Loading...
10/22/1987CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - OCTOBER 22, 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 October 22, 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 Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney Juanita Brown, Deputy City Clerk Joe Kicak, City Engineer David Sawyer, Planning Director ABSENT The meeting was opened with invocation by Rev. Dale Goddard, Inland Christian Center, 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 CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Matteson asked if there were any items to be deleted from the agenda. The Assistant City Manager stated Item 5A-1 -- Community Service Officer's report to Council. He stated the written report is before Council and will delete the oral report. He stated there is two items that we will be asking to be continued. (1) Presentation to the Grand Terrace Strikers Soccer Team, which will be moved to the next meeting, a couple of the players could not be here tonight, and also (2) 7B -- Tentative Tract Map for T.J. Austyn. We are currently negotiating with the developer and we will also have that at the first meeting in November. Mayor Matteson asked Council if there were any items on the Consent Calendar to be removed for discussion. Councilmember Grant indicated Item D.-- Approve 10/8/87 Minutes. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen indicated Item G -- Acceptance of Agreements & Bonds - Final Tract Map No. 13364. Councilmember Shirley indicated Item E -- Request from Crime Prevention Officer to attend training in "Environmental Design" to be held November 30 - December 4, 1987 in Sacramento, CA. CC-87-202 Motion by Councilmember Grant, second by Councilmember Shirley, ALL AYES, to approve the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Item A - Approve Check Register No. 102287 Item B - Ratify October 22, 1987 CRA Action Item C - Waive Full Reading of Ordinances and Resolutions on Agenda Item F - Approval of Final Parcel Map No. 10710 Councilmember I refer Council to Page 4 of the Minutes of October 8, last Grant paragraph, fifth & sixth line down. I think this is a typo. Item D Accordingly any other committee had not been prohibited from meeting specifically with the General Plan Consultant and that led in a minute search, minute search because its a capital "M;" whether its minute or minute search, it makes no sense to me. Mayor Pro Tem If its changed to minutes, it makes sense to you. Pfennighausen Councilmember In that a lead in a minute search, and that led in a minute Grant search. Mayor Pro Tem It should probably so read that led to a minute search. Pfennighausen Councilmember That led to a minute search, okay I refer you to Page 8. On Grant Page 8 there is a single sentence paragraph where it saysCouncilmember Grant asked Councilmember Evans "what would be his alternative in accepting this as a park." If I recall this correctly, Mr. Mayor, I think you had asked Mr. Evans that question. Mayor Matteson I think you are right. Councilmember Finally, Page 21, down at the very bottom it says Councilmember Grant Grant concurred with others regarding the meeting on October 20, 1987 on earthquake preparedness. I think I recall making the additional statement to the affect and I can't remember my words. And he commented regarding a possible earthquake "neighborhood watch" type of program regarding cutting off gas mains. Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 2 Councilmember I have having one more question, the amended minutes of October 8, when were these provided to us Nita, sometime today or ... the corrections that were already made to the minutes of October 8? Deputy City Clerk Yesterday. Councilmember Yesterday, okay. Grant CC-87-203 Motion by Councilmember Grant, second by Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen, ALL AYES, approval of minutes as corrected by Councilmember Grant if the Council goes along with these corrections. Councilmember Mr. Mayor, my only comment on this is that I think it would be Shirley extremely beneficial for the City if David Sawyer were also to Item E attend this and since there is space for two, I would recommend that he also go. Councilmember Which item is this? Grant Councilmember This is Item E -- Training in Environmental Design Seminar to Shirley be held in Sacramento. David Sawyer The dates on that are the first week in December, is that correct. Councilmember Its November 30 to December 4. Shirley David Sawyer Okay, that right now, our tentative schedule that we have with Planning Consultants have us preparing for the General Plan Hearings and the Joint Workshop on the third. I talked to Ross Geller today and they are behind on that scheduling and we are going to be working out where exactly they are next week, so it could be that could be a conflict with attending that meeting. Councilmember Okay, how does the rest of the Council feel about this? Shirley Mayor Pro Tem Mr. Mayor, I think that David is fairly well versed on the Pfennighausen materials that is discussed, will be discussed in the Seminar. The Planning Commission has also been, had a workshop in this area, so if, it would be a prime opportunity, but if we are into General Plan business, we probably need him here more for that. Councilmember I agree, I think that he is already versed in this and based on Grant what he just told us, his presence here will probably be better. Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 3 CC-87-204 Motion by Councilmember Shirley, second by Councilmember Grant, ALL AYES, to approve Item E -- Crime Prevention Officer to attend training in Environmental Design, November 30 through December 4, 1987 in Sacramento, CA. Mayor Matteson Item E, Councilmember Pfennighausen. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated Item G. Mayor Matteson stated Item G, excuse me. Mayor Pro Tem I would like to have to taken off the Consent Calendar and Pfennighausen placed at least on the Agenda for discussion after the Public Hearings, due to the fact that it also involves the multi -family residential development and I think that some of the decisions that might be made tonight will impact this project and therefore, I would like to see it open for discussion after the Forest City Project is discussed. Mayor Matteson Does the rest of Council concur? Councilmember No objections to me. Grant Mayor Matteson Shirley, okay, we will move that to Item 8(A). Mayor Pro Tem It would be just Item A because we don't have anything else. Pfennighausen Mayor Matteson At this time I would like to welcome the Webelos Pack 400 to Webelos Pack Grand Terrace and if those boys will come forward, I would like 400 to give them a City Pin for attending the meeting tonight. He presented the City Pins to the boys. Mayor Matteson indicated being sure most of the community have received or will be receiving a letter from Riverside/Highland Water Company about their little problem they have. We have Gene McMeans, General Manager for Riverside/Highland Water Company, he will explain a little of the situation to us. Mr. McMeans Thank you Mayor Matteson and City Council. Yes, a Bacteria Riverside/ Quality Standards Failure Letter did go in the mail yesterday. Highland Water The communicay that was mailed was prepared with and by the Company assistance of Toby Royal who is the Assistant Engineer for State Department of Health Services. This encompassed the month of September and it is kind of a number fumbling thing, but if you note the coliform organisms and this is in the letter, are indicators of potential contamination and these are only indicators. And at times, the positive coliform bacteria test may result from situations which are not a hazard to health. So I will explore it a little bit later. In this case, in these cases we have follow-up samples that were taken and all were negative and the most recent samples since the incidents which happen mid -September up to current, have all Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 4 Gene McMeans strictly to a calculated number, what I mean by that is that the test in September, the States standard has established a level of positive coliforms found in the water for the month or a month at 5 percent of the samples. In this case, Riverside/Highland had 6.4 5 percent, so we fell right over what the Stated sets as standard which would mean the two tests involved, we have one less, there is no problem if we would have had forty samples, there was no basic reporting problem. We did have two samples which showed some positive coliform bacteria, these two samples showed or indicated a possibility of a fecal of contamination which is a contamination by human or animal waste, but in all the samples that have been taken, there was no fecal of contamination at all found. As I said the chloroform bacterias is an indicator. There are several bacterias that can be used by indicators. The State Health Department has elected as has most water in the AWWA Water, most water agencies using the coliform bacteria because it seems to be the most positive as a reactive bacteria. Bacteria logical test procedure is a very dynamic procedure in itself, in that a person goes out to various locations and takes a sample in a "sterile container," very sterile container with an enclosed top. They take the lid off hopefully hold it downward, take the sample of water, hopefully the hose bed or wherever the water comes from has been decontaminated. Many times procedures require that you use a little heat to decontaminate. Also, it requires the water be ran a minimum of two minutes, if it's a 3/4-inch hose bed. That one sample then is closed back up, taken to the lab and and divided up into five separate samples and each one of those samples then are tested and heated, brought forth to accelerate bacteria growth, then they look at those growths. If in the five bottles, the five small samples in each test, three of those show a plus, then for the first twenty-four hours and you look at the second twenty-four hours, if they show a plus and like say 5 percent of those samples with three bottles show a plus, then you do the necessary reporting and of course, immediately, when you got a plus, you do follow-up with retesting or begin to investigate the problem in the system or with a testing. These samples are transported, they are susceptible as you would know because you are looking for bacteria, could be susceptible to heat if they are not handled properly and they are suppose to remain cool and the test procedures. In our case, the month of September, we had one sample that experienced coliform bacteria, was taken the same day another sample was taken, which in this particular case was about 150 feet away from that sample. The one sample showed some coliform bacteria, the other sample is perfectly clean. So, we questioned a little bit with the State that doesn't seem to ring true, but non -the -less, the numbers were there. We did re -test the location that showed bad the following day and it tested clean, so there was no coliform bacteria and consequently, no fecal contamination. Our water samples are taken by an independent Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 5 laboratory, it's Edward S. Babcox & Sons from Riverside, they take the samples, they take five samples. We have worked with the State of California, Department of Health Services to locate five sample areas. By the State law, we are only required to take three, but we feel the way we are spread out in the various areas that five better cover what's happening throughout our system, so we do take five. They take the samples, they take the samples in and test them and they do give the results, they are qualified and verified by the State of California, samples go directly to the State of California. Riverside/Highland Water Company has kept the chlorine residual, as we have in the past down to approximately .2 milligrams per liter. Chlorine residual is a term used for basically a residual as an excess which in this case is required to have additional free chlorine after you have done all your contaminating, that means if after anything was contaminated and its been cleaned up and its disinfected, you should have some chlorine remaining as free chlorine, its like your chlorox. We have tried to maintained this at about .2 because we are also concerned about the chlorine taste in the water, some people feel they can taste it, they can smell it. Some of the communities in our immediate area carry it to a full 1.0 milligrams per liter. I live in one of those communities and I can certainly smell it and taste it, but we feel because the dynamics of it, we have, in fact, raised our free cholorine risidual to 0.4 milligrams per liter just to take out any question marks there might be in the system or the testing procedures. Mayor Matteson You are assuring us of the safety of the water? Mr. McMeans Drink the water. We have more tests taken for our water and as do all public water utilities and purveyors, than do our friendly people that compete with bottled water. Those standards are being reviewed by the State level now, they of course assured it from the public water supply, now they are looking at the other supplies. This is very stringent rules and so our numbers fell out of the rules so we had to go ahead and put out a publication so that's what you did receive today. Mayor Matteson Thank you Mr. McMeans. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Mayor Matteson opened the meeting for public participation. Does anyone have anything to say other than what's on the Agenda? Bill Dodge I just want to get an update from Mr. Hopkins as to what 22887 Finch St. happening on the injunction that was suppose to be ... Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 6 City Attorney There is a hearing on it tomorrow. Bill Dodge And what is the procedure from there? City Attorney If they issue it, then we have the Temporary Restraining Order. Bill Dodge Okay, thank you very much. Steve Perkio The mud coming down from the new housing tract up here that 22401 Ladera runs through our inadequate storm system I guess it is, has been shoveled up at one time and placed on the dirt strip just beside the sidewalk along Mt. Vernon north of Van Buren. I noticed today that's ran over onto the sidewalk. We have a lot of people who walk in the mornings as exercise. If someone should happen to slip and fall in that mud, does the City have a legal responsibility here or does this fall back to our contractor who has the mud flowing down off of their project, something I noticed today. I filed a Citizen's Request a few weeks back to have graffiti throughout the town removed or painted over, I noticed they came out immediately and took care of about 1/8th of what I wrote down. I'm not sure who is in charge of that, maybe they could look up my request. Mayor Matteson City Manager do you want to address that? City Manager Basically, the graffiti removal is under Randy's area. Assistant Yes, we have started, I am well aware of this gentlemen's City Manager request and we have initiated the program. Unfortunately, I do have only two men and there are certain priorities that supersede this, but it is being taken care of as soon as possible. Mayor Matteson Could you also address the mud. Assistant Yes, the Building & Safety Inspector has been in touch with the City Manager developer and has instructed them to abate this nuisance as soon as possible so they will be bringing their equipment and personnel down to remove it. Mayor Matteson Okay. Mr. Perkio Okay, on the same subject, a while back we initiated a reward system for our graffiti and when I initially spoke about this, I brought up the idea of possibly running an ad or a small article in a newspaper posting some notification in the Chamber Newsletter or Foothill News, whichever. So far, unless I'm blind, I might have missed it, has anybody printed anything yet? Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 7 Councilmember You are not blind, it hasn't been in either one. I would Grant suggest that the Foothill Journal, since it's exclusively distributed to Grand Terrace as well as Loma Linda, that it be placed in there and I suspect the ad will be a little bit less expensive. I would not object, in fact, I would encourage the Press Enterprise and the Sun Telegram, but definitely the Foothill Journal and I would encourage the City Manager to do that. We have certainly got enough funds in the General Fund to take care of it. Mayor Matteson The Foothill Journal starting this week, will be accepting reader's letters and they will publish them, so if anybody has things like this they would to discuss and have be known, write a letter to the Foothill Journal and they will publish it for you. Mr. Perkio Okay, last thing was the water company. I missed the gentlemen name and status with the company when he first walked up. It seemed as though when he was talking, I don't know, I heard a few comments, if the samples are handled safely; if they are transported correctly; if the hose bib is run. This is our drinking water, people who are going to be having children soon, they are drinking this water, new babies are drinking this water, I don't like to hear if. In my mind, I'm a professional in what I do, when I do something, I do it right, I know it is done right and you know, something that is as important as this, I don't particular like to hear if, I want to hear the water is safe, I know it, thank you. Matthew Pruitt I would like to present this plaque to Grand Terrace City Student Body Council in appreciation from Student Council for the air President conditioning at Terrace Hills Jr. High School. I just want to Terrace Hills say that it really has helped us to be able to be more Jr. High School comfortable in classes and learn more, be able to concentrate when we are taking tests and so forth. Before when we didn't have the air conditioning it was really hard to concentrate and do our work during the afternoon, so I would like to say thank you one more time and I like to present this plaque to Grand Terrace City Council. Mayor Matteson Thank you, you are just as active as your mother. Thank you Matt, we appreciate that. Is there any other public participation? We are going into the Crime Prevention Committee. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen -- we go to closed session at 6:00 p.m. Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 8 Mayor Matteson Okay, I guess Crime Prevention is not here, is she. Alright, okay, she can't show up, but we all have the copies of the minutes for her... Council will go into closed session at 6:00 p.m. for a ... and then we will have the public hearing at 6:30 p.m., so we will start on Parks and Recreation and go as far as we can until 6:00 p.m. and then we will break at 6:00 p.m. Anyone from Parks and Recreation? Barbara Conley Pretty much the action items that were submitted to the City 22285 Dove Street Council are fairly self-explanatory. I would like to add one Chairman of the or two things and that is the Parks and Recreation Committee Parks and puts a lot of time and effort in their action items that are Recreation submitted to the City Council for approval or denial. In the Committee future, I would appreciate it and I'm sure the Committee would appreciate it, a common courtesy extended to the Parks and Recreation Committee in that when the Committee submits an action item to the Council and it is pulled for the Council meeting that we assume it is being put into, it would be nice to receive a phone call as to why that is being pulled or the explanation as to why it is being delayed. Councilmember I might add in addition to that, which I think it is an Grant excellent idea, perhaps some of the committee action items ought to be referred to City Staff for the purpose of staffing. If nothing else to render assistance, professional assistance to the committee members. I think committee members would benefit and would probably appreciate that, so I think it is a good idea if we were to start involving staff members because we are still spending tax -payers funds, even though these funds are already appropriated to that particular budget unit, to that particular committee, but I think the committee certainly would benefit from that. Barbara Conley As noted. The next, I would like to skip since some of these are fairly explanatory. I would like to skip to the Tour de Terrace appropriated expenditures and simply explain that when the appropriation was being made for that event, we assumed we were making the appropriation simply for the funds that would be needed prior to any revenues being generated from the bike ride. So what you see before you, is a complete revenue and expense report for the Tour de Terrace and even though we are not at 700 registered applications right now, we do have 232 in-house for the bike ride this year and 25 children have already registered for the 5-12 year old age bracket and they are coming as far as Santa Ana, Bloomington, Colton and Fontana, so that is why you see before you an income statement which might seem a little outrageous at first and the items that are asterisked mean those figures are adjusted up or down, depending upon the actual number of riders. Mayor Matteson I think we need to make an appropriation tonight on this don't we on this? Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 9 Barbara Conley Yes, we need an additional appropriation, $3,000 was appropriated in the budget this year for the Tour de Terrace, $1,000 out of that was appropriated for the Scholarship Fund, so in essence $2,000 was appropriated for the Tour de Terrace. When in reality we did need something in the vicinity of about $10,200, so an additional $8,000 to $9,000 needs to be appropriated to that fund. Mayor Matteson Mr. City Manager these appropriations go out and then the income that comes in goes back into the General Fund? City Manager Yes, all the revenues will go into the General Fund and offset any expenses that we do make as long as we do get enough riders to cover all of the expenses. Mayor Matteson What about the profit? City Manager Basically, the idea was to use the profit for the scholarships and we are budgeting for that as well. Councilmember You know, Mrs. Conley help me a little bit on this, my Grant understanding is that we were looking for X-number of riders to provide a break-even point and then those in excess of that would provide for the scholarship in terms of the revenue offsetting this expenditures as the Mayor just indicated. I think you indicated that, todate, there has been 200 or 300 applicants so far, is that correct? Ms. Conley - correct, 232. Councilmember And what was the deadline for those applications? Grant Ms. Conley Well there is a pre -registration deadline of October 17, 1987, which has just passed, which means they pay $16.00 for their registration. Anybody who registers thereafter, is $21.00 and on Event Day, it is $21.00 and there is usually there is about 30 to 40 percent of the people, the actual total number who ride register the day of the event, so it's not just going to be the 230, there will be an additional 100 or 200, maybe even more registering on event day, that is one of those things you don't know at this point in time. Councilmember But you believe that between now and then, there will be, I Evans guess 200 or 300 subtracted from what is it, 700, you are talking about 400 to 500 hundred more applicants between now and the day the event takes place? Ms. Conley I am hoping. Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 10 CC-87-205 Motion by Councilmember Evans, second by Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen, that we accept Alternative No. 1 as submitted and appropriate the additional funds in the amount of $10,296 for the Tour de Terrace, motion carried with Councilmember Grant voting NOE. Mayor Matteson Mr. City Manager, we have a closed session called for and can you tell me who called the closed session and the reason for i t. City Manager It was a request of a Councilmember to basically receive consultation from the City Attorney to the Council and we want the full Council, the Attorney and the City Planning Director. Mayor Pro Tem Was the Light Token Subsidy taken care of in that? Pfennighausen Councilmember I was just going to suggest that we do need to take action on Shirley the other action items that were submitted by the Parks and Recreation Committee. Mayor Matteson Well, we'll come back and finish that up after we go in for the session, so we will take a few minutes break and go into close session, we will be back in time for the 6:30 p.m. public hearing. Closed Session Closed session began at 6:00 p.m. Council reconvened at 6:35 p.m. Mayor Matteson Council met in closed session to discuss some legal things, no decisions were reached. PUBLIC HEARING Mayor Matteson At this time we will conduct the public hearing, considering the Specific Plan of Forest Dillon project, Mr. Sawyer. Planning Director Mr. Mayor, on July 25, 1985, the City Council approved Phase I, of Forest City's Mt. Vernon Villas Apartment Project. Phase I, contains 248 units and is located directly north of the proposed Phase II. On August 4, 1986, the Planning Commission denied the required approvals for Phase II, and on August 14, 1986, the City Council also denied Phase II on appeal. One of the major issues which prompted the projects denial, was the adoption of Ordinances 100 and 104 which changed minimum square footage and parking requirements for multi -family units. The applicant has since