Loading...
05/11/1989CITY COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MAY 11, 1989 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 May 11, 1989, at 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: Byron Matteson, Mayor Hugh J. Grant, Mayor Pro Tem Barbara Pfennighausen, Councilmember Jim Singley, Councilmember Gene Carlstrom, Councilmember Thomas J. Schwab, City Manager/Finance Director Randall Anstine, Assistant City Manager John Harper, City Attorney David Sawyer, Community Development Director Juanita Brown, Deputy City Clerk Joe Kicak, City Engineer ABSENT: The meeting was opened with invocation by Pastor Larry Wilson, Praise Fellowship Foursquare Church, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Mayor Pro Tem Grant. Mayor Matteson convened City Council meeting at 6:05 p.m. Mayor Matteson reconvened City Council meeting at 6:10 p.m. ITEMS TO DELETE None. SPECIAL PRESENTATION 2A. Mayor Matteson read a Proclamation proclaiming the month of May 1989 as "Good Posture Month" and the week of May 15-21, 1989 as "Chiropractic Wellness Week." Dr. Cynthia Williams was present to accept the proclamation. CONSENT CALENDAR CC-89-66 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM GRANT, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER SINGLEY, CARRIED 5-0, to approve the remainder of the Consent Calendar with the removal of Item A. Council Minutes - 05/11/89 Page 2 Councilmember Pfennighausen noted that she was absent at the April 27, 1989 meeting, therefore, she would not vote on the approval of the April 27, 1989 Minutes. ITEM FOR DISCUSSION B. RATIFY 5/11/89 CRA ACTION C. WAIVE FULL READING OF ORDINANCES ON AGENDA D. APPROVE CHECK REGISTER NO. 042789 E. RATIFY 4/27/89 CRA ACTION F. WAIVE FULL READING OF ORDINANCES ON AGENDA G. APPROVE 4/13/89 MINUTES H. APPROVE 4/27/89 MINUTES I. APPROVE 5/4/89 MINUTES 3A. APPROVE CHECK REGISTER NO. 051189 Mayor Matteson questioned Item 19936. He asked why the amount was so much for fertilization of the parks. Assistant City Manager Anstine indicated that the cost was for both the Terrace Hills Community Park and the Griffin Park. CC-89-67 MOTION BY MAYOR MATTESON, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER PFENNIGHAUSEN, CARRIED 5-0, to approve Check Register No. 051189. Mayor Pro Tem Grant pointed out a clerical error in the May 4, 1989 minutes. CC-89-68 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM GRANT, SECOND BY MAYOR MATTESON, CARRIED 5-0, to accept the May 4, 1989 Minutes with correction as stated. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Gene McMeans, 1450 Washington St., Colton; reported that the Foothill Journal was bought by the Colton Courier and would no longer service Grand Terrace. Dennis Evans, 22064 DeBerry St., Grand Terrace; had questions regarding the lighting assessment district. He asked how staff arrived at the number of lights needed and what the approximate cost of the project was. He asked Council why they objected to the lighting assessment Council Minutes - 05/11/89 Page 3 district being voted on by the people. He asked for the status of the L.J. Snow Ford project. ORAL REPORTS City Manager Schwab, reported that the City Engineer worked closely with Southern California Edison to arrive at the figures for the lighting assessment district and the project would be approximately 1 1/2 million dollars. He also reported that negotiations are no longer being conducted with L.J. Snow Ford. Mayor Matteson, reported that he has heard from many concerned residents in the City and, therefore, asked that the lighting assessment district issue be put on the next agenda so Council may reconsider. Mayor Pro Tem Grant, stated that he is in favor of reconsideration as requested by the Mayor. Councilmember Singley, concurred as well. Councilmember Pfenni hausen, reported that she has received numerous phone calls from people who do not want street lights and agreed that they should be reconsidered. John R. Taylor, 22843 Vista Grande Way, Grand Terrace; reported -that the problems, which he previously reported regarding the holes in Vista Grande Way and the debris at the park, have been taken care of and wanted to thank the person responsible. He offered to make the first donation when the adopt -a -tree program is in effect. Tony Petta, 11875 Eton, Grand Terrace; stated that two major concerns of the people of Grand Terrace are police protection and the lack of lights in the City. He felt that there is no way of knowing the details of the lighting assessment district unless a study is made. Sandy Windbigler, Grand Terrace Chamber of Commerce; reported that the CPR Bill, which was sent .to Sacramento, passed 14-0 with no opposition. She gave an update of Chamber events and invited the community to participate in the Safety Fair. 5A. COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. Emergency Operations Committee (a) Council accepted Minutes of 2/20/89. (b) Council accepted Minutes of 3/20/89. Council Minutes - 05/11/89 Page 4 CC-89-69 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER PFENNIGHAUSEN, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM GRANT, CARRIED 5-0, to accept the resignation of Edward Luers with regret and a special thank you. Crime Prevention Committee Dick Rollins reported that the Crime Prevention Committee Minutes will be presented to Council at the next meeting. 