Loading...
10/13/1988CITY COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - OCTOBER 13, 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 October 13, 1988, at 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: Byron Matteson, Mayor Barbara Pfennighausen, Mayor Pro Tem Hugh J. Grant, Councilmember Dennis Evans, Councilmember Jim Singley, Councilmember Thomas J. Schwab, City Manager/Finance Director Randy Anstine, Assistant City Manager David Sawyer, Community Development Director Juanita Brown, Deputy City Clerk John Harper, City Attorney Joe Kicak, City Engineer ABSENT: None. The meeting was opened with invocation by Pastor Salim Elias, Azure Hills Seventh Day Adventist Church, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilmember Grant. Deputy City Clerk swore in Jim Singley as the new Councilmember. Mayor Matteson reconvened City Council at 6:10 p.m. ITEMS TO DELETE None. SPECIAL PRESENTATION Mayor Matteson read a Certificate of Service to outgoing Councilmember Susan Shirley. CONSENT CALENDAR CC-88-190 MOTION BY MAYOR MATTESON, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER GRANT, CARRIED 4-0 (MAYOR PRO TEM PFENNIGHAUSEN BEING ABSENT ON THE VOTE), to approve the remainder of the Consent Calendar with the removal of Item A -- Check Register No. 101388. B. RATIFY 19/13/88 CRA ACTION C. WAIVE FULL READING OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS ON AGENDA D. APPROVE SEPTEMBER 22, 1988 MINUTES ITEM REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR DISCUSSION Councilmember Evans indicated Item P, Page 2, P5871 -- (expenditures for Mr. Roberts on the parkland) wanted that reflected with individual vote. CC-88-191 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER EVANS, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER GRANT, CARRIED 4-0 (MAYOR PRO TEM PFENNIGHAUSEN BEING ABSENT ON THE VOTE), to approve the remainder of the Check Register. CC-88-192 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GRANT, SECOND BY MAYOR MATTESON, CARRIED 3-1-0 (COUNCILMEMBER EVANS VOTING NOE AND MAYOR PRO TEM PFENNIGHAUSEN BEING ABSENT ON THE VOTE), to approve Check Register No. 101388. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ORAL REPORTS NEW BUSINESS Dick Rollins, 22700 De Berry Street, G.T., had questions regarding placement of campaign and election signs on private property; getting permission from property owners and the removal of signs from property. City Attorney Harper replied all that is required is the permission of the property owner. 5B. Council Reports Councilmember Grant reported on his attendance to the County Transportation Commission SANBAG meeting last week. Mayor Matteson reported that at the last League of California Cities, he was elected the new Vice President of the League. 8A. Schedule Council Meetings for November and December Council Minutes - 10/13/88 Page 2 After discussion, it was decided that the regular meeting in November will be held on November 17, 1988 and, if election results are received from the County, a special meeting will be held on November 30, 1988, for the purpose of a swearing -in ceremony only. Meetings in December will be held on December 8 and December 29, 1988. 8B. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace designating "NO Parking' on Terrace Pines Drive, Aspen Circle and Britton Way. City Manager read his Staff Report regarding "No On -street Parking" within Terrace Pines. Staff recommends making Britton Way "No Parking" on both sides. After a lengthy discussion regarding parking within the Terrace Pines area, it was decided that Britton Way would be posted "NO Parking." CC-88-193 MOTION BY MAYOR MATTESON, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER GRANT, to restrict parking on Britton Way and the other streets stay the same as they are. Councilmember Evans questioned the current requirement on a multi -family development? Planning Director Sawyer read the requirements, explaining that this was adopted in April 1986. He indicated that this project was approved prior to this and was not sure if the current project meets this particular Code requirement or not. Councilmember Evans questioned the requirements for single-family residential? Community Development Director Sawyer read the requirements. Motion CC-88-193 Carried 4-1 (With Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen voting NOE). 8C. Rollback of Business License Fees City Manager Schwab explained Proposition 62 requirements, explaining that the City Attorney wished to address the possibility of parts of Proposition 62 being unconstitutional. Council Minutes - 10/13/88 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING 6A. Council Minutes - 10/13/88 Page 4 City Attorney Harper informed Council that there is case law which makes Proposition 62 unconstitutional. Therefore, he felt that it was unnecessary to rollback business license fees and advised that no action is required on this item. General Plan Update - Preliminary Alignment of Commerce Way. Community Development Director Sawyer explained that at the last meeting Council directed Staff to come back with a couple of alternatives for Commerce Way Alignment. He indicated on the map action that has been taken so far. Michael Atencio, Environmental Planning System, explained that he was representing Mr. Jim Coffin who felt if Council takes action tonight with Alternative One, he would like to proceed on to the Planning Commission and City Council for approval on this particular project. He pointed out Mr. Coffins' parcel on the map, explaining that the application was submitted in February and that the project had been discontinued until this can be resolved. Councilmember Singley questioned why Alternatives 1 and 2 played a part in his employer's decision since there is already a street on Commerce Way. Michael Atencio, explained that the amount of dedication that would be required, feeling