resubmitted Phase II with a Specific Plan which comes closer to meeting the requirements of these ordinances. At the time of the previous application, a Variance was also applied for and denied. Even though the proposed Specific Plan does not entirely meet the requirements Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 11 of Ordinances 100 and 104, a Variance is not necessary because of the Specific Plan. A Specific Plan is to allow the City and the developer to use site planning concepts and designs which may not be possible through the strict application of conventional zoning regulations. This provides a method of producing a superior site design and an overall project which is in conformance with the goals and policies of the General Plan. On September 21, 1987, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the subject's Specific Plan with conditions. These conditions are included in your Appendix A, which is the Specific Plan, Appendix A of Attachment B in your report and Attachment B is the Specific Plan. Planning To your right on the boards are var Director both the Site Plan on the easel. A site elevation of the buildings and landscaping elevations. The arial property that we are talking about Phase II is located on 19.46 acres units and 152 two -bedroom units, fo The one -bedroom units contain appro the two -bedroom units contain eithe square feet. Each unit has either approximately 28 square feet of stoi clustered in two-story buildings co units. How the various size units and the location of each building i which is on the easel. Each unit w- conditioning, water heaters, dishwa ranges, laundry hook-ups, carpeting Site Plan provides 308 parking space garages and 344 open-air parking spi spaces, 36 are to be designated as i location of the guest parking space: the Site Plan. The Specific Plan do ous displays which show andscaping concept plan, of the garages and the ibove that shows the :his evening. The proposed tnd contains 156 one -bedroom a total of 308 apartments. :imately 670 square feet and 860 square feet or 880 patio or a deck area and age area. The units are isisting of 8, 12 and 16 re located in the buildings shown on the Site Plan 11 have heating and air hers, disposals, built-in and window coverings. The s located in detached ces. Of the 344 open uest parking spaces. The has not been designated on eS indirato that tha open-air spaces are to be a minimum of 9x19 in area and meets the City Code. Interior circulation is provided by a private 24-foot street which runs around the perimeter of the project and intersects the project roughly dividing it into quadrants. There are two ingress and egress points for the project, one each located on Mt. Vernon Avenue and one on Canal Street. Each access point is located as previously approved for this area and are to be equipped with a security gates located so that cars stopped for the gates do not extend out into the public right-of-way. The project contains 42 percent of open -space as defined by the City's Zoning Ordinance. Recreational facilities are to include two swimming pools and a spa, one half court basketball court, one sand volleyball court, a jogging trail, barbeque areas and indoor lounge, gym and meeting rooms. The project sites consists again of 19.46 acres with proposed 308 residential units. This translates into an overall project density of 15.8 units per acre. Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 12 Planning This figure is comparable to the 15.8 which was approved for Director Phase I. The City's current General Plan designation for this property is a medium density residential. This allows a density of 9-plus units per acre. The General Plan also requires a Specific Plan for any development of 16 or more residential units which allows a variety of different densities for projects as long as they do not exceed the maximum density allowed for the revelant zoning designations. The subject properties zoning designation is R-3 and it does not have a maximum density as long as a Conditional Use Permit is obtained. Therefore, with the approval of the Specific Plan, this project would be consistent with the City's General Plan. The Specific Plan has been transmitted to the City's various reviewing agencies and those comments are as follows: The Specific Plan indicates that the project will generate approximately 150 school -age children which will attend districts schools. The Colton Unified School District comments included no objections to the project as long as the appropriate school fees are paid. The Specific Plan states that the developer will be responsible for replacing the existing 6-inch waterline on Mt. Vernon Avenue with a 12-inch line down to Barton Road. The Riverside/Highland Water Company has indicated they are working with the developer on this project in connection with Phase I and say they have no other concerns. The Department of Environmental Health Services have no comments other than requesting that the plans for the swimming pool and the spa be submitted to them prior to their construction. The Department of Transportation makes their standard comment that mitigation measures should be included in the project to relieve any traffic impacts created by the project, such mitigation measures may include street improvements and signal lights, if warranted. The City's Building and Engineering Department has submitted several comments recommending conditions for approval for this project. They are contained in the Planning Commission resolution included in this Specific Plan and in the recommended conditions. The Forestry and Fire Warden Department has also submitted a memo and their recommendations are included in this Specific Plan conditions also. As stated previously, the purpose of a Specific Plan is to allow a City and a developer to work together to create specific development criteria for a specific area. In such development, criteria may not be absolutely consistent with the City's Zoning regulations. However, it does need to be consistent with the communities General Plan, and even so, it is appropriate to use a Zoning Ordinance for analysis purposes in reviewing the project. For this reason, the following comparisons are provided: The required minimum square footage for a one -bedroom unit, the Code requires 800 square feet. The Plan proposes 670 square feet. The two -bedroom requirement is 1,000 square feet, the