2. Parks & Recreation Committee Parks & Recreation Chairman Weeks reported that two scholarships are available and four applications have been received. After careful consideration, the committee has made their selection as stated in their report. He felt Council needed to make a motion regarding same. CC-89-70 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SINGLEY, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER PFENNIGHAUSEN, CARRIED 5-0, to award $500 scholarships to Henry Moser and Monica Taylor. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 0 7A. Authorization to go to bid for Barton Rd. improvements. City Manager Schwab, gave his staff report and recommended that Council authorize staff to go out out to bid for the Barton Road street improvement project, indicating that the total cost of the improvement project is currently budgeted with the exception of the landscaping element, which was added subsequent to our budget cycle. CC-89-71 MOTION BY MAYOR MATTESON, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER PFENNIGHAUSEN, CARRIED 5-0, to go out to bid for the Barton Road street improvement project. 5B. Council Reports Councilmember Pfennighausen, reported that as a member of the San Bernardino Valley Water District Advisory Commission, she toured the State Water Project and encouraged everyone to become better informed. She reported that the problems with the audio broadcast of the Council meetings will be taken care of and encouraged residents to continue to view the meetings. She indicated that she has been informed that the City is no longer going to mail the newsletters for the Seniors group and asked if the Seniors were given prior notice. She also expressed concern about the flood control problem on Pico Street and asked that something be done about it. Council Minutes - 05/11/89 Page 5 I Assistant City Manager Anstine, indicated that the cost of mai ing the news letters is being transferred from the Community Services budget to the Seniors budget and at no time were they told that the City is no longer going to do the mailing for them. He indicated that there was a misunderstanding. City Mana er Schwab, reported that he did receive a complaint trom Mrs. Haslam regarding her garden wall and requested that the City fix her planter. He met with her and it was decided that she would remove a tree that was damaging her garden wall and the City would rebuild a head wall to divert the water. At that time all parties were satisfied. Councilmember Pfenni hausen, asked City Engineer Kicak if a wall, as described by City Manager Schwab, would keep the water from flowing into her yard. City Engineer Kicak, indicated that he would have to see the area and report back to Council. Councilmember Carlstrom, reported that he met with Assemblyman Paul Woodruff last week and discussed issues involving the City, and also talked to Senator Bill Leonard, Jr. and mentioned that as a Council we would like to talk to him about some of the issues of the City, whereby we might be able to get some grants or funds into the City to address our traffic problems. Councilmember Singley, reported that he attended the Crime Prevention Committee meeting and was made aware that the Citizen Patrol has been in effect one year and commended them and the Community Services Officer for all their hard work. Mayor Pro Tem Grant, reported that he represented the City as the alternate to the Omnitrans Transportation Board and represented the community as the principal to the SANBAG Commission. He reported that the Art Show by the Historical & Cultural Committee was a success. Mayor Matteson recessed City Council at 7:20 p.m. Mayor Matteson reconvened City Council at 7:35 p.m. 7B. Drainage Improvements on Michigan Ave. City Engineer Kicak, gave his staff report explaining that the current drainage facility located in that area is insufficient to handle the runoff and no curb and gutter facilities exist to channel the flow properly into the Council Minutes - 05/11/89 Page 6 existing drainage facility. He recommended that Council authorize the construction of the improved drainage facilities, and authorize staff to put the project out to public bid. CC-89-72 MOTION BY MAYOR MATTESON, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER PFENNIGHAUSEN, CARRIED 5-0, to authorize drainage improvements on Michigan Ave. and to go out to bid. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Jack Ingalls, Grand Terrace Chamber of Commerce; expressed his concern that the Off -Street Parking Ordinance is too strict and suggested that alternatives be built into the Ordinance. Due to input by the public and advice from City Attorney Harper, Council concurred that the Ordinances on residential zoning and off-street parking should be readvertised and put back to the first reading. CC-89-73 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM GRANT, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER PFENNIGHAUSEN, CARRIED 4-1 (COUNCILMEMBER SINGLEY VOTED NOE), to continue Zoning amendment Z-89-1B and Z-89-1A, in relation to residential zoning and off-street parking, and readvertise for a Public Hearing. NEW BUSINESS 8A. Consideration of Dedication -- 11830 Mt. Vernon Ave. (McDuffee) CitX Manager Schwab, the City Council has indicated to staff that the area in front of Dr. McDuffee's home at 1130 Mt. Vernon Ave. would potentially become a hazard in the future when Phase II of Forest City Dillon is in. Now that Phase I is complete, in that the roadway does not traverse straight down the street and his property jutts out into what is currently pavement on the area that will be south and north of that site. With that in mind, the City Council directed staff to solve that problem and we've come to you tonight with two alternatives. Dr. McDuffee has indicated that he