that Alternative 2 would take further study. Alternative 1, as it widens out does not impact Mr. Coffin's property; the widening of the street occurs further to the south. Councilmember Singley asked, if Council decided to take no action on this tonight, was his employer going to continue? Michael Atencio, replied no, they will continue to work with Council, but they would like to get an action as soon as possible so they could continue with it. Councilmember Evans asked what difference it makes if he proceeds or not based on Council's action this evening. Michael Atencio, explained that they could not proceed to the Planning Commission because the existing General Plan requires a certain width dedication. The new General Plan identifies it as a secondary highway. For them to keep it as it is will mean a conflict of the new General Plan which is why we have not taken an action on it. Councilmember Evans stated for purpose of clarification for the City Attorney, the current General Plan which governs the development in the community designates Commerce Way as a secondary highway which is 4-lanes, 64 ft. curb -to -curb, with a 88 ft. of right-of-way. He explained the reason for starting it at 60 was because that area was industrial and when they changed all of that area to Commercial, it changes the street width. It was felt that it would be ridiculous to now impose a 4 ft. additional width for that extension from where it dead ends at DeBerry. He questioned, if he were to proceed with a project to the Planning Commission stage, could he come in in light of the past discussion and get the 60 ft. width? City Attorney Harper replied that the Planning Commission has to require what the Code requires and, if Council wishes to make a decision that that type of width is appropriate, we have to do that.... Councilmember Evans stated, if Mr. Coffin's project meets approval of the Planning Commission, couldn't he just appeal it to the City Council for that one condition; asking if the City Attorney would have any problems with that. City Attorney Harper explained that Council is in the same position as the Planning Commission. Council cannot approve a project that is in conflict with the General Plan and that would be. He stated that normally in cases like this the General Plan Amendment and the project is processed at the same time, indicating in that case, that the Planning Commission and the Council can take one action on the project. Councilmember Evans felt Council has worked themselves into a corner, they say it has to be a 4-lane roadway and, if we follow your scenario, that 60 ft. is never going to meet the criteria. He's going to be required, using your scenario, to tear out 2 ft. of the curb, move it back and put in new curb and gutter at the 64 ft. width. Council Minutes - 10/13/88 Page 5 City Attorney Harper felt that's not quite the same thing, explaining that Council will still have to require dedications. He stated that he was not sure what the specifics of the Code are, but felt it wouldn't necessarily preclude the approval of a project which has a street when built out, not taking up all of the right-of-way. He stated Mr. Coffin will still have to dedicate it, indicating not knowing what impact that would have on the project. He stated Council can approve a project that is built in a public right-of-way with the applicant recognizing that, at that point in time when the street is widened, the curb and gutter comes out. He stated the down side of it is that when all of the calculations, terms of set backs and everything else, have to come from the right-of-way as opposed to where the curbs are. Councilmember Evans explained that Mr. Coffin's project has incurred the same problems as the Victor Construction Project, indicating that is what brought out this alignment that we are looking at as Alternative 2. He felt it was foolish of this City to start bickering over something like this and preventing this gentleman from proceeding through with his project at least from where it dead ends to De Berry. City Attorney Harper stated there lies the problem; it is up to the applicant to take a certain amount of risk of potentially having curb gutter and sidewalks ripped out and moved back and calculate setbacks and everything else from the real right-of-way. He stated he did not know what the footprint of the project is on the lot .... Community Development Director Sawyer stated that the footprint doesn't allow them to go forward with the parking alignment meeting that width requirement that is being talked about. Michael Atencio, stated it has been continued at Staffs level because the Conditions of Approval have indicated that to dedicate an additional 8 ft. along the frontages of the subject parcel to provide for a 44 half right-of-way on Commerce Way. He stated an additional 8 ft. wipes out the project all along the entire parcel which is why they would like to have a understanding at this time and then proceed, indicating a significant cost involved in terms of processing the plans. Council Minutes - 10/13/88 Page 6 Mayor Matteson asked if four -lanes are possible without parking on the side and what is the normal street width? City Engineer Kicak replied, it is possible you would end up with four-15 ft. lanes, two-15 ft. in each direction, adequate without median and without parking. The normal residential street width is generally considered 12 to 13 feet, 12 ft. is adequate. City Attorney Harper felt that during the process of updating the Circulation Element, Council is going to take action on the EIR, Circulation and based on the input, felt all that needed to be done is to not designate Commerce Way as a secondary arterial. He felt certain things Council wanted to accomplish could be added during the circulation element and that would be the only action that needed to be taken. Councilmember Evans asked how do you get around what the