Plan proposes 860 & 880 square foot units. The Code requires a percentage of open -space to be 40 percent, the Plan proposes 42 percent. The number of garage parking Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 13 spaces required is 308 attached, the Plan proposes 308 detached. The Code requires 308 open-air spaces, the Plan provides 308 spaces. The Code also requires that the Plan provide 77 required guest spaces, the Plan proposes 36 guest spaces. Set backs are required to be 25 feet for the front yard and the Plan proposes 15 feet for both Mt. Vernon front yards and Canal Street front yards. Side yard requirements are for 5 feet as required by Code and the Plan provides 10 feet. This property is an important key in the development of the Mt. Vernon triangle area. The development of this property, as proposed, will provide a continuity of development style for the large majority of this area and will allow for internal circulation between the previously approved Phase I and Phase II. If this property is not developed in conjunction with Phase I, potential exists for this land to be sold as a whole or divided up into smaller individual projects. This would decrease the chances of obtaining a coordinated development of the triangle area. A piece mill development pattern of this area would have a negative affect on the public health, safety and welfare of the area as a result of each new development requiring separate access points onto Mt. Vernon and Canal Street. Also, the inability of a small project to provide many of the recreational and landscaping amenities a larger development can afford to provide, would place a heavier burden on the City's recreational and park facilities. After review of the proposed plan and a consideration of the suggestive conditional of approval for the project by the various reviewing agencies, the Planning Department recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving SP/CUP-87-1 and it's associated negative declaration as conditions in said resolution and included in the Specific Plan. There are thirty-two conditions listed in that resolution and I can read them if you would like to hear them, if not I can answer questions regarding them later, and that ends my report. Mayor Pro Tem David I think for the benefit of the people that are here Pfennighausen tonight and as difficult as it is for you and your voice, that it would be a good idea for you to go through those conditions. Planning Director Number 1, and first of all, I am reading from the approved, not Number 1 the approved, but the recommended resolution which is presented along with the staff report and the conditions begin with Canal Street. (A) Widen Canal Street in accordance with the Plan approved by the City of Grand Terrace. (B) Provide access to cross Gage Canal to Canal Street as approved by the City of Grand Terrace, City of Riverside and Gage Canal Company. The access to be approved shall include vehicular, pedestrian and utilities as may be required by the proposed development. Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 14 Number 2 (A) Mt. Vernon Avenue - dedications to the ultimate right-of-way, 44-foot half streets shall be provided. (B) Install curb and gutter 12-feet from property -line; (C) Install standard sidewalk. (D) Access the subject property from Mt. Vernon Avenue, excuse me, access to the subject property from Mt. Vernon Avenue shall be provided at a location with a site distance and a stopping distance meets at least the minimum requirements of the Highway Design Manual. (E) Median turning -lanes shall be determined by staff as to where those median lanes should be. Median -island shall be approved by the Planning Department as to architectural treatment of the materials to be used within the island area. Number 3 Install ornamental street lights. Number 4 Provide adequate drainage facilities and an erosion control plan during construction. Number 5 Pay prorata share of a traffic signal installation at the following intersections. (A) Barton Road and Mt. Vernon Avenue. (B) Barton Road and Canal Street. Number 6 File a one -lot subdivision on the parcels on which this project is prepared. Number 7 Pay all outstanding sewer bond amounts for ADlCSA70 Zone H. Number 8 Provide access easement to any parcel abutting this property which now may have access across Gage Canal. Number 9 Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, a will -serve letter from the Riverside/Highland Water Company shall be submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Number 10 All utilities shall be underground. Number 11 All private streets shall be constructed to provide a structural section based on a traffic index of five. Number 12 Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, the developer shall submit a comprehensive grading plan to the Department of Building and Safety. The Plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code. Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 15 Number 13 Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, the water system shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer to the satisfaction of the Riverside/Highland Water Company, the San Bernardino County Fire Department and City Engineer. Number 14 To the issuance, prior to the issuance of Building Permits, street improvement plans shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Number 15 All improvements shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Number 16 Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, street improvement plans shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Number 17 All off -sight run-off that presently drains over the site shall continue to be accepted. Number 18 Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, obtain a letter of noninterference from any utility company that may have rights of easement within the property boundaries. Number 19 The maintenance of graded slopes and landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer. Number 20 Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, the developer shall pay all applicable school development fees that may exist at that time. Number 21 The water system and fire hydrants shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the State Health and Safety Code, the California Administrative Code, and Plans approved by the designated fire protection authority. Number 22 The planting and permanent irrigation systems shall be installed per approved landscaped plan. Number 23 All parking areas shall be designated with clearly painted lines and equipped with wheel stocks. Number 24 Prior to any occupancy a certificate of final completion shall be issued by the City Building Department after which an application shall be submitted to the Department of Environmental Health Services for a certificate of occupancy. Number 25 Construction plans for the swimming pools and spa shall be submitted to the Department of Environmental Health Services prior to the construction and shall be adequately fenced for City and County regulations. Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 16 Number 26 A detailed lighting plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director and City Engineer. Number 27 A detailed landscaping and irrigation plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of Building and Safety and the Planning Director. Number 28 An additional 22 guest parking spaces shall be provided for a total of 58 guest parking spaces. All guest parking spaces shall be identified and located in various groupings throughout the project. Number 29 Street improvement plans for Mt. Vernon Road shall be consistent with those approved for Phase I. Number 30 The location of the security gates in relation to the public right-of-way shall be approved by the City Engineer. Number 31 All conditions of approval listed in the Fire Departments memo dated September 1, 1987, and is attached as Exhibit C. Number 32 Upon agreement with the holder of the Gage Canal easement, the applicant shall landscape the Gage Canal as approved by the Planning Director and the City Engineer. The Maintenance Agreement between the City and the applicant shall be executed whereas the applicant will reimburse the City for the cost and maintenance, and that is the completion of the conditions. Mayor Pro Tem Thank you David. Pfennighausen Mayor Matteson Does anyone have any questions as to what the package is we're voting on tonight? Okay, I will open up the public hearing. Is there anybody for the project that would like to speak at this time? Please state your name address. Dr. Terry McDuffy Members of the City Council and concerned citizens of the City 11830 South Mt. of Grand Terrace, before you tonight is an application for Vernon Avenue approval of a very significant and important area in our small city. Representing one of the very few open spaces left in our city. The area between Mt. Vernon Avenue and Canal Street, will and developed impact on one and each and every one of us and on many residents there yet to come. And it is imperative at this point that adequate consideration and thought in city planning be done to ensure the best possible results are obtained in the development of this entire area. Our home at 11830 South Mt. Vernon is situation on 3.75 acres. We have about 320 frontage feet on Mt. Vernon and will be the last remaining residents on the west side of Mt. Vernon Avenue after Forest City completes the development in that area, assuming that they do. We are surrounded on the north by Phase I, we are surrounded entirely on the west and the south by Phase II. And as such, we are probably closer to this project and is Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 17 impacted as much as any other citizen in Grand Terrace, and I realize that inadequate or hap -hazard development planning in this area will have detrimental effects on all of us and on my property in particular. Dr. Terry McOuffy Fourteen years ago, we moved into an area that was quite different. We bought a small farm in an agricultural zone. Stater Bros. Shopping Center was still on the drawing boards and lots of things were different. You are all aware of the changes that have occurred and you can add your own reminiscences and regrets about that, but the tide we call progress has continued to roll. And over the years of living there I've often pondered the fate of that area and wondered what was going to happen. And at several critical stages in the planning process have been present to express my concerns relatively to the development of this area. Other opinions and other points of view and other concerns were heard and the results may not have been what many of us had hoped for, but the A-5 Zone is history and in its place is a master plan calling for medium -density R-3 development. Phase I has been approved for several years and permits have been issued and of course, have been firmly set. Dr. Terry McDuffy The question tonight seems to be not if it's going to be developed, as such, but who will develop it, how will it be done and when. And in this historic week when many would like to turn back the hands of time on the stock market, there are probably those of us in the room that might like to turn back the hands of time on this approval and some of the decisions have been made particularly in regards to Phase I, but I'm not sure if that's possible to do. I think at this point, the most that we can expect of our City Council and our City Government is that they exercise a great deal of concern and caution and proceed to secure the best possible developer for this area and that all the important details that pertain to the development of this are paid attention to. I have some specific concerns about the development as it impacts my property and I think they need to be developed, to be addressed at this point -and -time. Our 3.75 acres in the middle of this project represents approximately 8 percent of the open undeveloped land in the City of Grand Terrace that is slated for this type of development and as such, it is small in comparison to Forest City property, but it still represents a fairly sizable chunk of land that at some point -in -time must be developed. And it was the State, the County and the City Governments that took away that agricultural use and replaced it with the present zoning with the input of citizens, hopefully. And I think that there is a certain responsibility there that these details in planning be paid attention too. My concerns tonight are that these specific concerns be addressed. (1) I am concerned about the surface drainage being situation at the crest of Mt. Vernon. We look down on the Forest City property on all three Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 18 sides and currently they do accept