would dedicate additional right-of-way for full improvement of the frontage property,and I have indicated in my staff report what that cost would be. In subsequent converstions with Dr. McDuffee, since I have written the report, he has indicated that we have somewhat misinterpreted his offer; that he did not expect street lighting or landscaping. He's here tonight and can clarify what his position is, but at this point staff is not recommending full improvements on that parcel. What we are recommending, should the Council want to identify that as Council Minutes - 05/11/89 Page 7 ti - an area that we should straighten out the pavement, is to do so within our current right-of-way, which the City currently has dedicated to them. The problem that will cause the homeowner is that it is going to require removal of some shrubbery that creates screening for Dr. McDuffee as well as movement of the fence out of the right-of-way area to do the pavement. Dr. Terry McDuffee, 11830 S. Mt. Vernon, Grand Terrace; originally the City of Grand Terrace contacted me and requested that I make the dedication and offered to install improvements. We responded to that somewhat belatedly because of the great deal of smoke that was in the air surrounding apartment development and issues that I thought were pertinent that have either been resolved or ignored at this point and are beside the point except for the fact that that's the reason it's been two years since the first letter went out until my response came back. I would like to say that when I wrote back in response to the Council, what I offered was to make the dedication if they would do exactly what they had said that they would like to do, which is to put in curbs, gutters, sidewalks and paving. The possible difference would be street lights. I did include street lights as a condition, the matter of landscaping was not one that had really entered by mind until I spoke with Tom. My feeling about the street lights is that there's a reasonable time to put improvements in and if these other improvements are being done you've budgeted $15,000 for two street lights and I don't know what the zoning requires as far as the spacing of street lights along 321 frontage feet, but I presume that's what the requirement is. It seems to me it would make a lot of sense to put those improvements in at that time especially in light of the fact that the Council is considering further lighting in the City and for safety considerations, etc. I didn't include landscaping and that's a matter that can be discussed. I've looked over the construction estimate and there are a few points I would like to have clarification on. Included in here is a retaining wall 50 linear feet, Joe could you explain. City Engineer Kicak, the retaining wall that is identified in that particular cost estimate is a wall that would be required as a result of the grading that has occured on the adjacent property. In order for us to construct the improvements within the right-of-way, and without encroaching onto the private property, since there is a fairly deep ravine there. That is why we are proposing the retaining wall. Dr. McDuffee, and then there are drainage facilities included at a cost of $5,000, what are those drainage facilities. Council Minutes - 05/11/89 Page 8 City Engineer Kicak, the drainage facilities that we are referring to, there's a low point as you know at that location. We have requested that Forest City Dillon accept all of the drainage that was tributary to that point. There is still a need to pick up drainage at that location and put it down into the same system that at the present time is flowing over the side, we would have to pick it up at that point and basically what were talking about is a catch basin or an inlet structure. Dr. McDuffee, in front of you are staff recommendations that include- the break -down of the cost. I've had an opportunity to review those, they've come up with a total estimated cost of $39,115.25 to put in the proper improvements that need to be put in there. Included in that is $2,500 for landscaping, $1,500 for street lighting, and those two items are perhaps up to question, otherwise there has been an indication that the alternative plan, which is a temporary structure, temporary plan to put paving in and I'm not sure it solves the safety concern as far as pedestrian traffic. I question whether it solves it at all and I certainly do not believe that it solves it adequately. The estimate for that improvement is 12 to 14 thousand, and as I look at these figures I think I see there is a fly in the ointment. There are a lot of these items that will be necessary whether you go with the proper improvements or if you go with the temporary plan. Matters of clearing and grubbing, grading and excavation. If a retaining wall is going to be necessary for one plan, it's going to be necessary for the other and so are drainage structures and the paving and the base and the overlay are all going to be the same, and when you total up those items it comes to slightly under $12,000 rapidly approaching the estimated 12 to 14 thousand. If you add to that the cost of the drainage structure, which has been omitted apparently, and you add to that the cost of engineering, and you include additional asphalt to pave the shoulder or to build the berm, seems to me that you are going to come up with closer to $20,000 than 12 to 14 thousand. Furthermore, I question the necessity of the retaining wall if this can be done with my cooperation. Any back filling that needs to be done or grading on my property, I'll gladly give