Consultant said, based on the land use, that there has to be a secondary highway? City Attorney Harper explained that it is the Council's decision and not the Consultant. Council should solicit professional opinions, weigh them with all of the other input and then make a decision with findings that support Council's reality. Councilmember Evans felt City Attorney Harper was saying that Council should at the next meeting, say Commerce Way will not be a secondary highway, but it will then be able to be developed as a 64 ft. right-of-way.... City Engineer Kicak explained there is a 80 ft. right-of-way, 60 ft. between curbs and the street with that parking can function exactly as the secondary highway from a traffic standpoint. Eliminating parking, you have four -lanes, two in each direction for carrying the traffic, but you have to recognize that that is what you are going to have to do, at least, eliminate parking on one side. Councilmember Evans stated he just wanted to help this gentleman get his project going. Council Minutes - 10/13/88 Page 7 City Attorney Harper explained if Council did as City Engineer Kicak suggested, to eliminate parking on one side of the street then you aren't disagreeing with the recommendation of the Consultant from a secondary arterial and at the same time, are accomplishing what Council recognizes as a reality. Councilmember Evans questioned the affect the motion passed by Council on June 23, 1988 had on Mr. Coffin's project. The motion was that there would be 60 ft. from where Commerce Way dead ends to DeBerry. City Attorney Harper explained that the motion which supersedes all of the rest of the zoning business is that of the General Plan. Projects and actions which are inconsistent with the General Plan are void. What Council needs to do is amend the General Plan to reflect what they want to happen on Commerce Way. Community Development Director Sawyer for clarification stated on June 23, 1988, Council took the action to designate in the General Plan, Commerce Way 72 ft. all the way to Michigan Street to Van Buren with that curb to curb required distance to be 60 ft. to DeBerry, and then the normal 62 ft. from DeBerry on to Van Buren. He explained this was done in order to deal with this specific project, questioning the legality and, if that is, it seems like we've already solved the problem? City Attorney Harper, you have accepted that the General Plan requires dedication wider than that, that was the distinction I was trying to make. Dedication and where improvements go are not necessarily the same thing. Community Development Director Sawyer replied that the dedication width Council required was 72 ft. in the motion they made. City Attorney Harper explained that the dedication width has to be consistent with the General Plan. Community Development Director Sawyer replied that is what they are doing, they are making that amendment to the General Plan in that motion. Council Minutes - 10/13/88 Page 8 City Attorney Harper indicated, not knowing what the item was, stated you can't amend a General Plan by making a motion. Community Development Director Sawyer stated it was all part of these hearings. City Attorney Harper stated you haven't taken final action on it so it will be incorporated in the circulation element and function as a consequence that will no longer be a secondary arterial. Councilmember Evans indicated Page 44 of June 23, 1988 Minutes. 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, 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. City Attorney Harper stated what will happen is that will be reflected in the Circulation Element, which is what you are going to adopt next meeting. The motion was essentially directory and it said amend the General Plan in this way, but you don't actually amend the General Plan until you take action on the circulation element. Community Development Director Sawyer explained that is why none of the motions we've taken to date are in affect as Staff explained to you last time; that we need to wrap these up and come back to Council with that final motion Ordinance amending all of the decisions formally that we've made step-by-step along the way. City Attorney Harper stated, to answer your question, Council has clearly expressed their intent and that in turn he gathered it will be reflected in the Circulation Element which Council will adopt unless you choose to adopt some other alignment and make some other rules tonight. If you don't, it sounds like Mr. Atencio's problem is not a problem. Mayor Matteson stated that Council had agreed on the width factor, indicating the problem was the length, where do we stop it. Council Minutes - 10/13/88 Page 9 Councilmember Singley, stated that he understand that the property L.J. Snow Ford is interested in would be part of Commerce Way, indicating there has been no formulation of any plan or presentation being planned by L.J. Snow Ford to the Council on what their plans are for that property. He felt it was premature to consider any alternatives until we have something from them. He believed there is a planning requirement that we make plans for the future, indicating not understanding the urgency of adopting Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 tonight without some type of formal or informal presentation from L.J. Snow Ford about what they plan to do with Commerce Way. He felt we are going to have to change the General Plan when they do make a recommendation. City Manager Schwab explained what is being done now is trying to wrap up the General Plan. When L.J. Snow Ford comes in with their proposal, Staff's anticipating that along with the development, to bring back the General Plan Amendment to amend the Circulation Element in that area. He felt, if we don't do anything, the General Plan is just going to be in limbo. One of the stipulations in our agreement with L.J. Snow Ford was that that road be allowed