Willdan & Associates and at the very end
of this process that we've been working on for over a
year, we've changed the ball game and if we wish
Willdan to continue working on this project we are
going to have to recognize that they are going to be
asking for more money and an extension of that contract
and the bottom line is that we are getting to right
now. He pointed out that there have been enough
changes where additional work is going to be needed, so
it's either going to be Willdan that's going to be
doing it or someone else, feeling he was not qualified
by himself now to do that type of work.
Mr. Geller stated that he was not here on a marketing
effort, he was saying that everyone is discussing a lot
of things and we don't have any information to make a
determination, do we even need a road there, is a road
really necessary past there. Before we get into
whether we need a specific alignment, we should
determine what the number is saying in terms of whether
we need the road to go through. He stated that is all
he was saying, he wasn't up here trying to get a second
amendment to his contract.
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 53
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen pointed out that one of the
things that was done wrong in the beginning by using
procedures set forth by other cities throughout the
Inland Empire and throughout Southern California. She
felt what is being done now should have been done in the
beginning and that is consulting with the Consultant so
that he understood what we wanted and we understood what
he thought was best, then we get to the end and had a
plan that we all didn't argue over and we could live
with. She stated that she understood that most other
cities have a citizen's committee who works with the
Planning Commission, Council and Consultant to iron all
of this stuff out and then they bring a plan, feeling
this could have been avoided had there been adequate
input from the very beginning and not at the tail end of
the process.
Mayor Matteson stated that they brought us a good plan
and felt it was a good layout for the City of Grand
Terrace without the politics involved in it. Then after
they get here they find out that all of the politics are
involved and the plan goes out the window. He felt it
was Council's fault that the plan is not working and
that a lot of money has been wasted because Council is
not doing what it was recommended to do.
Councilmember Evans asked if it's politics why didn't
you endorse this plan?
Mayor Matteson replied, he did, he likes this plan, but
it's the politics that make the changes.
Motion CC-88-144 carried 4-1 (Councilmember Evans voted
NOE), to extend that road down to Van Buren.
Michigan Mr. Geller stated there was no change on Michigan, that
was a misconception throughout all the hearing process,
as Michigan exists on the General Plan is the way that
we are proposing unless the Council wants to make a
change to it.
Councilmember Evans asked for clarification, indicating
that land use has changed, you say that trip generations
are going to change and now you are saying that DeBerry
north along Michigan will be a 4-lane roadway, but you
are going to remain with what's in this document today.
Mr. Geller said he didn't say that. Councilmember Evans
stated he was trying to get clear on what you are
saying.
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 54
Mr. Geller said that he was saying that the entire
length of Michigan for the most part except for DeBerry
has not changed from the last General Plan to that one,
that is the only point he wanted to make.
Community Development Director Sawyer explained that
north of DeBerry, the current General Plan proposal is
for a secondary highway which is 88 to 64 and south of
DeBerry up to Michigan Street and is proposed for the
collector street which is the 66/44 rationale. He
stated that the current General Plan calls for it to be
a secondary highway for the entire length of ....
Councilmember Evans asked if that was what he was saying
that it will be or should be?
Community Development Director Sawyer explained that the
proposed General Plan, which is what we had up until
right now and the changes, we were saying that it can be
reduced down to the collector ....
Councilmember Evans stated given the business park, but
now we have changed the land use and what I've heard
them say, just on Commerce Way they can't say what they
should do or what the width should be until they start
penciling out numbers. He stated he has a hard time
saying you can keep from DeBerry south to lowest.
Community Development Director Sawyer felt they were
going to say that the same situation applies, and that
previous to these land changes this is what the
proposals were, indicating never proposing that it be
widened, but actually proposed that it be reduced. He
stated now that recommendation is no longer valid
because we've changed it and they haven't had the
opportunity to analyze the changes.
Councilmember Evans stated that he is coming back to
what he said earlier, 1975 it said 4 lanes, 1984 it says
4 lanes and now we come to 1988, he had a hard time
understanding how they can reduce it, is it because of
the ....
Community Development Director Sawyer replied they could
reduce it because they had re -designed Commerce Way to
accept that traffic and take it off of Michigan Street,
but that no longer is happening and they now cannot make
a recommendation as to Michigan.
Councilmember Evans stated that Commerce Way was also
reflected in the previous plans which had the same
traffic, indicating that is his quandry.
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 55
Mayor Matteson stated he did not see how we can make
any changes on that until we find out what is going to
be happening and we have to get that information, so
it's no use carrying the circulation plan until we get
the information that we need. 0
Community Development Director Sawyer felt we need to
define what that information is that you want to get
from them also. Mayor Matteson stated what the
requirements would be for that street.