an easement to do it if the thing is done to my satisfaction. I think that there isn't an accurate representation of what the temporary cost will be. I think it's going to be much greater than you've estimated. City Engineer Kicak, What we were saying is that with the temporary improvement, as proposed, we would widen the roadway without removing any major planting on Dr. McDuffee's property. The roadway would be widened to the same line as the current pavement exists adjacent to the Council Minutes - 05/11/89 Page 9 north. There would be no curb and gutter because we would have only one foot behind the face of the curb which is six inches behind the back of the curb to do any grading. We could not do any grading within a public right-of-way in that 115 feet, which is the northernly most portion without encroaching on his property. The alternate plan proposes strictly going in there and grading the area, putting in the base as would be required under the other proposal, removal of very little of any planting and paving the roadway to that same width. Ma or Matteson, what about the engineering cost? Would you still need a retaining wall? City Engineer Kicak, no, you would not because the reason you need a retaining wall is because you're widening the right-of-way to the ultimate and constructing improvements to the ultimate which is now 44 feet. The improvements that would be proposed under the alternate plan would go out to 30 feet. That would give you 14 feet within the existing public right-of-way to perform any grading or sloping and/or provide for drainage in that particular area. I personally would like to see the improvement done, but I think it's important for the City Council to recognize the alternative. Mayor Matteson, the question on the retaining wall, that he says he would allow you to fill rather than build the retaining wall, would that work? City Engineer Kicak, I am not certain how the impact of the already completed grading on the adjacent property would impact elimination of the wall because there is an existing channel there and they are fairly close to the channel on the adjacent property with their final grade and our sidewalk is probably 8 or 9 feet above that at least. Dr. McDuffee, it's about 10 or 12. City Engineer Kicak, so without encroaching, perhaps if Dr. McDuffee gave us the right to encroach, I don't know whether we could eliminate going onto the adjacent property and still widen the right-of-way to the ultimate. Dr. McDuffee, Forest City didn't hesitate to run the back fill down on my property when they did the grading. I don't think I would mind a whole lot more if it was the City if the plan is done to my satisfaction. Joe, you said 14 feet there and you would have to get base for widening the road up 12 feet above the existing grade two to one slope runs that out a lot further than your right-of-way. Council Minutes - 05/11/89 Page 10 Citz En ineer Kicak, I believe, Dr. McDuffee, that widening as I said the pavement that we are proposing to construct under the alternate would require very little or no filling. If it did, it could be done within the existing right-of-way. Dr. McDuffee, I would have to see the engineering plans on that before I could agree with it. I'm quite familiar with that ravine, and there's a good 10 or 12 feet difference in elevation between the street level and the bottom of the ravine and I submit that you really can't do your temporary grading without building the retaining wall. There will be necessary grubbing and clearing to do the temporary widening. It's going to take out a whole row of pomagranite bushes along the front of the property. In addition, there's a very old and beautiful night blooming cactus that sits on the corner of the property. It's entirely on my property but it's within a foot of the right-of-way and it's about 3 feet above the elevation of the road and you can not come in and do the temporary plan without butchering that plant, I don't believe. I oppose very much to seeing that happen. My position is plain and simple that I think that if this is going to be done at all, it should be done properly. I'm willing to make the dedication so that it can be done properly and I'm very much unwilling to see it done partially. I'm offering to do what the City asked of me and offered to do initially and my position is that it needs to be done completely and I oppose it otherwise. Mayor Matteson, again, what items do you say are not really necessary? The street lights, the landscaping? Dr. McDuffee, I think the street lights are necessary and I think that it would be a little foolish to put the improvements in without doing the street lights at the same time. I don't particularly like the street lights shining in my window. I think there's a proper time to do it and the time is when the improvements are being done and I did include street lights in my conditions. I did not include landscaping at an estimated cost of $2,500, that's really the only thing on this list that I see that I didn't originally include. I would like to see it landscaped, I would be willing to compromise if you would like to put the landscaping in, I will provide the water. A big concern that you have is that it's going to require a water meter to irrigate and the property has adequate irrigation shares and if landscaping was installed, I'm willing to take care of the cost of irrigation. The maintenance is another big item and I don't know how the City manages that if you have a landscaping district or you propose to build one to deal with the Barton Road situation, but that's really the