to be a frontage road. He stated that when the deal comes together, if Ford grants it's approval, the City has already by agreement said they would allow this frontage road or the deal won't go, indicating taking that into consideration when that project comes before the Council and we are planning that right now as an overall plan for this area. If Ford says we can put a dealership here, then we are going to deal with that, but right now this plan is for the City and this area and it doesn't include L.J. Snow Ford. When L.J. Snow Ford becomes a reality, then we will work with that issue which may change both of these alternatives to be incorrect. Councilmember Singley stated, basically, what you are telling me is what we decide here really doesn't matter. City Manager Schwab replied it does matter; our deal with L.J. Ford is not 100 percent. When you look at this issue and pretend that's a done deal, then you are going to bend the road and, if that doesn't come through, then we have a configuration that may not be the optimal configuration without their project. With their project we are willing Council Minutes - 10/13/88 Page 10 to work with that frontage road and, if that project doesn't come to fruition, we probably will not want that alternative. Councilmember Singley agreed Council should not hold up any plans or any future project because of one possible project, but felt Mr. Atencio's project could be affected by L.J. Snow Ford. City Manager Schwab explained that Mr. Coffin's project is further up the street and the alignment of Commerce Way as a frontage road would not affect him at all. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated that after Orco Tool built their project, it was brought to Council's attention the impact the widening would cause. She indicated a need for flexibility regarding curbs and right-of-ways, feeling it has been a problem with commercial development all along. City Attorney Harper felt the problem was solved by the June 23, 1988, motion which will be reflected in the Circulation Element, which is Alternative 2. City Engineer Kicak did not feel the motion had any reflection on the alignment; it is strictly on the roadway. Councilmember Evans stated that the motion reflected as to the Consultant's recommendation which is Alternative 2. The response was you are correct. Mayor Matteson felt Council should deal with how far they want that road to go. Councilmember Grant supported Alternative 1 because he felt a frontage road was going to be more conducive to business establishments, as opposed to Alternative 2, which is going to be closer to residential areas. He felt Michigan should be left alone because, if the people use the frontage road to patronize the commercial establishments, that will take the impact off of Michigan. Councilmember Evans was opposed to Alternative 1 because of the visibility from the freeway of seeing any of the businesses as possibly built south of DeBerry; the trough you go in to the freeway; and you cross under a couple of railroad Council Minutes - 10/13/88 Page 11 bridges and don't come out of that until you are passing what would be the extension of Deberry if it were to cross over the freeway. Then, you have the canal and the topography of the land being approximately 100 yards further east from the freeway. He felt tall signs would be required in order to be seen from the freeway. He supported Alternative 2 because of the best configuration of utilizing the land for any development in that area. He asked Councilmember Grant to justify his decision. Councilmember Grant used the comparison of what had been done along the Redlands corridor and other areas, which is to move earth from one point to another point to heighten the area and level it, feeling that is what any developer who is investing the kind of funds will do. He felt to some extent this will have to be done with Alternative 2; also, feeling they were splitting hairs on this kind of thing to justify not using Alternative 1. Councilmember Singley indicating supporting Alternative 2 because it allows more diverse use of the land; more different businesses can be on both sides and alleviate traffic on Michigan. He felt a need to decide how far the road will extend. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated that Alternative 1 bisects Pico Park, feeling that either Edison is going to have to develop something on that property and the City is going to make them put a road in or the City is going to condemn the property and the City build a road, stating that other than those two alternatives, you have a paper road. MOTION BY MAYOR MATTESON, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER GRANT, to accept Alternative 1 and stop the road at Van Buren. Councilmember Grant questioned the rationale for stopping at Van Buren. Mayor Matteson stated he felt Council was not not going to agree on running that street all the way through. If we get a piece of it and this area does run along the freeway, it will be beneficial to any business going in there. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen explained Alternative 1 was proposed the same way in the last General Plan, pointing out that's already existing, and Council did not have to do anything about that. Council Minutes - 10/13/88 Page 12 Councilmember Grant believed that was Alternative 2 in the last General Plan. Councilmember Evans replied that Alternative 1 is what is existing in the current General Plan. City Engineer Kicak explained that in the current General Plan Alternative 1 goes all the way to Main Street. Mayor Matteson withdrew his motion and the second concurred. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen, for clarification, stated that she understood that in the old General Plan at Pico went in and used Taylor Street and did not continue down the east side of the railroad tracks as this has indicated. Community Development Director Sawyer stated that Van Buren in the existing General Plan goes directly south then hooks up to Taylor Street. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated that is not what Alternative 1 is showing; it is showing Taylor Street is going to be on the other side of the tracks and we are going to have a 4-lane paper road on the east side of the tracks. Mayor Matteson stated, unless someone has a motion to change it, the discussion will end and it will remain the same. Councilmember Evans stated that the Consultant recommended Alternative 2. He indicated having some concerns as to the east/west streets (Van Buren, DeBerry and Pico), questioning if they were to remain as collector 2-lanes, or are they going to have to be 4-lanes as it currently sits in our General Plan. Community Development Director Sawyer explained that the traffic analysis which the Consultants brought back to the last meeting did not indicate there would be any need to change the east/west streets. They did indicate that if Commerce Way did no longer go all the way to Main Street, we will have to take another look at their recommendation for Michigan Street. Council Minutes - 10/13/88 Page 13 Councilmember Evans felt it would become academic if L.J. Snow Ford becomes a reality because of the alignment. He stated he opposed Alternative 1 because, if developments were to go into that area, it is not the best utilization for that whole area on access. CC-88-194 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SINGLEY, to consider Alternative 2 be extended to Pico and no further. Motion CC-88-194 died for lack of a second. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked if he was suggesting going through Pico Park? Councilmember Singley replied, yes. He could not see any reason not to take a road through the park. He opposed the extension of Alternative 2 to Main Street because it makes one individual's property almost worthless. Councilmember Evans explained that on the Staff Report Commerce Way only extends to Pico, Van Buren and DeBerry. Michigan Street from Main Street must be upgraded from a collector street to a secondary highway. Councilmember Singley asked whether it was a requirement that those streets have to be widened if it doesn't go? City Engineer Kicak explained that the only time a developer can be required to widen a street is when he proposes a project in the area and unless there is a project or the City wishes to construct those facilities, it's going to be a paper street. Mayor Matteson stated, unless we get a motion to change it, it will remain the same as it is under the old General Plan. City Attorney Harper explained that what Council's motion does is direct Staff and the Consultant to reflect the existing General Plan Alignment in the Circulation Element. Councilmember Evans, for clarification, asked if Michigan Street would remain a 2-lane street or a 4-lane street, feeling a need for some decision. Council Minutes - 10/13/88 Page 14 Community Development Director Sawyer replied, if it comes through and we go with the Consultant's recommendation. Right now, Council does not have a motion to change anything in the Circulation Element. He explained that the Consultant has indicated that if you go to Main Street with a street, either alignment, you can have Michigan Street as a collector 2-lane road. If you do not go to Main Street, then at that time it will need to be a 4-lane street and you go back to the existing General Plan. Councilmember Grant concurred with Councilmember Evans. Community Development Director Sawyer indicated that perhaps a motion that would clarify it may read to accept the existing General Plan Circulation Element for Commerce Way as it now stands, accept as amended by previous motion for 60 to 62 ft. and take the Consultant's recommendation for Michigan Street designating it as a collector street. CC-88-195 MOTION BY MAYOR MATTESON, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER GRANT, to accept the existing General Plan Circulation Element for Commerce Way as it now stands, accept as amended by previous motion for 60 to 62 ft. and take the Consultant's recommendation for Michigan Street designating it as a collector street. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen explained what has been done on a piece of paper that theoretically will move the traffic out of a commercial area, but in reality that traffic will still move along Michigan being 2 or 4 lanes. She felt it was a cop-out by Council to sit here and draw a road on paper out of a commercial area knowing it is going to have a high traffic impact. Mayor Matteson felt the first thing you have to do is put the plan on paper and then it is up to Council to make sure it happens. Councilmember Grant concurred with Mayor Matteson, stating that the whole idea is to relieve the traffic on Michigan and the only way to do that is to make a road all the way down so that the people can get out of the City after frequenting the established businesses along there. He stated that no one is suggesting Michigan be a 4-lane street and no one is suggesting that Commerce Way never be constructed so that the 2-lanes would be congested. Council Minutes - 10/13/88 Page 15 Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated that unless Council makes a commitment to proceed with eminent domain condemnation across all of the properties south of Van Buren in order to construct that road, it still remains a paper road. Motion CC-88-195 failed 3-2 (With Councilmember Evans, Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen and Councilmember Singley voting NOE). Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked City Attorney Harper what the procedure would be and what it would cost the City if they were to take eminent domain proceedings against Southern California Edison Company for the right-of-way of that road? City Attorney Harper replied that the first thing would be through an eminent domain process which is getting an appraisal, making a fair market value assessment and offer. Under the assumption there isn't any settlement filing condemnation action, the cost of doing that, if you assume a trial, the outside cost is approximately $10,000.00 to $15,000.00 plus the cost of the property. Councilmember Singley stated that he was not in favor of making Michigan a 4-lane street, feeling it is best to provide the best alternative, his question was did it stop at Pico or Van Buren, indicating that his motion died for lack of a second. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SINGLEY, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM PFENNIGHAUSEN, that Alternative 2 be accepted and terminated at Van Buren. Councilmember Evans pointed out that it still comes back to what the Consultant says, if it terminates at Van Buren what is it going to do to Michigan? Councilmember Singley asked what would happen if you took Alternative 2 to Van Buren and then took Alternative 1 from Van Buren to Main Street? After discussion of above motion, Councilmember Singley revised his motion. CC-88-196 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SINGLEY, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER GRANT, to take Alternative 2 to Van Buren and take Alternative 1 from Van Buren to Main Street? Council Minutes - 10/13/88 Page 16 Councilmember Evans asked Councilmember Singley to explain what he meant. Councilmember Singley explained he was suggesting that, in order to relieve the traffic off of Michigan, to extend Commerce Way to Van Buren using Alternate 2; from Commerce Way west on Van Buren, to Alternative 1, you can use that as a main road and Alternative 1 to Main as stated. Councilmember Grant explained his second was to achieve what he had hoped Council would achieve with his only reservation being the removal of the frontage road concept north of Van Buren. Mayor Matteson asked City Engineer Kicak his feelings regarding the continuity of that? City Engineer Kicak felt it is desirable to have a continuous roadway especially when it serves as either a collector or arterial. Councilmember Evans asked if Van Buren was to be made a 4-lane street for that stretch? Community Development Director Sawyer indicated he was not qualified to answer that, but felt a need for consistency. He indicated his only question is, as a driver going down Commerce Way, what would make him turn right and down Taylor Street instead of turning left going down Michigan Street to a future area of Highgrove? Councilmember Singley suggested limiting Michigan to a 2-lane street. Motion CC-88-196 failed (With Councilmembers Grant and Singley voting AYE), to take Alternative 2 to Van Buren and take Alternative 1 from Van Buren to Main Street? Community Development Director Sawyer suggested that another alternative would be to pull that portion out of the General Plan and move forward with the rest of the land -use decisions. City Attorney Harper felt there might be some real difficulties from the legal prospective of adopting partial General Plan's because the absence of even the small elements validates under some courts decisions on the remainder of the General Plan, if that is what the Community Development Director was suggesting. Council Minutes - 10/13/88 Page 17 Community Development Director Sawyer explained he was suggesting to pull the Circulation Element out, act on the remainder of the General Plan with us still working on the Circulation Element. City Attorney Harper stated, if there is a way of avoiding that, we are significantly better off by not doing that. Community Development Director Sawyer asked Council to give Staff direction? Mayor Matteson stated the only thing is if Council doesn't approve a change, it remains the same as the previous General Plan, so proceed with it as the last General Plan. Community Development Director Sawyer stated that he will come back to Council at the next meeting with appropriate documents to finish up the General Plan with the Circulation Element being as it is in the existing General Plan. Richard Siegmund, Siegmund & Associates, indicated having a future project coming up in Grand Terrace and addressed the cul-de-sac in the Community Plan being a 60 ft. right-of-way, indicating most cities are using a 50 ft. right-of-way. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen inquired as to what cul-de-sac he was talking about? Community Development Director Sawyer explained this was the result of an application for a subdivision along Michigan Street, subdividing a long narrow piece of property. He explained the current requirement for a 60 ft. cul-de-sac width would prohibit the project without some substantial variances being granted and from that discussion came the 50 ft. wide requirement of several other communities. Richard Siegmund, stated anything of that nature would have to be applied for in a variance. Mayor Matteson asked if he meant to change the whole General Plan to 50 ft. Richard Siegmund, stated he was suggesting that because he worked out here 30 years ago and remembered some of the projects we put on at that time were under the County standards and those right-of-ways were 50 ft. It doesn't change your Council Minutes - 10/13/88 Page 18 curb separation, your sidewalk is back to curb, all you are doing is taking additional right-of-way. It doesn't affect the circulation of the street or the use of the street. He felt that on those difficult pieces of property it would give you a better latitude of not having to go to variances. My question is why 60 ft. is being used here when most of the other agencies are using 50 ft. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated variance is not the proper procedure as it requires a general Plan Amendment and you have to file for that. City Attorney Harper, you can't grant a variance, it's inconsistent with the General Plan. I don't know enough about the specifics of that project, but if it were.... I think he is talking generally, not about his project. Community Development Director Sawyer explained he's saying to allow 50 ft. right-of-ways for cul-de-sac streets less than 600 ft. The variance that was alluded to was with that wider street he would have to have a variance for narrower lots than would be normally required. The variance wouldn't be on the street width, it would be on the lot depths. Councilmember Evans explained that his NOE vote takes a position that he feels this City needs good planning, good circulation and you don't take bandaid approaches. He listed some of the things this City tried to get in the past such as a mall and a sports arena. He pointed out that the whole southwest side of town has been planned general commercial, feeling that is where the problems come into being and explained how to stop this. He explained that it is not that he wants to see Michigan as 4-lanes and will not support a 4-lane roadway. He felt if we had gone with Parks and Recreation recommendations for 10 acres that would have been purchased over there. He shared his feelings regarding Grand Terrace Elementary School due to student safety, as well as growth potential, feeling a need to relocated off of Barton Road onto another area of the City and it is something that this community needs to work toward. He explained that all of these things go into decreasing traffic generations in this community as it relates to the southwest side of town. He felt that with our park there and a possible potential school site there, it decreases a lot of development. Council Minutes - 10/13/88 Page 19 8D. Request by Councilmember Grant to consider rescinding parking permit granted to Mr. Welsher on August 11, 1988. City Manager Schwab explained that Staff was requested by one of the Councilmembers to place the item of Mr. Welsher's parking permit on the Agenda for reconsideration. Councilmember Grant explained that on August 11, 1988, Council on a 3-2 vote acted to authorize the issuance of a parking permit for a period of one year to Mr. Scott Welsher for his truck. He stated he had one specific question that the information to answer that question was not available to him the night that the decision was made. It was revealed to him several weeks later and had he known it, he might not have voted the way he did, but at this point in time I'm still not prepared to modify anything until I hear some more information and I'm going to ask people in the audience if they have anything to say on this issue. The reason I brought it to the attention of the City Manager is that apparently the Roberts Rules of Order states that only those individuals voting in favor of an issue that was passed can bring it back before the Council for further consideration. We had testimonies from a variety of individuals and the primary tangible evidence that we reviewed were photographs. He stated, even though these Minutes were very brief and do not reveal everything that was said, the video and audio tapes in regards to this issue certainly reveal everything that was said. For those of you who are here and can remember, I did indicate that the action on my part was a action of compassion. I felt that law should be followed, law should be enforced, but law should also be tangible for the purposes of complying with real -life situations and, for that reason, I indicated my feelings based on what he felt was a act of compassion based on what I had learned that night dealing with a problem of an individual in regards to the support of his family. It may be and, I want to confirm this tonight, that that particular issue has now changed to a certain degree and perhaps to a degree which I may be requesting that we recind the action before us. He welcomed comments from the audience explaining, that after the audience comments, he will share his feelings and make a motion. Council Minutes - 10/13/88 Page 20 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Christina Dahlbeck, 22843 La Paix, G.T., stated that she just heard of this situation. She reported that she works for the Department of Motor Vehicles in San Bernardino with vehicle registrations. She is opposed to this parking permit, stating that Mrs. Ortiz came to her to run a Vehicle Registration request, which is legal. She explained that no California registered vehicle may remain on the street without a sticker or license for more than two days. While doing the request, she found that this vehicle on a plate had been expired since December 1987 with fees posted in June 1988 and Heavy Weight Used Tax of $1,400 has not been paid to the IRS; fees from this vehicle is not distributed in the San Bernardino County and the vehicle does not belong to Mr. Welsher, it belongs to a company. She reported on seeing many accidents caused by big trailer trucks because their brakes are not locked properly and feared for children as well as homes' safety by being parked in a residential area. She stated the trailer is registered, but the tractor that pulls the trailer is not and shouldn't be on the road without a Four Thousand A Ticket which is expired registration. She stated he said it cost $550.00 a month to park his rig in Fontana, but it only cost $50.00 a month, $600.00 a year. Scott Welsher, 22245 Lark, G.T., stated that his truck has a temporary license on it and it is legal; felt Mrs. Dahlbeck had done her job well, but it didn't have any bearing on this matter, the matter is truck parking and it did not matter what he hauled or when he hauled. He reported that he has gone through pure hell and hassled ever since this has taken place by threatening phone calls and letters. He stated that he has lived in Grand Terrace for ten years without any accidents happening. He stated that he was told that this was a