Loading...
09/10/19871 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - SEPTEMBER 10, 1987 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace was called to order in the Council Chambers, Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on September 10, 1987, at 5:30 p.m. PRESENT: Byron Matteson, Mayor Barbara Pfennighausen, Mayor Pro Tem Hugh J. Grant, Councilmember Dennis L. Evans, Councilmember Susan Shirley, Councilmember Thomas J. Schwab, City Manager/Finance Director Randy Anstine, Assistant City Manager Juanita Brown, Deputy City Clerk Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney David Sawyer, Planning Director Joe Kicak, City Engineer ABSENT: NONE The meeting was opened with invocation by Pastor Ray Williams, Grand View Baptist Church, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilmember Shirley. Mayor Matteson convened City Council meeting at 5:35 p.m. ITEMS DELETED FROM THE AGENDA SPECIAL PRESENTATION Mayor Matteson asked if there were any items to be deleted from the agenda. The City Manager requested Item 8(A) Closed Session be deleted. Mayor Matteson introduced the new Deputy City Clerk, Juanita Brown, and introduced Councilmember Crawford with her new name of Councilmember Shirley. Constitution Week Mayor Matteson read a proclamation and presented the proclamation to Mrs. Cox, representing Daughters of the American Revolution, proclaiming the week of September 17-23, 1987 as Constitution Week. National POW/MIA Mayor Matteson read a proclamation and proclaimed Friday, Day September 18, 1987 as "National POW/MIA Day." CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen expressed her feelings about this proclamation and stated that Grand Terrace had a citizen, Colonel Merit, who was held as a POW for about eight years. A tree was planted in his honor and now grows very straight and tall at Grand Terrace School. Mayor Matteson asked if there was anyone wishing to have items deleted from the Consent Calendar. CC-87-175 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen, second by Mayor Matteson, motion carried 4-0-1 with Councilmember Grant abstaining. Item A - Approve Check Register No. 091087 Item B - Ratify September 10, 1987 CRA Action Item C - Waive Full Reading of Ordinances and Resolutions on Agenda Item D - Approve August 27, 1987 Minutes Item E - Approve to distribute old furniture from Fire Station to other CDF Stations PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Mayor Matteson opened the meeting for public participation. Steven Perkio Mr. Perkio informed Council of graffiti on block walls in Grand 22401 Ladera Terrace which he had spoken to Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen about. He felt if the City would offer a reward people would come forward helping in the arrest and conviction of those person(s) who commit vandalism or deface public property. He stated a good way of getting the word out is through Neighborhood Watches, the Sheriff's Department, Chamber's Newsletter and the Foothill Journal. Councilmember Grant stated Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen had mentioned something about the amount of graffiti on walls in the southern part of Grand Terrace several months ago. He felt this was an excellent idea and was surprised that Council had not thought of it before. Councilmember Grant indicated he wasn't sure what the reward should be, but he concurred with Mr. Perkio. He stated he will put this recommendation on the agenda for the next Council meeting and asked everyone to think about what type of reward should be offered. Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 2 Mayor Matteson asked staff to do some research and bring recommendations back to the next City Council meeting. The City Manager informed Council it would be done and stated the City has a budget of $2,000.00 which is basically unallocated and non -departmental. He stated it is used for donations and can be used if Council would direct staff to develop a program. He stated it can be paid out of the budget and would not need a motion only a direction from Council. Mayor Matteson stated that there will be a penalty for those caught defacing public property and the fine would be used to pay the reward. The City Manager indicated staff will develop a program and put it in the next agenda. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated that almost on a weekly basis the City was having the flag stolen and at that time, the reward for the apprehension and conviction of whomever was stealing the flag was established. She felt this was an act of vandalism and theft and felt Council could piggy -back from that without coming back with a new action, since that was an official Council action at that time. Mayor Matteson asked the City Attorney if that could fall under the previous action? The City Attorney replied he wasn't sure, he would have to research it. Bill Dodge Mr. Dodge stated an ongoing aggravation for himself, neighbors 22887 Finch St. and those individuals bordering on the new construction going on between west of Observation, south of Finch and north of Oriole, are the Fieldcrest Homes that are going up in that area. He stated earlier in August people in the area became aware that the City had a noise ordinance preventing certain types of construction activities before 7:00 a.m. and after 10:00 p.m. Mr. Dodge stated he and some of the neighbors began to chart the activities that are going on there and had contacted the Sheriff's Department on each occasion when the builders had been in violation of that ordinance. Mr. Dodge indicated the Community Services Director and City Engineer were provided with a copy of the log. Mr. Dodge stated he and his neighbors are tired of the developers violating the noise ordinance and he would like Council to start some kind of legal action to stop them. He stated he had no objection to noise after 7:00 a.m. and up to 10:00 p.m. Robert Faries Mr. Faries stated the simple fact is the residents cannot stop 12491 Oriole the developers from interrupting their sleep, their Sundays and holidays. Mr. Faries pointed out the residents, the City Council or the Sheriff's Department have not been able to stop the developers. Mr. Faries stated two weeks ago a neighbor and Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 3 his son were roofing their house and the sheriff stopped them from doing so, as a complaint had been made. He stated you can stop a private citizen, a resident of this city, but you cannot stop a construction crew. Jim Sims Mr. Sims concurred with Mr. Dodge and Mr. Faries. He stated 22907 Finch the disturbances have been many and felt the City has the good wisdom to set up an ordinance to control these types of things and all the citizens are asking for is that they be enforced. Quentin Raaz Mr. Raaz stated he was not aware of the noise ordinance until a 12467 Oriole week ago. He stated he and his sons-in-law were putting a roof on his home and the Sheriff's Deputy came along and said there had been a complaint about the noise. After he was made aware of the noise ordinance, which at the time he wasn't, they quit roofing. He stated he had called the City about the cement trough and watering entering his home twice from the runoff and had been told by a fried that the trough had been approved by an engineer. Mr. Raaz felt commercial businesses should be forced to comply with the code, rules and laws of Grand Terrace. Marilyn Dodge Mrs. Dodge stated they were told by the Sheriff's Deputies that 22887 Finch prior to obtaining the building permit to start Terrace Hills Housing Construction, they had to sign an agreement to abide by the noise ordinance of Grand Terrace; that the contractors are fully aware of the noise ordinance, as the foreman has told the deputies that he knew about it. She wanted to know what can they do, is there any recourse. Mayor Matteson stated there seemed to be two problems, one the noise and the other, the runoff. He stated they should address them separately starting with the noise ordinance. Councilmember Evans stated he believed Council spent a good six months with the noise problem, which resulted in a noise ordinance relating to Inland Lumber. He stated Council came up with the best solution they could at that particular time. He stated construction workers want to beat the heat, but felt they should recognize the wishes of people in the community. Councilmember Evans noted once Council has established an ordinance, it is not going to be any good unless it is enforced. He questioned a condition of the building permit, does a developer have to sign that agreement? The City Engineer replied, "No," a condition of approval that is set upon the developer is "you shall obey all the ordinances of the city." He stated that is the only one that he knew of; there is no special document that he signs regarding the ordinances. He stated the developer was cited for a violation on August 4, 1987 and notice of violation was given to him at that time. Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 4 Councilmember Evans asked if this was for the noise ordinance or something else. The City Engineer replied for the noise ordinance. Councilmember Evans questioned if the City initiated that. The City Engineer replied the developer had been cited on August 4, 1987. The City Engineer stated he received today a copy of the list of violations from the one Mr. Dodge compiled. Mayor Matteson asked the City Engineer if he had any suggestions as to what can be done. The City Engineer stated he did not want to make suggestions, but if there are any comments, he would like to hear them. Councilmember Evans stated it is not like Council had been inactive; Council had initiated something and obviously has not been effective. The City Engineer stated that is correct. Councilmember Evans asked if the deputy who had gone out to the scene had issued any citations. Detective Reynosa replied,"Yes." The deputies had been at the site, in the last month and a half, at least 36 times and on two of those occasions issued citations. Councilmember Evans asked other than the letter that the City Engineer indicated, has anyone directly contacted the developer on this project and expressed to him the problems that they have been having and the concerns of the residents. The City Engineer replied, "Yes," and the inspectors have spoken to the previous superintendent, as well as the current superintendent. He stated the citation was actually served on Fieldcrest Homes in the field and was also forwarded to their office, so the responsibility for compliance with the ordinance is certainly with the developer; he felt the subcontractors were also advised, so they all should be aware of the noise ordinance. Councilmember Evans questioned the City Attorney as to whether it was possible to file a restraining order against the developer to have them comply with the ordinance. The City Attorney replied a document that is preliminary prohibit the continuation of case is noise. Council Minutes - 9/10/87 temporary restraining order is a to a preliminary injunction to a public nuisance, which in this Page 5 Councilmember Evans asked the City Attorney whether it would be possible for staff to submit a letter to the developer stating that if they do not immediately comply with the noise ordinance, that the City will seek other legal means. The City Attorney agreed to follow through. Councilmember Evans asked that this be put on the next agenda for Council to see if they have complied within the two -week period and whether legal recourse in the form of a restraining order is needed. The City Attorney stated they probably would not wait two weeks, since there were so many violations and they had not complied with the law. He stated Council will be considering calling an adjourned meeting prior to two weeks and at that time Council could declare a public nuisance and seek the injunction. Councilmember Evans asked the concerned citizens whether this was agreeable with them. The City Engineer stated he will write a letter to Fieldcrest Homes advising them that their inspections are suspended until they come into compliance with this ordinance; this will not stop them from working immediately, but it will stop them at a point where they will have to have inspections in order to continue with the next phase. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated that the City is not going to favor the developer because he is going to bring in taxes as citizens pay taxes too. She explained the noise ordinance is called a nuisance ordinance and no one rolls on a nuisance ordinance unless someone makes a complaint. As far as construction defects, if property adjacent to this building site is being adversely affected by the construction project that is going on, it's our responsibility and your responsibility to see that that it is stopped. If it exists now, it should be corrected immediately. If this man's fence has been undermined, it is Fieldcrest's responsibility to see that the problem is taken care of immediately, not when the job is completed. She indicated she has concerns for the residents along Oriole. She stated if Council were to stop construction on that site today, the winter rains could cause big problems. She stated she would like to see the project finished because of what it is going to do down line. It should continue in a legal way, adhering to ordinances, abiding by building codes and all that ought to be possible. She indicated she has some real concerns about stopping the project at this point, but if that is what has to be done, she suggests hauling in sandbags to build a dam since there is no landscaping to stop mud flow. Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 6 The City Attorney stated construction activity noises are exempted from the probations of the noise ordinance prohibiting loud excessive noises. However, construction activities between 8:00 p.m., not 10:00 p.m., and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and Saturdays are not exempted and, therefore, construction sites cannot make loud excessive noises between those designated times, as well as make any loud excessive noises on Sundays and national holidays. Councilmember Grant stated we have a double standard and it is not the sheriff necessarily exercising the double standard, it's just that the big guy can put up with the pressure of government longer than the little guy. He concurred with the other Councilmembers on getting some kind of legal judgment against the developers because apparently that is the only thing that they are going to understand. Mayor Matteson asked the City Attorney if he started on this tomorrow, September 11, 1987, do you have to give the developers so many days to comply, what would be legal? The City Attorney replied he will start the process tomorrow to stop the noise and if they completely ignore us, then next week we will have a temporary restraining order preliminary to the injunction. Councilmember Evans stated he wanted it understood that he did not want to stop the development of the project; but that the developers comply with the order. The City Engineer stated that they also needed to address the drainage problem. He stated for the benefit of those concerned regarding the existing ditch it is not a product that will be accepted. Mayor Matteson thanked the concerned citizens for bringing this to Council's attention. However, this documentation started on August 4, 1987 and he wished they had brought this matter to their attention before this. He stated it takes the City a certain length of time to put things in motion and the City is here for the people, to protect them and to represent them, so when something like this comes up let the City know immediately. Mr. Dodge stated the developers have done this since they broke ground. He further stated it took the concerned citizens until August 4, 1987 to get a hold of the ordinance and to supply the sheriff with copies of the ordinance so he could enforce it. Mayor Matteson stated this is the first time Council was aware of this and Council will immediately take action. Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 7 Mr. Dodge stated the citizens do not want to shut the developers down. Mayor Matteson thanked Mr. Dodge and said they do not have to shut down, but they do have to comply. Mr. Faries stated he wanted something done about the drainage problem. The rains will be coming down into their yards and finishing the homes the developers are working on now is not going to stop the water. The developers are building ten to fifteen homes in the center of this development and they can put in all the landscape they want, but that is not going to stop the mud. Mr. Sims stated he is a civil engineer and questioned the City Engineer whether the developers are required to prepare a road control plan to control drainage from within the tract so it will not create the mud slides. He asked if the developers have done this. The City Engineer stated, in this particular case, the estimated date of completion for the public road has since passed so, based on their schedule, he felt that the area would be adequately protected from any potential mud slides or runoff, especially in the public right-of-way; therefore, in this particular case they were not required to submit a plan. Mr. Sims asked whether the developers could prepare such a plan since they are running past the anticipated schedule. The City Engineer stated he agreed with Mr. Sims, that such a plan is an excellent tool, you can have the plan, but trying to implement it and having the cooperation is another thing. Mrs. Dodge Mrs. Dodge stated she prepared the response for the Southern Pacific Transportation Company Railroad litigation versus the City of Grand Terrace and filed it. She asked the Council to do them a favor and get the Temporary Restraining Order, if necessary. Dick Rollins Mr. Rollins stated he would like to remind the City Attorney he 22700 DeBerry did work out an ordinance for a law regarding a reward for vandalism of public property. Mr. Rollins indicated a reward was posted in the park when vandals burned down the bulletin board. He stated the City Engineer came up with the answer. The developers are paying over $6,000.00 a day in construction interest money, that time is of the essence and the developers are going to ignore you all they can to keep from paying other interest rates. He stated the way to stop the developers is to stop the inspection permits; stop the inspections and you stop construction; then the interest rates go up and that will force them to abide by the ordinance. Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 8 Mr. Rollins stated that by the City Engineer writing a letter it will be far more powerful than the letter the City Attorney writes because the developer want those subs in there to get the job done as fast as it can be done. Mr. Rollins asked permission to hand out copies of Assembly Bill 1637, which Barbara Riordan, 3rd District Supervisor, is spear -heading for SANBAG. He further stated the Parks and Recreation Committee is going to have an educational process with taxpayers of this County. ORAL REPORTS Committee Reports There were no Committee reports. City Council Reports Councilmember Councilmember Evans stated last week he was contacted by a Evans gentlemen who lives on the west side of the freeway in regard to a problem involving the truck swampers and the traffic problems they are creating along Barton Road. He had passed the information on to the Community Services Director and was curious as to what current status is. The Assistant City Manager stated they notified the Sheriff's Department, and those individuals that were stopped and parked in the public right-of-way where it was posted no parking, were moved on. He stated there are some individuals that are parking on private property and the City has no control over that property. He thought Mr. Hughes and some of the residents from Grand Terrace Road have submitted a request to the Mayor and members of the City Council to designate certain areas along Grand Terrace Road as "No Parking" areas. Councilmember Evans requested the Assistant City Manager to review the letter and see if it would be appropriate to place "No Parking" signs in those designated areas and hopefully resolve the problem. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated the City needs to talk very carefully to the people along Grand Terrace Road to find out what can be done and advise them of how restrictive the solution can be. She stated the other thing that she is concerned about is the condition of the private property upon which these people are parking. She felt the property should be inspected for health and fire hazards. We need to make them remove the trash and garbage, and if they are not using proper toilet facilities, then the City needs to do something about that. Mayor Matteson noted that the piece of property is in escrow and will be developed soon. Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 9 Councilmember Evans asked the Assistant City Manager if he had already inspected the property. The Assistant City Manager indicated staff made a visual inspection after Councilmember Evans reported it to staff and staff notified the County of San Bernardino Environmental Health Department and the appropriate notices of violation are being prepared. Councilmember Evans stated as far as the impact of no parking signs, it was explained to Mr. Hughes that he was to contact the people who would directly be impacted by any potential signs. He stated the letter that was submitted had the concurrence of all the property owners in the immediate area. He stated it is his understanding that the owners are fully aware that if the signs do go up, it will have some impact. The Assistant City Manager stated he would assume that if those individuals who are going to be impacted by the proposed "No Parking" area, concur with that request and it will then be placed on the agenda for the City Council to take the appropriate action, to so designate that as a "No Parking" area. Councilmember Grant concurred with the other Councilmembers; sees it five mornings a week and felt it is a very sad situation. He wondered to what extent, if any, Stater Bros. Company could assist the City in this. He stated Warren Coake is the chief security man for that company and felt something ought to be done to involve Mr. Coake. Mayor Pro Tem Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen indicated she and Councilmember Pfennighausen Evans attended the first Municipal Water Advisory Board Commission meeting after they were selected to do so. She indicated they are going to be addressing 14 specific areas of concern that was brought forth to them through a survey done throughout the Municipal Water District and they are going to tackle the first five at the next meeting and will report back to the people at that time. Mayor Matteson stated Victor Construction is planning on doing a complex down on Commerce Way, but they don't want to wait until the General Plan is approved for that area. He stated they would like to have a meeting with the City Council to get input next week to get the feel of Council and Planning Commission. He asked how Council felt about this meeting and stated he, personally, felt it is good to get an idea before the developer gets too far into his plans on what we want for the City down there. Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 10 Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated the meeting would be a workshop -type atmosphere to give them some idea of the feeling or the problems that people are going to have with the project; it will be fully open to the public. This project is a first -quality commercial development within our community. Time is money and the development has funding. Funding doesn't last forever and we would like to facilitate this with the least impact. She further indicated we want to get it through in a timely manner to a positive result within the City. Mayor Matteson set the date and time for Tuesday, September 15, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. and asked the City Manager to contact the Planning Commission. The City Manager stated he would contact Planning Commission and would advertise the meeting. He asked if Council wanted to put the issue of the restraining order on as well. Mayor Matteson indicated that would be a good idea. Councilmember Evans suggested that the Chamber be invited to the meeting and requested the City Manager to also notify them. The City Manager indicated he would notify the Chamber and run an ad in the Sun and Riverside Press. Mayor Matteson notified everyone that October 10, 1987 will be Grand Terrace's free dump day. Mayor Matteson called for a ten-minute break at 6:40 p.m. before going into Public Hearing which was scheduled for 6:30 p.m. Council reconvened at 6:50 p.m. Item 6(A) The Planning Director stated on August 17, 1987, the Planning Appeal of Commission denied CUP 87-7 (Keeney), an application for a Planning Conditional Use Permit allowing the operation of a combined Commission's recreational vehicle park and retail shops facility to be (Keeney) located in the City C-2 zone. He stated subsequently that Mr. Robert Keeney has appealed the Planning Commission decision to the City Council. The Planning Director stated Mr. Keeney proposes a total of 11,600 square feet of commercial floor space and 1,300 square feet of floor area devoted to the RV park. The Planning Director read the description and proposed uses of the commercial and RV areas. He indicated if Council approves this request, staff recommends several conditions to be made part of the Conditional Use Permit. He further stated these conditions are contained in the attached proposed resolution and include recommended conditions by the Planning Department, Engineering Department, the Department of Forestry, the Department of Transportation and the Department of Environmental Health Services. Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 11 He stated the Planning Department's original recommendation to the Planning Commission was for approval of this application as conditioned by staff. He noted that it was staff's opinion that the development of this parcel would be better suited to a larger retail restaurant development combining this parcel with the adjacent parcel to the east. However, the existing developments on these parcels and the availability of other potential sites in the area, which are more attractive to developers at this time should keep such a development from occurring in the near future. For this reason staff feels that this project, if recommended, is an appropriate use for the subject property at this time and, therefore, staff recommends City Council approve Conditional Use Permit 87-7 as recommended and conditioned in the resolution. Robert Keeney Mr. Keeney stated this is a combined -use project that consists 12139 Mt. Vernon of a commercial center on the front portion of the property; approximately one and a half acres of commercial and an RV park on the rear of the northerly property approximately three acres; indicating the commercial center having approximately twelve thousand square feet of rentable space. He noted they are trying to get different tenants in there, such as restaurants, convenience stores, a hardware store and a laundromat which will serve both the RV park and the community, and any other use they feel is compatible in that C-2 zone. Mr. Keeney stated the RV park will have approximately 115 spaces with a spa, attractive landscaping, greenbelt, a club room and restroom facilities. He stated the RV park will not be easily visible from Barton Road, Grand Terrace Road or LaCrosse, indicating he knew this had been a major concern of some of the citizens that have questioned this project. Mr. Keeney indicated the first front third of the project will be entirely commercial and the way the property is, it will slope on a gentle rise for about a third of the project. The RV park portion of it will slope toward the north. He stated they have met with the neighbors and have their confirmation on the project if they meet their concerns. He stated they feel this project will be a catalyst for future development on the west side of the freeway and Grand Terrace. He indicated in the development process of this project, Barton Road will be widened to an ultimate width of one -hundred feet of the right-of-way and seventy-two feet to curb and it should alleviate the traffic problem we are having there now. Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 12 Mr. Keeney stated the property is approximately 250 feet wide and 1,000 feet deep and, because of its unique shape, this combined project makes a good use of the frontage with visible commercial and also offers a site cover for the RV park. He stated they plan to have an attractive design with the town and country look compatible with Grand Terrace's current desires for architectural landscaping. He noted the project is an effort on their part to bring commerce to Grand Terrace. They want to upgrade the area with a project that is compatible with the neighbors and the City of Grand Terrace and would appreciate a favorable consideration from Council. Mr. Keeney indicated he would be happy to answer any questions or concerns. Mayor Matteson opened the meeting up to the public to find out if there are any comments on this, either pro or con. Steve Perkio Mr. Perkio stated he had not heard of any of this before; he 22401 Ladera missed the other Council meting where this was brought up. He stated he has done a lot of camping with his wife and felt an RV park would be nice to have in town as long as it is nicely landscaped with nice facilities and is quiet for all the neighbors. He felt it would be a great thing to have people coming from out of town with their motorhomes to have a place to stay. Lois Pierce Mrs. Pierce indicated she had been to their neighborhood 21845 Grand meetings and felt this would be a great addition to their side Terrace Road of the freeway. They had a few concerns, such as the lighting which they would like to have low enough so that it didn't disturb the residents at night. They have been assured it is going to have a solid fence; a chain link fence would be unattractive. She further stated they had assured the residents there will be 24-hour supervision to take care of any problems that might arrive, and the emergency exit that they have proposed will indeed be used just for emergencies. Since the rest of the supporters did not show up, she would like to encourage Council to adopt this plan. Douglas Bruno Mr. Bruno stated he is affiliated with Moore Construction Moore Constr. Development Company from Riverside, and they are very Development interested in this particular project because they may be Company coming to the area with a development of their own. He stated they are presently negotiating on some property which he would rather not discuss or reveal at this point. However, if this goes they will be relatively close neighbors to this project and it will enhance the area. It is encouraging to see that development is coming up on the west side and he felt right now there is a traffic problem which was a concern to them. He indicated this will lend a lesser traffic problem because of the RV parking and, if it were all commercial, that would really put additional stress in that area for parking and for traffic flow coming on and off of Barton Road to the freeway. Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 13 Bruno stated he was in favor of the project and felt it encouraging from a developer's standpoint. Sandy Collins Mr. Collins stated he was not for or against this project 22697 Brentwood because he did not know much about it, but he heard people here tonight say they are in favor and heard the Planning Director state that you should approve it. He pointed out the reason the project is before Council tonight is because the Planning Commission denied it and he had not heard anyone say why. The Planning Director stated the reason the Planning Commission did not approve this Conditional Use Permit was based on traffic impact and the feeling that this area was not suited for an RV type development. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she attended the Planning Commission meeting when this item was discussed and at the end of the discussion before the voting, they had managed to attach 45 conditions onto this project. She stated she was thinking Mr. Keeney wouldn't go for these conditions, but he did. She indicated she left the room completely confident that with all of those conditions which had been placed on it to mitigate all of their concerns that there would be nothing that the Commission could do but approve the project. She stated she left the meeting and three minutes later she heard the Planning Commission had completely done a reverse on the direction that they had been taking on the discussion. She told Mr. Collins she did not know why the project was denied and she sat through the whole meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she did not have a particular love for the project and had told Mr. Keeney that from the beginning. The obvious best use is to combine all of those parcels and have a large project, but in order to do that, someone has to be willing to gather all of those pieces together and there doesn't seem to be a meeting of minds. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated that earlier this evening, Council had something before them that not long ago was a problem on this particular property; the same swampers were using this piece of property for a variety of uses that they seem to find for vacant property. The swampers are gone and now the property is just sitting there. If Mr. Keeney can mitigate all of the factors of concern, the project should go through. She also indicated if all criteria on the project were met, she would vote in favor of this appeal. Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 14 Councilmember Grant stated he wanted to see total commercial development in that area and had expressed that opinion to Mr. Keeney. He stated he thought Mr. Keeney had done his best and it would be to Mr. Keeney's benefit to combine that with other properties. Councilmember Grant felt Mr. Keeney had been sincere in his efforts to make something better out of that than what it is going to be and he concurred with Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen. He stated he read the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting; read the details; looked at the 40-odd number of conditions and he cannot justify in good faith why he should go against this appeal. Councilmember Shirley stated she felt Mr. Keeney is very forward thinking in being able to put together a project of this type as he has stated. She said an RV park can be easily removed for a better use of that real estate. In talking with Mr. Keeney, he pointed out to her Item 38 in the stipulations whereby the Department of Transportation had recommended that there only be one ingress and egress into this property and to use the emergency exit as the second exit and entrance into this property. She indicated she liked the way the plan is drawn; that Council has here an exhibit with two entrances and, as the people who live in the area have stated, they want that emergency entrance strictly left for emergencies so that there will not be traffic through their neighborhood. Councilmember Evans stated when this project first came before the Planning Commission the question was whether or not an RV park was an allowable use in a C-2 zone. The Planning Commission found that it wasn't an allowable use. The surrounding property owners spoke in favor of Mr. Keeney's project. Councilmember Evans stated he needed a legal opinion or explanation from the Planning Director on the change. He indicated that in the staff report of June 25, 1987, the Planning Director indicated, based on the Planning Commission's decision, that this RV park is not compatible with the type of development Grand Terrace is trying to obtain in the areas the City currently has zoned C-2. It was his recommendation that this was not a permitted use in the City's C-2 zone. Now, we come up to September 10, 1987, where you agree it would be nice to have this parcel assembled into a larger parcel. It had been discussed, in the past, the assembly of three parcels where you can have a larger retail or restaurant development. The general concensus was that side of the City will probably not develop as rapidly as some other areas. Now, the recommendation is that Council approve the project. Councilmember Evans stated he liked to rely upon input from staff's expertise, as well as the input from our Planning Commission. Why the flip-flop? Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 15 The Planning Director stated, the prior action was actually taking a look at the determination of use and not the individual project itself. He stated if that was approved at that time as a use within the C-2 zone, we would then be approving an RV park type of use on any piece of property that's zoned C-2 in the City. He agreed with the Planning Commissioners that it is not something that we wished to put into our code. He stated the second recommendation that the Planning Department has for Council tonight follows up on a item of law that the City Attorney can explain a little better, that we cannot outlaw any particular use in the City and because an RV park is not allowed in any particular zone in the City neither as permitted or with a Conditional Use Permit. He indicated they then have the right to apply for a Conditional Use Permit on any particular site in the City and that is what they have done this time. The Planning Department has taken a look at it from the staff's point -of -view and the Planning Commissioners point -of -view as to whether or not an RV park as presented in this proposal is appropriate for that particular use and, as you have read, the Planning Commission and Mr. Keeney disagreed on that and that is why the applicant has appealed. Councilmember Evans stated Council has no problems as far as the project complying legally with any of the conditions. The Planning Director stated, as long as they can come back, one of the conditions of this Conditional Use Permit is that an Architectural Review Hearing be held which is part of the code requirement. At that time, a revised site plan, which meets all the conditions that we placed on it in this particular Conditional Use Permit meets all the standard ordinance requirements should be presented to the Site and Architectural Review Board for approval. He noted that particular plan would need to meet all the regulations and these conditions. Councilmember Evans stated that the rendering we have this evening shows two entrances and two exits. Caltrans has shown that because of this close proximity to the freeway right-of-way, they will only go with one. How does that change the traffic impact as it goes out onto Grand Terrace Road? The Planning Director stated Caltrans' actual recommendation and ratio recommendation in their memo stated that the driveway should be pushed as far westerly away from the interchange as possible and that there only be one -access way onto Barton Road and that the emergency road entrance be used as a second entrance. He stated that is not what staff is recommending. Staff is agreeing