only Council Minutes - 05/11/89 Page 11 item on here that I see as unnecessary. Again, if you want to put the improvements in, I'll give you grading easements and you can put however much fill dirt in that ravine that you want. I will not do that if you put a temporary job on it. Mayor Matteson, returned discussion to Council. Mayor Mattson, we have the decision now here of widening the street at a cost of 12 to 14 thousand or making all the improvements at close to $40,000, what is the Council's desire? Mayor Pro Tem Grant, if we basically don't do anything and leave it as it is with the widening of the road, what do you see is the danger? A mention was made by Dr. McDuffee of children walking along there and traffic and other safety. Is that a real issue in your opinion? I know there's no way you can predict what's going to happen, I talked to Tom about this and the Smith property was that way for a long time and there fortunately were no accidents, but of course you only need one to create a problem. City Manager Schwab, I think that from a pedestrian standpoint obviously having no sidewalk, if a person is going to go down that side of the street, they will have to walk out in the street. My own personal opinion as to whether that is a vehicular safety problem, I could show you areas on Mt. Vernon further south where that problem is much more exagerated in that there is properties that stick out onto Mt. Vernon much more than it does at Dr. McDuffee's property. The condition has existed in front of Mrs. Smith's home the place where they had the large pine tree and to my knowledge I can not recall that there was an accident as a result of that. Pedestrian safety probably is an issue. My opinion is that it is not a substantial safety problem for vehicles. Mayor Matteson, I think the pedestrian safety problem is worse on Michigan than on Mt. Vernon. Councilmember Singley, that's the point I was going to bring up, we got an estimate here a few meetings ago of about $85,000 to put sidewalks of some sort along Michigan, and I agree that putting a sidewalk there and doing all the improvements would probably be a very safe thing to do and a good thing to do, but your talking $40,000 for a short sidewalk there and your talking $85,000 for a sidewalk down where school children do walk and further south down on Mt. Vernon there is the bike shop where there is a fence that sticks all the way to the curb and people have to walk Council Minutes - 05/11/89 Page 12 in the street around that. There comes a point when the City only has so many funds and you have to judge where best to use these funds. I personally believe that the sidewalks on Michigan are much more important for the school children and the safety of the people who live in our community than doing anything on Dr. McDuffee's property at this time. Councilmember Pfenni hausen, in the first place, the sidewalk infront of Dr. McDuffee's house is not costing $39,000, the sidewalk in front of Dr. McDuffee's house as set forth on the spec's to put curb, gutter and sidewalks would be $10,272 that's what the sidewalk costs and the curb and gutter. So it's not the same issue as the issue and it shouldn't be an either/or issue. We may have to put this into another budget year. Councilmember Singley, how do you come up with $10,000? Councilmember Pfenni hausen, on the construction cost estimate, curb and gutter for 321 feet at $10 a foot is $3,210 Ma or Matteson, that's the breakdown, but you have to do a11 these other things before you can do that. 0 Councilmember Pfennighausen, but were going to have to do other stuff that's not put down anyway. Councilmember Singley, and that costs $39,000. You can put a sidewalk there but you're going to have to prepare that, you're going to have to do the engineering. You might be able to cut that by $1,500 by not putting in street lights and you might be able to cut that by $2,500 by not putting in landscaping, but your going to still have about 25 to 30 thousand dollars to prepare the sidewalk and the curb. Councilmember Pfenni hausen, I kept saying this was going to happen and it has happened now and it is important that these facilities go in, so there is continuity between the existing improvements along that street. I'm not for doing the landscaping, that can go, but I think the street should be widened with curb, gutter and sidewalk. I think we should do whatever is necessary. Mayor Matteson, I think if the street is widened, that's a arge parcel of land and when someone developes it, they are going to have to put that in. Councilmember Singley, by doing this we are improving the value of Dr. McDuffee's property. The people who are going to benefit from this are the people living in the Forest Council Minutes - 05/11/89 Page 13 I City Dillon Apartment complex, providing them with a walkway to the shoping center. Is there a way to walk through the Forest City Dillon property Phases I and II to get to that shopping center without having to go on Mt. Vernon? Cit Manager Schwab, once it is complete, you probably could, but I don't think people will do that. Councilmember Carlstom, we have allowed Forest City Dillon to go down there and develop and it is my understanding that there is about 17 units per acre, we may increase population by probably 60 to 75 people an acre, so we do have a condition that we didn't have before. We had the apartment project and also we've got construction on further down toward Barton Rd. where there is more people and I feel that we need to develop that along there between the two Forest Dillon projects, which is