Kangaroo Council and he feels it is unfair. He stated that now he feels very uncomfortable where he lives. The following are residents who shared their views regarding their opposition of Parking Permits for semi trucks in a residential area. Council Minutes - 10/13/88 Page 21 John Jensen, 23059 Merle Ct., G.T. Perry Stevenson, 12569 Pascal, G.T. Robert Jiminez, 12633 Reed, G.T. aro ine rusven, 12432 Cardinal Ct. Dan Belden, 12718 Dickens Ct. Adele Or it z, 22242 Lark St., G.T. Frank Mendez, 22362 Ladera, G.T. Joe Ortiz, 472 Tanner Circle, Riverside Dick Rollins, 22700 De Berry, G.T., stated, as a member of the Citizen Patrol, he will start making notation of all vehicles who are parked overtime, illegally stored on the streets and anything that violates the ordinace will be turned in to the Assistant City Manager. Councilmember Grant stated that the input received tonight in some respect is somewhat similar to what we received at the last meeting. He had contacted the City Manager a while back and asked him if he knew who owned the truck? He said Sand Stone Trucking in Luguna Beach. This, therefore, is Mr. Welsher's employer's truck, a vehicle by which Mr. Welsher can go from home to work. This is not his truck; therefore, it would appear that this is very similar to the State of California Dept. of Correction to give me one of their vehicles to drive home and they won't do that. CC-88-198 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GRANT, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER EVANS, to rescind action CC-88-160 dated 8/11/88 and at this time rescind the parking permit to the individual to whom it was issued. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated that, if you go back to the verbatim Minutes, you will not find a quote where I say a truck shouldn't have to pay to park. With the new information based on the fact that Mr. Welsher misrepresented this as his truck I would have no problem whatsoever rescinding this permit just based on the fact that he falsified evidence that was brought before this Council. The fact that Mr. Welsher dumped sand on a park site had nothing to do with his receiving his permit. At the last meeting there were two people here against it and we had petitioned people in the neighborhood who said they didn't perceive it as a problem. Now we have a lot more people perceiving it as a problem. She explained her feelings regarding truck drivers and their problems. She felt it was reprehensible for Mr. Welsher to come forward and say that something was a fact that wasn't a fact and had Council known that Mr. Welsher probably would not have gotten his permit. She stated that she will vote to recind this permit, indicating trucks being parked on Michigan is another issue and would have to be taken one at a time. Council Minutes - 10/13/88 Page 22 Councilmember Evans questioned whether we are going to have an Ordinance that is going to be enforced. He stated that the vehicle is registered out of the County and we are not receiving any of the revenue. He stated that the whole issue comes down to when the Ordinance was originally written. Staff has already presented to Council that when that Ordinance was written they had the option that if someone wanted to come in and petition the City they could get a permit. In this particular case Council had information presented where Mr. Welsher did exactly that in the past and the time allotted has passed. He stated to eliminate any further problems of this nature, he wanted Staff to amend that Ordinance that removes completely any mention of a permit. He questioned if there were some areas that commercial vehicles can park in residential areas? City Manager Schwab replied that if it is adjacent to a commercial piece of property that is commercially zoned then that truck can park there, indicating there are a few places in Grand Terrace where one side of the street is commercial and the other side is residential. Councilmember Evans stated that what he wanted Staff to do is not only eliminate this option, but go through to make sure that these big rigs do not create any problems in this City where Council has to deal with it. We want it in black and white without any options. If they are in violation, they get the cite. City Manager Schwab replied Staff will bring back the Ordinance, stating that the exemption process he would like to take a look at because there are some cases where individuals have legitimate reasons why they might want to park .... Councilmember Evans stated that Mr. Welsher presented what he thought was legitimate. I'm telling you I want the Ordinance amended, you don't have any options and then we don't have this problem. City Manager Schwab replied he will bring it back to Council with a recommendation. Councilmember Singley Council, stating that and supported the proposed. Council Minutes - 10/13/88 Page 23 commended the residents and City he was in favor of this motion amendment Councilmember Evans CLOSED SESSION Mayor Matteson explained that the clause was in there to give Council some room in case some specific situation arises. The fact that the Ordinance is there says no truck parking in a resident area. All you have to do is use common sense and you know it is not suppose to be parked there. He commended all of the residents and felt they were making Council enforce the Ordinance that is already there. Motion CC-88-197 carried 5-0, to rescind action CC-88-160 dated 8/11/88 and at this time rescind the parking permit to the individual to whom it was issued. Mayor Matteson stated that permit has been recinded. Council went into closed session pending litigations, no action was taken. Mayor Matteson adjourned the City Council meeting at 9:05 p.m. until the next regular City Council meeting which is scheduled to be held on Thursday, October 27, 1988 at 6:00 p.m. /t� MAY of t ty rand Terrace Council Minutes - 10/13/88 Page 24