Community Development Director Sawyer stated we need to
have them re -analyze the land use changes we made
tonight throughout motions and then determine what the
width of the street should be according to those?
Mayor Matteson replied, right, but if you said we have
run out of our contract, we would need ....
City Manager Schwab felt we need to sit down with the
Consultant to develop what they would recommend for us
to do at this point as far as what additional studies
should be made; how much that would cost; and bring
that back to Council for you to decide where you want
to go, indicating feeling that decision could be made
tonight because we don't know what we want and what it
is going to cost, and if Council will allow staff to go
back to the table we could come back with something for
Council.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen felt that at least now we
can start the process properly and it maybe a time now
that the Planning Commission and the Council may want
to sit down and say, okay, this is what we are looking
at, so that we are giving them something to work with.
She asked the Consultant if he was saying he needs some
specific directions from Council as to what we perceive
as that use?
Mayor Matteson inquired about the time element on the
zone change, indicating that the Community Development
Director could proceed with that even though we don't
have the circulation.
Community Development Director Sawyer replied he did
not feel we should proceed because part of the analysis
is that we are going to ask them is whether or not the
environmental impact report is still valid and because
a lot of that hinges on the traffic analysis. He
stated we really can't approve the General Plan as a
document or a map until that environmental impact
report has been certified by Council and until that
happens we can't change the zoning.
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 56
Mr. Green asked since additional studies are to be made
in that area what happens if a person should go in to
get a permit to make improvements, what would they be
told.
Mayor Matteson explained that right now we still have a
moratorium on that. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated
only on residential. Mayor Matteson asked if this was
commercial property? The response was light
industrial.
Mayor Matteson stated that until we adopt a General
Plan we are still working under the old General Plan.
Mr. Green asked if the old General Plan had any street
designation whatsoever, stating, there is no time table
at this time pending a study.
Mr. Geller stated that he could not see any reason why
they couldn't be back here, not at the next Council
meeting, but certainly the next one after that if they
could work out all of the details, indicating not
talking about another six months effort in terms of
studying this. It would be the highest priority to
come back understanding that a lot of these issues are
unresolved and understanding that we have some momentum
to finish it up.
Councilmember Evans stated hopefully the General Plan
will be worked out in the next month to month in a
half, and when the Community Development Director came
on over a year ago, he took a look at our Zoning
Ordinance and expressed his opinion that there needs to
be a lot of work done, indicating his concern is, once
this document has its official approval, then the
current Zoning Code would govern development. He did
not want to have to wait another year or year and a
half before a Zoning Code comes in here that possibly
needs to be in place to take care of what we would like
to see with this land use. He asked the Community
Development Director if he had been working on that
code and had an estimated time where Council could see
it so it can almost come together synonymously.
Community Development Director Sawyer replied, no, he
had not been working on the Zoning Ordinance in that
manner, but anticipated that once the General Plan was
done, his time could be diverted to the Specific Plan
that we are talking about and the revision of the
Zoning Code. He explained they would first attack the
Map which would be a fairly short turn around time so
that our Zoning Map would be consistent with the
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 57
General Plan Map, and then we will start going through
the process, basically, one or two chapters at a time
through the Zoning Ordinance process, taking which ones
they felt had the highest priority.
Councilmember Evans stated that was attempted in 1986
and for whatever the reason, nothing materialized. He
asked how long was it going to take before Council
could see this.
Community Development Director Sawyer replied if we
finish the General Plan up in August, we can finish the
Zoning Map perhaps in August or September and in
October would be the earliest Council would see
sections of the Zoning Ordinance after it has gone
through the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Evans asked if he was saying we will
start workshops or you will present to us your
recommendation for the Zoning Code.
Community Development Director Sawyer replied on the
rough time schedule he was explaining, he hoped to have
public hearings sometime in October for the first
portion of the Zoning Code that we would be looking
at.
Councilmember Evans stated his concern is that it be
done in a timely fashion because of an issue that came
up on apartments, indicating that in 1984 the previous
Council said that apartments could be built there and
then when the developers came in meeting all of the
rules and regulations that had been laid down, they
started changing the rules in the middle of the game
and wanted to have them do things that the Code said
that they didn't have to do and if we are going to
impose conditions, he wanted it in black and white in
that Code so that they know f rom the very start that
this is what is going to be expected of them and they
will not have to be faced with it when it comes for
approval. Therefore, he felt it is very timely that
that is in shape so it can be reviewed very quickly.
Council Minutes - 06/23/88
Page 58
Mayor Matteson
until the next
will be held on
134"� f I :�
MAYOR�bf the City of Grand Terrace
adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m.
adjourned City Council meeting which
Monday, June 27, 1988 at 6:00 p.m.
D Y CI C o the City
o Grand Terrace
Council Minutes - 06/23/88