Dr. McDuffee's and also south of that toward Barton Rd. I think that we should make that a uniform street through there. The traffic goes through there at speeds of 50 to 55 mph and we say were going to let our children and adults walk on that street. I don't think we're being very wise and I recommend that we go ahead and put that sidewalk and curbs and gutters in if we decide to widen the street. Councilmember Singley, the City Attorney has just informed me that we can require the improvement under Chapter 27 of the Improvement Act of 1911 and assess 100% back to the property owner the cost of this improvement. City Attorney Harper, Chapter 27 of the act provides for essentially completion of partially completed sidewalks and allows the construction of the improvement and the assessment of the cost of that improvement to the benefiting property owner. City Manager Schwab, I don't think there is any intention ot doing any improvement that we're planning on charging back to Dr. McDuffee. You need to remember that this was our offer to him. Mayor Matteson, there ai need sidewalks and curbs 13 passed, the only way come in and develop the put them in. We don't sidewalks and curbs and small project and that's •e a lot of areas in the City that and gutters and since Proposition we can get these is when developers property and we can require them to have the money to complete all the $40,000 is a lot of money for one not a heavy traffic area. MOTION BY MAYOR MATTESON, to widen the street without complete improvements. Motion died for lack of Second. Council Minutes - 05/11/89 Page 14 Councilmember Sin le , I'd like to explain why I didn't back the motion. I'm obviously against the cost of the improvement. I'm not against the idea of safety. I agree that it's important that these sidewalks be built and we have to be careful where we spend our limited resources and, therefore, if we can somehow work with Dr. McDuffee to cut some of these costs, I would be willing to support the complete building of the sidewalk, curb and gutters. Councilmember Pfennighausen, we are asking Dr. McDuffee to give us property. He isn't asking us to buy the right-of-way, he is offering to give it to us. I think that the City did make the offer two years ago and now Dr. McDuffee is saying he'll give us the property, but do the job right. I think we need to remember that this is a quality community and that is a main entry street into our City. I think that if it requires that we do this in another budget year then do it in another budget year, if we don't have the funds now. If we do have the funds, then lets do it now. Do we have adequate funds to handle this project in this budget year? City Manager Schwab, Obviously we have well in excess of 40,000 in our reserves and within our unappropriated fund balances, so I think it's not an issue of whether we can afford to do this one $40,000 project certainly we could do the project. It's a matter of whether that's where you want to spend your $40,000. We have sufficient funds to where we could fund this project. Councilmember Pfenni hausen, my concern is that are we coming down to a critical financial situation at the end of our budget year? We're getting ready to start working on our preliminary budget, we will be adopting a budget hopefully by June 30th, we're talking about less than two months. Financially, where do we stand, and do we need to consider this in another budget year? City Manager Schwab, our current budget that is going to be developed and given to Council on the 19th does not take this into consideration, our carry over fund balances do not take into account the expenditure of this $40,000. Should we take on this project, we would have to reduce the fund balance that we are projecting at the end of the year by the amount of the appropriation. Councilmember Pfennighausen, I also have a concern I would like to express at this point, I think that it's rather crass to ask a citizen to give up his property and then sit and tell him that we have the right to charge him for the improvements along the front of it. Council Minutes - 05/11/89 Page 15 Councilmember Carlstrom, what improvements, Dr. McDuffee, would you settle for as far as cost. What actually do you feel the cost would be to complete the project? Dr. McDuffee, there were at least three or four serious accidents in front of Mrs. Smith's house in the fifteen years that I've lived there, with at least one or two fatalities. As far as compromises on the projections; as I look over this I really think that the matter of the retaining wall can be eliminated or reduced considerably that amounts to $2,500 by the estimate. I still question whether there is going to be required $5,000 worth of drainage facilities. I've said all along I'll compromise on the landscaping if you want to leave it in or leave it out. It's an opportunity to make it look nice, it is the major street through the City, it is a sizable chunk of frontage. I don't know that it compares exactly to the other situations in the City and I'm sure some of those are important, but in the scheme of things, if it's the safety of the children and the citizens I think that items like this deserve a fairly high priority in the budget. Street lighting, I've stated my position on that. I'll give whatever easement you need for grading. I suspect that this estimate may be a little bit higher than it needs to be, but a lot of time things cost more than you think. I don't think the matter of the fence is a big item, I'll gladly move the fence out of the way. I would hope that those couple of palm trees