with the Department of Transportation that there should be one driveway on Barton Road as far westerly as possible, but that driveway be constructed in a manner that is wide enough to handle the egress and ingress as a one driveway Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 16 facility and that emergency entrance be kept as an emergency entrance only. He stated because of that, there will be some internal revisions that will be needed in order to allow the turning ratios, but the traffic generation will be the same on Barton Road as it is here which is put together into one driveway rather than two. Councilmember Evans asked the Planning Director to explain Item No. 7. Mr. Keeney indicated Barton Road will be widened to a 100-foot right-of-way with 72-foot curb -to -curb as a result of his project and questioned whether Mr. Keeney would be willing in that area to do both sides of the street. The Planning Director indicated asking Mr. Keeney, because he wasn't sure what the intent of that memo was. Mr. Keeney stated he wasn't willing to develop both sides of the street. Councilmember Evans stated he did not like the project because he felt it wasn't the best usage for the City, but from a legal standpoint, and the input from staff, he can't find anything in which to deny the project, if Mr. Keeney meets all the conditions. He stated he would much rather see all the parcels assembled into a larger development which he felt would be more of an asset for this community. However, since staff feels this is not a reality at the moment, he can only support it at this particular time. CC-87-176 Motion by Mayor Matteson, second by Councilmember Grant, ALL AYES, to grant the appeal of Planning Commission's decision of CUP 87-7. Undergrounding The City Engineer stated at the August 27, 1987 Council meeting, Council adopted Resolution 87-20 setting a public hearing on Council's intention to 100 lb. certain overhead facilities along Barton Road, including the Southern California Edison, Pacific Telephone and Cable Television facilities and, in that same resolution, Council set a public hearing for September 10, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. The City Engineer stated he had met with Southern California Edison personnel. The original map indicated the westerly boundary could be the easterly right-of-way line of the freeway which would include the parcel on the northwest corner of Vivienda and Barton, and the parcels fronting on Barton Road westerly of Michigan, specifically the service station on the south west corner and the service station adjacent to the freeway and the design center on Barton Road. He indicated it had been requested that the boundary be amended to go easterly along the center line of Vivienda, center line of Barton Road and center line of Michigan Street, thus, eliminating the four Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 17 parcels west of Michigan and Vivienda on both sides of Barton Road between those two streets and the freeway. In addition, it had been suggested that certain parcels within the boundaries remaining have an overhead pole set close to that building that actually supports the lights from the Edison Company facilities on Barton Road right-of-way close to their homes and then drops from that pole down into the meter which is fairly close to the structure. He stated it has been suggested that if the City Council so desires, they can eliminate the undergrounding of the overhead facilities from the poles close to the structure to the meter, thus saving some money. As we discussed previously, one of their considerations that was given to the property owners for the dedication was the total undergrounding or the undergrounding of all those facilities. He stated staff, at this time, is recommending that the boundaries be amended to eliminate the four parcels westerly of Vivienda and Michigan. With respect to the elimination of the undergrounding from the on -sight poles to the meters, he felt this is something that the City Council might want to discuss in further detail before staff would even consider recommendations on that. Mayor Matteson asked why were we eliminating those areas west of Vivienda and Michigan? The City Engineer stated he had a misunderstanding with the Edison Company representative when they met; he thought they indicated the last pole that would remain would be just easterly of the freeway right-of-way on the south side of Barton Road. He stated what the Edison Company needs to do is take the next pole down which is between there and the Corner of Michigan and Barton. He stated the pole on the southwest corner of Michigan and Barton would be eliminated; the one just to the west of that would remain. Two reasons, (1) the budget that they have prepared for the funds did not include the relocation or the eliminating of that pole and; (2) they need to anchor that pole just easterly of the freeway right-of-way of Barton Road. He stated there is no place to anchor that pole therefore, the second pole, the one before the freeway and the one at Michigan and Barton, are the only ones they can really anchor to maintain the line going westerly that is to remain over the freeway right-of-way. Mayor Matteson asked if he was saying the one on the corner of Michigan and Barton Road would be eliminated. The City Engineer stated the one on the southwest corner would be eliminated. Mayor Matteson there, you run up to a pole, came up to the Council Minutes - 9/10/87 said the other question is if you put a pole on the Edison lines underground and then you come wouldn't that be more expensive than if you just houses up to the meter? Page 18 The City Engineer stated probably not because you still have to come up to the meter which is probably the same as coming up the pole. However, you still have to convert the meter to the underground facility from the overhead and that is a conversion on the house itself. He stated, again, he wanted to remind the City Council that in the transmittal to the property owners, staff did tell them that the City would underground to the house and this was a suggestion from the Southern California Edison Company that if we wanted to save some money, this would be one place where we could. He stated there is a total of five residences involved in that particular situation. The City Attorney stated he wasn't certain of the communication, the pole on the southwest corner of Barton Road and Michigan, would it still be standing? Mayor Matteson responded, no sir. The City Attorney asked if it would be underground and the response was yes. Mayor Matteson asked if staff is recommending that you put in the pole instead of going directly to the house? The City Engineer stated staff has to honor the transmittal to all the property owners and staff said that we would pay for that portion of the conversion on private property to complete the undergrounding. Mayor Matteson asked how much difference the City Engineer is talking about going from a pole to changing a meter over. The City Engineer replied, "You are probably looking at an estimated additional $400.00 or so." Councilmember Shirley asked about the people who had deeded property to the City and we promised them we would underground to the house; she felt Council should honor that. She felt it would be much better for the City if we could underground the whole thing; if we are going to start with one part of it, lets do it right. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked if there were poles on the north side along the Grand Terrace School property. The City Engineer replied not Edison Company poles, but a telephone line along the frontage of that property and the service coming to the Community Center is where the telephone service is coming off of that system. The Edison Company services to both the Community Center and the School is from a system that is far removed from Barton Road. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen questioned, "would it be reasonable in the City Engineer's estimation to pull those telephone lines underground as we are doing everything else?" Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 19 The City Engineer replied the telephone lines from Vivienda easterly, which is all on the north side of Barton Road, is going down and so is the cable, there will be no facility. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she understood that what he was saying is that does he feel it would be unreasonable to take those telephone poles down and put the rest of that telephone service underground? The City Engineer asked, "along the frontage of the school property?" He thought it came under Rule 20 regulations and wasn't sure we could ask the telephone company to go underground without asking Edison to go underground in the same boundaries. He stated that means if we ask the telephone company to go underground along the northerly side of Barton Road between Vivienda and the freeway, there is no Edison facilities in that area and he wasn't sure of what the legality would be. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she heard what the City Engineer was saying. It does seem to piggyback to what Councilmember Shirley said that if we are going to do it, do it right and, if that is right, then we need to do it. She stated there is a definite reason why Edison has recommended retaining that pole on the south side of the street and that makes sense. She stated we want to clean up Barton Road; to beautify the entrance into our City, we want to put everything underground and we are going to leave poles on the north side along Grand Terrace School, that doesn't make sense. The City Engineer indicated, he would have to refer to some legal advice or talk to someone who is far more familiar with Rule 20-A than he was from a legal standpoint. He stated to try and accomplish what we are talking about would mean that the boundary on the northerly side of Barton Road would follow the easterly right-of-way line to the center line then drop back somewhere back to Michigan Street, which would include only the telephone facilities on that side. Mayor Matteson asked if it were possible to cross over the street and then go with Edison down to the freeway, rather than running separate lines down each side of the street. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she did not understand what the City Engineer was saying. The City Engineer asked Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen, "as far as the construction is concerned, is that what you are saying, the installation of the underground?" Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 20 Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated, there are facilities on both sides of Barton Road that are going to have to be moved. Where we originally started the freeway, Edison has a problem because of anchoring another pole, so that saves strategic problems that are solved there. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen indicated it didn't make sense to her that the only things on poles along Barton Road north side of the freeway are telephone lines. If we are going to underground, it doesn't make sense that the telephone company is going to underground all of the lines except from Vivienda to the freeway. Are we going to leave the poles standing there? The City Engineer replied, that is the logical boundary for the undergrounding of Edison and, again, Rule 20-A pertains to overhead electrical lines which requires all other facilities to follow. He indicated he would like Sue Noreen, with Southern California Edison Company, to explain that because he did not understand it all. Sue Noreen Ms. Noreen said she did not understand all the legal Southern ramifications, but would explain to Council that when Edison California declared the situation where Edison wanted to go out and find Edison Company the Rule 20-A Project where they could spend the dollars that Edison had set aside for you to beautify your City, there are some certain guidelines that have to be followed. She stated there has to be at least 600 feet, it has to be a heavily traveled area or an area where there is a lot of overhead congestion. Ms. Noreen indicated the initial request that came to Edison was to underground Barton Road from Canal to Michigan. She noted what Edison usually does at that point is get together with the City Engineer, bring in all the utilities and go out and walk the project. Ms. Noreen explained Edison could not serve the other side of the freeway if the district went up to the freeway and the pole came down, so they have to have an anchor pole there to maintain the line which goes across the freeway. She stated there is no way to underground across the freeway. She said she could not speak for the telephone company, but it could be because Edison goes out and walks the entire area before coming up with the most practical, logical boundaries to block off the underground districts if agreed upon by all three utilities, cable, Pacific Telephone, and Edison. It could be that they have met with the same conditions that Edison has; that they have to have an anchor pole or they can't continue their line across the freeway. Ms. Noreen further stated the boundaries are agreed upon mutually by all the utilities. When the map came to her originally, the boundaries were drawn incorrectly, not the way that the utilities had agreed upon. Ms. Noreen stated the agreement was the center line or the properties on Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 21 both sides of Barton Road from Canal to the center line of Vivienda; the center line of Barton Road; and the center line of Michigan, but the one Edison pole on the outside of that boundary would be removed. She indicated that is what was agreed upon by the utilities and the map should have been presented to Council that way. Mayor Matteson questioned, theoretically, the telephone company would go underground up to Michigan and then up again? Ms. Noreen replied "Up to Michigan." She stated she could not speak for them. She did not know what their construction looks like out there, but they must have a reason for dropping it off at that point. Mayor Matteson said they are not going through there by themselves. Ms. Noreen said they are the only ones on that side of the street; she asked if the cable was with Edison or on the other side of the street. The City Engineer replied he believed the cable was on Edison's side. He questioned Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen, "is that what you meant by construction, if there are going to be two trenches, one on each side?" Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated, "no," she just wanted to make sure; she was getting a little bit scared, now she doesn't know how logistically they are going to handle it. Ms. Noreen said it depends on the construction schedule and if they can all coordinate it; it will go into the same trench. If one of the utilities is further ahead in construction than the other, then it usually ends up being something that most likely will go on one side of the street, because it will be less expensive. The other two utilities will then go on the other side of the street and it will be in conjunction with the street widening on Barton Road. The City Engineer stated the westerly boundary should be amended from coming down the center line of Vivienda, westerly on Barton and south on Michigan and maintain the rest of the boundary eliminating the boundary westerly of Michigan and Vivienda. The City Attorney stated he did not know of any prohibition that would preclude Council from drawing that boundary to include the school site or the north side of Barton Road up to the freeway. He suggested that if you consider doing that, you should conduct a public hearing, then close it and continue the matter. Do not make a decision so that you can then consult with the telephone people and see what impractical problems that might ... Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 22 Ms. Noreen said she was sure it was something impractical. She felt it may have been considered at the time, but she certainly didn't know. It was observed that Councilmember Grant left the meeting at 7:30 p.m. and returned at 7:35 p.m. The City Engineer stated, the property that would be effected, is the Community Center and the school property, which is the additional boundary on the north side as it is drawn. Mayor Matteson asked the City Engineer to clarify whether the utilities will go down to Michigan and stop there at Michigan. The City Engineer replied, the undergrounding on the south side or the Edison Company, which is where they are, will include the pole on the southwest corner on Michigan and Barton and everything easterly from there to the Canal right-of-way. Mayor Matteson asked, "and the telephone company would include?" The City Engineer replied, "From Vivienda easterly to Gage Canal along the north side of Barton Road," and he would be happy to discuss the details of the problems with the telephone company's representatives and go from there. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated whether it is five years from now or fifty years from now, sooner or later something is going to happen with the Grand Terrace School site, and at that time, she was sure we are going to have all of those lines underground so she can wait. PUBLIC HEARING Mayor Matteson opened the public hearing and asked if anyone would like to speak on the subject. Elsa Debald Mrs. Debald stated she was here representing her daughter who owns parcel 022. She made reference to a letter that was sent out stating that the property owner shall reconnect their buildings to new underground lines; service lateral will be provided without cost to property owners up to 100 feet from the utilities main line. She wanted to know where is the main line, is it out in the middle of the street? The City Attorney indicated that Mrs. Debald was reading out of the resolution, stating there was a letter that accompanied i t. Mrs. Debald read part of the letter and asked if the entire 100 feet plus going around through the meter will not be charged to the property owners. Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 23 The City Attorney replied, "That is correct." The City Attorney stated the reason he had it put in a letter was because the normal or standard form of a resolution is what you are reading. However, the City Council has made the commitment and what he tried to do is ease the owner's mind with respect to what the resolution said and that is why he stated it in the letter the way that he did. The City Manager indicated that staff had taken up the issue of the original resolution stating that language. He suggested to make it clear for all the property owners in the second resolution, which will allow staff to add one section to that language that would state that those who dedicated would be given the connection at no cost, just so that it is in the legal form in the resolution. The City Attorney mentioned that it should probably state that the now improved properties having connections at this time will be reconnected at no cost. There are others who do have unimproved property. We can't make a commitment for down the road. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she also understood that this would be an accommodation made to people who willingly participated with the City in this. She thanked everyone for helping the City clean up Barton Road. She noted there was only one exception and she would like to see a Section 8 added to the resolution so stating that all improved property owners who willingly dedicated will have the power connected to their house or place of business at no cost to them, as the letter represents. Mayor Matteson asked if that was a motion and the response was yes, and she would like that to be Section 8. CC-87-177 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen, second by Councilmember Evans. Mrs. Debald Mrs. Debald asked if the meters currently on the houses are going to be adequate to handle this new line or are there going to be new meters. The City Engineer replied, no, we will be using the same meters. Motion CC-87-177 carried ALL AYES, to add to the resolution so stating that ALL IMPROVED PROPERTY OWNERS WHO WILLINGLY DEDICATE WILL HAVE THE POWER RUN IN AND CONNECTED TO THEIR HOUSES OR PLACE OF BUSINESS AT NO COST TO THEM AS THE LETTER REPRESENTS. Mayor Matteson explained because of a prior commitment, he have been asked to move Item 7(D) up to the next item on the list. Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 24 Pico Park Site The City Manager stated that Council had asked staff to wrap-up the Pico Park Site issue. Staff has received a summary from Edison with all the conditions that they would require in order for us to take control of the site. He stated, that the fencing and irrigation will be about $6,000.00, the reimbursement to Marygold is now estimated at $2,500.00 and the lease is now estimated at $1,000.00. He noted the Parks and Recreation Committee, at their last meeting, asked for directions on this issue and therefore, we have summarized it and placed it before Council to give both the Parks and Recreation Committee permission, and staff direction on how to proceed on this matter. Mayor Matteson asked what was Council's desire. Councilmember Shirley felt we should go ahead with the lease with Edison; we need the land and indicated, it is more than reasonable and it would be a real asset to the community. Councilmember Grant stated he has consistently supported this lease and would have liked to have seen a longer lease, but felt delays in implementing this is going to cost us money. He indicated, not being totally happy with all the conditions requested by the Edison Company, felt the need of this park, and the lease of this land from Edison outweighs those concerns. He concurred with his colleagues and the Committee that we need extra recreational parkland in this community. He fully supports the intent of this agreement with Edison and feels we would seriously regret this if we don't follow through. Councilmember Evans asked the Assistant City Manager, "If we were to accept to this lease agreement, when would it be effective?" The Assistant City Manager indicated he may have to defer this question to Sue Noreen, but he assumed immediately. Ms. Noreen replied, it takes about 60 days to draw up a lease, but you can have immediate occupancy. Edison will tell the current tenant that the City has agreed to enter into a lease, even though it might take Edison 60 days to draw up the paper work. She also stated you can go in and do the improvements that are being requested, as they have to be done first. You wouldn't be able to go in right away; you have to get the fencing up and start doing your work. Councilmember Evans asked the Assistant City Manager if he were recommending a cost of $9,500.00, is that for the lease, the reimbursement for Marygold Farms, for fencing and irrigation? The Assistant City Manager stated that is $6,000.00. Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 25 Councilmember Evans questioned, assuming we were entering into the lease agreement, do you have a timetable as to when any improvements would commence and also exactly what it is that we are going to do on that property and how much we are going to spend to improve that property. The Assistant City Manager replied if it is approved for occupancy, staff will get back with the Parks and Recreation Committee to finalize exactly what they are hoping to achieve with the development of this site and work on obtaining some concrete estimates as to exactly what it is going to cost. Councilmember Evans stated we haven't done that to date. The Assistant City Manager stated we really don't have anything finalized, everything is strictly preliminary now. Barbara Conley, Barbara Conley stated the Committee decided to put this through Chairman to Council because they felt the amount of time they have been Parks and dealing with Edison on the Pico Park Site has been over too Recreation long a period of time. She stated the Committee felt the land Committee within Grand Terrace City limits for possible park sites is extremely limited. The availability of a land lease, provided the City and Edison can agree on conditions, is a viable option. She stated the original intent of the Parks and Recreation Committee was to establish a simple park that would include two adult softball fields, two little league fields, and two or three soccer fields, depending on the season. She indicated this proclamation was submitted in February, 1986 to Edison and she believed was approved by Edison on that simple basis. Future development concepts, provided they concurred with the land -lease agreement, would be to include portable bleachers, toilets, and/or drinking fountains. She stated in answer to Councilmember Evans' question, we have come up with a park design of which she had copies. It is not a completed park design; it is one that was drawn up by one of the Commissioners and this is what the Parks and Recreation Committee felt was the best use for the land. Ms. Conley stated that the cost associated with the simple park site, backstops, fencing, preparation, seating, etc. had not currently been assessed by staff; they just had the rough outline of what they would like to see on that land because of the ongoing debates. She indicated with cost of land spiralling outrageously in Grand Terrace, they did not feel the $1,000.00 per year lease is unreasonable, neither does she feel that the $2,500.00 cost to reimburse Marygold Farms is excessive, due to the delay that we have all been involved in with signing this lease. The $3,500.00 for the first year to lease ten acres of land would appear to be far below the purchase price for yearly financing to purchase ten acres of land here in Grand Terrace. The estimated fencing stipulated Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 26 by Edison Company would possibly be a cost we would incur no matter where our park site was located. We might think that there isn't complete fencing around our baseball diamond on DeBerry, but you have to understand, that is more than a softball diamond. We are talking about four softball diamonds on this land on Pico. Ms. Conley stated during the past eighteen months the Parks and Recreation Committee has sent various action items to Council and they are at the point where they would like a decision to be made. She wanted to know if we are going to lease the land or not, because they have other ideas and things they should be working on. The Committee also felt that the possible lease of these ten acres of land should not diminish the concern for additional city -owned parkland or a sports complex in Grand Terrace for the future. The City Manager stated the estimate is only to do the minimum that Edison required on the fencing, which is only to fence the western portion that would separate our parcel from the existing alfalfa. Ms. Conley said the plan that the Parks and Recreation Committee was working on had fencing all the way around and that is on which she was basing her assumption. The City Manager stated the cost estimate is just for that one piece. CC-87-178 Motion by Mayor Matteson, second by Councilmember Grant, to sign a lease and expedite it as soon as possible. Councilmember Evans questioned the amount of money we are willing to put into this park site. The Assistant City Manager stated that is entirely up to the City Council. Councilmember Evans asked the Assistant City Manager if he had any rough estimate based on what has been discussed over the last couple of years? The Assistant City Manager assured it could be as high as $130,000.00 or maybe as low as $90,000.00. It depends on what extent we want to go development wise. Councilmember Evans questioned if this amount is for a park site that will not be fully functional, by that, it cannot be utilized year-round because we can't put permanent fixtures on this land and, primarily, lights at this particular point. The Assistant City Manager responded, "yes." Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 27 Councilmember Evans stated he had some concerns of spending that amount of money towards a park that will not be fully functional. He stated the City Manager has shared with Council that he has been doing a study on possible sources of revenue that we could utilize towards park acquisition land, which would be the first step towards having an all-purpose site that would incorporate what Ms. Conley talked about, a recreation center, tennis courts, handball courts, lighted fields and what have you. Councilmember Evans asked the City Manager to share with Council and the audience on how much money the City Manager thought we would have available if we were to pursue going out on park acquisition. The City Manager stated he had been working out a residual value deal with the 1981 housing issue and the closer we get to actually putting this deal together, it appears it is going to be more like $500,000.00. Basically, it is the residual cash that will be available when that bond issue plays out, which will be in about 15 years. He indicated what this does is allow us to sell that at the present value and believed that we could cash out at about $400,000.00, which would be available to the Redevelopment Agency. If Council saw fit to spend that on parkland, then we would have to transfer that in the way of a payback to the City on loans. He further stated if Council wishes to commit to a site and use those resources or other resources that exist in the General Fund, there is money available, as well as methods to use financing if we acquire a site that we can't handle all at once. Councilmember Shirley stated she felt Council is in agreement that we need more than one park site in Grand Terrace, that we are not stopping with the Pico Park Site if we do go through with this. Councilmember Shirley asked the Assistant City Manager how much, not withstanding any funding, we might get from anywhere else. How much would it cost to purchase and develop a fully functional park? The Assistant City Manager stated it depends on what amenities you want. If you want a multi -purpose type sports complex, probably in the neighborhood of one million and a half to two million dollars. Councilmember Shirley stated she felt the Pico Park Site is a bargain and a beginning. It is the second park site in this town and hopefully the beginning of many more. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated that the Pico Park Site backs directly up to a tract of houses. We would never be able to light it even if Edison would allow us to put up lights; that makes it a daytime field. She stated that really doesn't Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 28 bother her because we don't have the dollars and we don't have the space to produce enough ball parks to keep everyone playing ball except on weekends, so that is not a great concern to her. If they want to play ball and they can't do it at night, then they can do it on weekend as long as we have ball fields to offer them. She indicated her second concern is that already this year the turf at the upper soccer field is starting to get torn up and worn out. She noted it has taken us six years to get a turf bed that will hold up at all. She stated if the people think that they are going to have two useful soccer fields by the next soccer season, by taking the Pico Park Site, she felt they are going to be sadly disappointed. She did not think we could build a turf bed that quickly and history has proven that we can't. She stated, as far as an unlighted ballfield for softball, all of the things that Barbara Conley, Chairman of the Parks and Recreation Committee, referenced about their concept of the use of the property was actually what she had perceived it would be, something very simple, inexpensive to develop and something we would be able to put into immediate use. She stated upon reflection, we wouldn't be able to put into immediate use the soccer fields, but we could put into immediate use the four baseball fields on day time use only. Now her question is do we take $100,000.00 plus and put it some place if we are going to need it some place else. If all the questions were in place, this is absolutely one of the best deals going. She stated she is going to support the lease, but supports it with reservation. Motion CC-87-178 carried with Councilmember Evans voting NOE. The City Manager asked for clarification, did the motion include the appropriation that staff listed? The response was yes. Item 7(A) Mayor Matteson indicated every Councilmember had an opportunity to interview the Planning Commissioner applicants the earlier part of the week. CC-87-179 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen, second by Councilmember Evans, ALL AYES, to appoint Jim Sims as Planning Commissioner. Item 7(B) The City Attorney stated the Planning Director will be making a presentation shortly, but this is the second reading of the ordinance, THE TITLE AND ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GP 87-2. The Planning Director addressed amendment changes to certain land -use designation on the west side of I-215 in the City. He noted there had been no substantial changes made to the ordinance and it is now before Council for a second reading. Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 29 CC-87-180 Motion by Mayor Matteson, second by Councilmember Shirley, to approve the second reading and changes of the General Plan Amendment. Motion carried with Councilmember Evans and Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen voting NOE. Item 7(C) The Planning Director stated the second reading of the Zoning Ordinance change is for the west side of the City at this time only until the entire General Plan Revision is completed for the entire City. At the meeting held on July 30, 1987, Council held a public hearing and requested that staff change the Planning Commission recommendation of 15 dwelling units per acre in an R-3 zone to 12 dwelling units per acre. This change was made in the ordinance. CC-87-181 Motion by Mayor Matteson, second by Councilmember Grant, to approve the changes in the Zoning Ordinance. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen indicated she opposed one portion of the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan Amendment. On the west side of the freeway, it dealt only with one piece of property. She felt it is totally unrealistic in today's dollars to expect the developer to develop multi -family units at 12 units to an acre. She felt that it is a move on the part of Grand Terrace to shut that type of development down; she was not sure we could do that unless we hurry up and get something else done. Therefore, she will oppose this Zoning Ordinance Amendment strictly based on the reduction of 15 units per acre to 12 units per acre. Councilmember Evans concurred with Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen and felt we are taking a look at something that is totally unrealistic and it is certainly going to create very serious economic issues for the City in the future. He questioned whether this had gone to the State yet? Even if we pass this tonight, it can conceivably come back from the State at a higher density, is that correct? The Planning Director indicated his understanding was that the State, in essence, would reject housing elements because they must approve it and we would consider any recommended changes. Councilmember Evans stated we would, therefore, have to go through this whole process again to increase it. The Planning Director responded, "That is a possibility." Councilmember Evans mentioned there is also another concern and the City Attorney needs to give us input, once it is adopted. It is his understanding this document is for the entire City, is that not correct? Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 30 The City Attorney responded, "Yes." The only problem that is certain is if the designation does not exist east of the freeway; therefore, it would not be applicable until such time as you have adopted a General Plan Amendment for that portion of the City. The Planning Director stated the Planning Commission had their meeting Tuesday night. They recommended a resolution, which will clarify that this Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan Amendments will not have any affect on the east side of the freeway until the entire General Plan is heard and approved. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked if the Planning Commission has the authority to do that once Council has adopted this document. A similar zoning, and the only one she can think of is A-1, that could be placed elsewhere in the City as we do our General Plan Update on the east side of the freeway. She stated all of the other portion of that now will apply to the whole city, was she correct? The City Attorney stated, no. Not until such time, and in his opinion, even with the Commission action, it will not apply to that area east because Council has adopted amendments that do not exist in the area east of the freeway or until such time as the other General Plan Amendment has gone through, or no longer is compatible. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated if she understands what she is hearing there is an R-3 Zone where Council has changed some density regulations in it. She asked if the City Attorney was telling her that is only going to apply to the west side of the freeway; that any R-3 property on this side of the freeway is not going to apply until the General Plan in its entirety has been adopted and the new zoning has been adopted. The City Attorney, replied, "Yes, you have zoning designations that do not exist east of the freeway." Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked if we have R-3 on both sides of the freeway. The City Attorney stated, we have R-3 on both sides of the freeway, but not within the designation as defined in the ordinance. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked if the specific square footage is what rakes the difference. The City Attorney answered, "Yes." Councilmember Evans questioned how is it going to affect the proposed Mt. Vernon Villas Project? Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 31 The City Attorney asked if that is the Forest City Dillon Project, Councilmember Evans answer was, "Yes." The City Attorney replied, it won't because it is east of the freeway, it will not until you have adopted a General Plan Amendment. Councilmember Evans stated, the question is, "it can easily fit into the criteria of this document," if he understood it correctly. He stated he has a hard time understanding it is okay over here, but until you do this on the other side of the tracks, it is not going to apply, but yet the R-3 that is in that's particular area would fit the criteria. The City Attorney stated it wouldn't fit the criteria of the General Plan Amendment because you have adopted that General Plan Amendment. Motion CC-87-181 carried with Councilmember Evans and Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen voting NOE. Mayor Matteson stated we will adjourn this meeting until the special meeting of September 15, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. The City Attorney indicated not a special meeting. Mayor Matteson then stated to the adjourned meting. Respectfully submitted: 'ty Clerk y� APPROVED: Council Minutes - 9/10/87 Page 32