that are fairly close to the street that may fall in your right-of-way could be gone around by the sidewalk I think it's possible to leave those. There is other landscaping and shrubbery that will have to go, and I haven't attempted to estimate the cost of that. Councilmember Carlstrom, from what you are saying, we could possibly cut $5,000 off of that. Dr. McDuffee, I think the big item is the drainage and I can't address that I think that's a $5,000 possibility. I think that the retaining wall is another $2,500 possibility. Then you come down to $4,000 for street lights and landscaping and my feeling is that you should definitely include the street lights if you don't want to include the landscaping. Councilmember Carlstrom, how far from your property is the nearest streetlight? Dr. McDuffee, right on the property line to the north. What is the interval that street lights must be? Council Minutes - 05/11/89 Page 16 City Engineer Kicak, the spacing requirements are 160 feet p us or minus 20. Councilmember Carlstrom, so that would require at least one street light. Dr. McDuffee, I suppose it's up to the City Council to determine that one street light would be adequate and I'm sure that the plans for Forest City Phase II are complete, is there a street light right on the property line or not? CitX En ineer Kicak, right off hand I can't answer, but I would like to make a comment at this point and tell the Mayor and City Council and Dr. McDuffee that this is an estimate. We are attempting to cut the cost based on this estimate and actually try to design a project right here. I have no problem with that. My experience in estimating over a few years is that I've been a low bidder and I have been a high bidder of six or seven contractors, so the only thing I can do is look at the project. Without the benefit of having it detail designed, the estimate, to the best of my ability, would be the anticipated cost which could be plus or minus 20% one way or the other and I would say that in this particular case I would feel very comfortable with the $39,000 as being a reasonable or perhaps a little high estimate. As far as what we can eliminate and cannot eliminate, is when we start talking about retaining walls until we can actually do the survey on that property. I think to start designing a project here in the Council Chambers is probably somewhat inappropriate. Dr. McDuffee, I'll just say that I'm willing to work with you to try to reduce the cost in the ways that I've indicated, and if the engineering requires some cooperation on my part, I'm willing to cooperate if this project is done properly. Councilmember Singley, in response to Councilmember Pfennighausen s comments about it being crass to go back on what the City said, I'd like to point out to her that this letter was sent to Dr. McDuffee on February 23, 1987 the response from Dr. McDuffee came March 22, 1989 that's two years and a month later. Are City proposals suppose to be indefinite? We have to look at a number of projects and what I'm getting is that I agree that this is a safety issue for people walking on sidewalks but what I'm hearing from Mrs. Pfennighausen is that her priorities now are no longer the sidewalks for the kids on Michigan Ave. walking to the school, but now this one piece of property for an apartment complex, which I believe she opposed vigorously. I would agree with you that maybe this is an item that we should continue in the budget and I agree with Dr. Council Minutes - 05/11/89 Page 17 McDuffee that it is a safety issue and should be highly prioritized and in that area I would entertain a motion to continue this to the budget hearings and place both the Michigan walkway and this walkway on the budget for consideration. Councilmember Pfennighausen, stated, in reference to Councilmember Singley s prior remarks, that she advised him not to try and put words into her mouth, stating that she made no separation and made no choice. She said they are all necessary and was supportive of them all. CC-89-74 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER PFENNIGHAUSEN, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER CARLSTROM, CARRIED 4-1 (MAYOR PRO TEM GRANT VOTED NOE), that curbs, gutters and sidewalks be constructed along the frontage of the McDuffee property for the purposes of safe passage of automobiles and pedestrians and that improvements such as street lights become a negotiated item and when a complete study is done and the plans are drawn come back to us with the price and to appropriate not to exceed $2,500 for engineering. 8B. Selection of Barton Rd. Specific Plan Consultants. Mayor Matteson, I live in that area that we are discussing, should I abstain or not? City Attorney Harper, I suppose ultimately it is up to you, but you don't have any conflict as to the selection of a consultant. I suppose that if the consultant recommends a specific plan that affects your property, then you do have to abstain from discussion and voting on that issue, but not as to the selection of the consultant. Councilmember Pfennighausen, even though this appears to be a kind of gray area, yes, he can discuss the consultant or the choice of the consultant, but the consultant is being brought on board to do a specific thing that's going to have an impact on his property different than Fran Carter's or Jim Singley's or mine or anybody elses. Two members of this Council sit in the same position and just for the sake of keeping the peace can I suggest that the two members who have the potential conflict do not get into it because I can tell you that it is going to become an issue if they do. r Mayor Matteson, I will participate fully. Councilmember Carlstrom, due to potential conflict of interest, I will abstain from discussion of this. CommunitX Development Director Sawyer, gave his staff report indicating that the selection committee consisting of the City Manager, Community Development Director, Chamber of Commerce President and the Planning Commission Council Minutes - 05/11/89 Page 18 Chairman, recommends Community Dynamics as the Specific Plan Consultants with a contract not to exceed $42,415. Community Development Director Sawyer indicated that after following up on reference checks, staff feels that the firm of Urban Design is most qualified to provide the type of final product that staff feels is necessary for a successful project in this community. The Planning Department recommends that Council select Urban Design as the firm to prepare the Specific Plan and authorize staff to enter into a contract in an amount not to exceed $48,600. CC-89-75 MOTION BY MAYOR MATTESON, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER SINGLEY, to accept the committees recommendation of Community Dynamics for $42,415. Councilmember Pfenni hausen, asked why staff and the committee had different recommendations. Community Development Director Sawyer, explained that the committee chose community Dynamics first and Urban Design second and the scores were very close. After reviewing work done by both companies, he recommended Urban Design because it was much more graphic and easier to understand for the average person. Councilmember Sin le , asked which firm staff would be able to work most effectively within a timely manner. Community Development Director Sawr,�, indicated that according to the references, bothfirms have been highly recommended. Mayor Matteson, asked why a committee was selected if you are not going to listen to their decision. City Manager Schwab, reported that as a member of the committee, he would feel comfortable with any of the top three firms. Stan Hargrave, Planning Commission; stated that David's follow-up was the key to this, and staff will need to work closly with the consultant to ensure that deadlines are met. Jack Ingalls, indicated that he was very impressed with Community Dynamics because of the amount of time they would spend with property owners and staff, the cost and the fact that they did not have a large project at this time. Mayor Pro Tem Grant, asked if all of the committee members had the same choice or if it was a split decision. 11 Council Minutes - 05/11/89 Page 19 Community Development Director Sawyer, indicated that the committee members varied a little bit. Urban Design was in the top three for everyone. Mayor Matteson, indicated that Community Dynamics seemed to get all the points because the committee gave them the highest score, they have the lowest price, and everyone speaks very highly of them. Mayor Pro Tem Grant, indicated the he understood from Mr. Sawyer that Urban Design would be easier to manage. Councilmember Pfenni hausen, stated that if it is going to be important for our staff to work closely with the consultant, and the product in the end is going to be superior, then I support staff's recommendation. Mayor Matteson, was concerned that a committee was formed and then another decision is made. Councilmember Pfennighausen, stated that the committee didn t have the additional information as to the background or the track record. Community Development Director Sawyer, indicated that the committee was formed and made the first round interviews with the consultants, then the committee selected the top three. Of those top three, I did the reference checks and reviewed samples of what they would do for us. My decision for Urban Design was highly influenced by that information that came in after the committee disbanded. The committee members agreed they they would feel comfortable with either of the consultants. Mayor Matteson, stated that if it is that close, why not go with the one that is less expensive. Community Development Director Sawyer, stated that from staff s point of view, it is worth the extra money because it will make their job easier in working with the public. MOTION CC-89-75, FAILED 1-3-0-1 (MAYOR MATTESON VOTED AYE AND COUNCILMEMBER CARLSTROM ABSTAINED). CC-89-76 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM GRANT, SECOND BY MAYOR MATTESON, CARRIED 4-0-0-1 (COUNCILMEMBER CARLSTROM ABSTAINED), to select Urban Design. Council Minutes - 05/11/89 Page 20 CLOSED SESSION Council went into closed session to discuss two items: Possible Land Acquisition - no action was taken. Settlement with the City of Colton on sewers - it was agreed upon to settle that lawsuit and give the attorney the authority to complete the case. Cit Attorney Har, er, reported that both parties now have the authority to settle the Colton vs. Grand Terrace lawsuit which involves a dispute over the interpretation of the settlement agreement of the 1977 sewer lawsuit with Grand Terrace paying Colton the compromised amount of $155,000 representing the payments that we have not made that we were obligated to have made under the original settlement agreement. In addition, an accounting for any connections in a two-year period that no one at this point is quite sure we are current on. It's just a mathematical situation. ORDER OF ADJOURNMENT Mayor Matteson adjourned the City Council meeting at 9:40 p.m., until the next regular City Council/CRA meeting, which is scheduled to be held Thursday, May 25, 1989. City cW Grand Terrace. RAYRAYOR f the City o and Terrace.