surface drainage from our property and I want to be assured that that will be handled in a satisfactory manner. It seems this may have been addressed in one of the conditions. (2) On the southern border of our property is a storm drain that picks up the run-off water from the east side of Mt. Vernon, takes it under the street, picks up the gutter drainage from the west side and it continues westerly on our property for 50 or 60 feet and then switches over onto the Forest City property. It seems to me that it is necessary for orderly and reasonable development and installation of storm drains that the developers will have to come on our property to plug into that drain or if not they are going to have to accept the silt and debris and the dirt that comes with it, and I want that to be done in a satisfactory manner. The satisfactory to me and my property and my interest and my engineer and I request that as a condition of approval, this plan if you see fit to do so, that a condition be imposed whereby we be given the right of prior approval to those improvements. (3) A very large issue is the question of sewage. It is my position that good city planning must take into account the needs of all the property in an area, in particular as it pertains to utilities and city's services. And I do understand that what exists in the planning stage for this development are privately owned streets and sewers, but if the City fails to address this issue and there is no provision made for downstream or downhill at the low point on the back of our property for sewer hookups, then in practical terms you very well may preclude the development of this property in the manner to that you have designated and that concerns me greatly. I'm asking that as a condition of approval, that the developer be required to install a public sewer main to serve that 3.75 acre so that in the future whenever that occurs, it can be developed as the rest of the property is slated to be developed. I understand your concerned about the cost of the maintenance and streets, I think that it's a simple matter to provide and easement and a public sewer main and at not a terribly great cost. I think it will have impact, not only on my property, but on the community as a whole in the future, and so, I'm asking that those three items be addressed tonight and that specific resolutions or conditions be included as a recommendation before this is passed. Dr. Terry McDuffy It's my opinion after studying this quite a considerable amount, that Forest City represents a company that is capable of doing a quality development in this area. And as they are approved the developer of Phase I, they represent perhaps the best possible opportunity for cohesive the development in the entire area. And, if this is true, the important issues of planning that I have addressed or met, then I stand in favor of approval of this proposition, thank you. Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 19 Mayor Matteson Thank you. Anyone else in favor of the proposal? Carol Tanner I am here representing Forest City Enterprises. Forest City is Forest City an investment real estate firm, founded in 1939 and currently headed by one of the two original founders. Basically build and hold for our own account and have real estate holding consisting of rental housing, regional shopping malls, offices and hotel holdings in 16 states. We currently own and manage over 12,000 units of apartments, the most local being Vineyard Village Apartment Complex, which is in the City of Ontario and won that Ontario of Commerce Model Colony Award awarded to the new project which by quality of design and construction best meets the intended goal. This was a special award for us because in 1986 was the goal, was the award first presented to a housing development. In the past, it had always gone to an office complex, which there are several to choose in Ontario. Also, in October of 86, the Mall of Victor Valley opened, some of you may be familiar with that development. We currently own and operate over 12,000,000 feet of commercal properties throughout the country. As a real estate investment firm, what we basically do is build and development properties and hold them for our own account and use the cash flow that is generated to develop an additional product. It's very rare that we develop any sort of real estate product for sale for syndication. Our main goal with this product is to provide a comfortable life style for future residents. Specific design goals in order to accomplish that, as it relates to units, is that they are easily furnished, have a maximum possible number of amenities, plenty of interior closets and storage space, energy -efficient heating and cooling systems. Structures are designed to be attractive, weather resistance, have a low profile so that they have a minimum affect on the existing single-family residences and to retain the natural slop of the property to our best advantage. The Site Plan is so designed to provide convenience to residents, maximum open -space, and therefore, maximum recreational facilities available, safe entry to and exit from the project, and continuity through the project as it relates to Phase I and the proposed projects to the south. We've done that through the use of interior connecting streets and what we hope to be compatible landscaping to the other proposed projects to the south. Conservation of energy is also important, we have provided for solar backup systems for heating the pools and spas, window awnings for protection from the sun with space and water heating which is state-of-the-art system which is recommended highly by the Southern California Gas Company. Our landscaping consists as much as possible as with drought tolerant plant materials, such as, Eucalyptus, California Pepper and Cypress Trees. Some of the major concerns that have been addressed are: One, the traffic situation and we have designed our project so as to conform as nearly as possible to all requirements of the City and to conform with suggestions made Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 20 in a traffic study that was done relating to the whole area. In addition to the payment of approximately $127,000 in street improvement fees, we have agreed to participate with the construction of traffic lights that were mentioned earlier by David Sawyer when he was reading the conditions. As it relates to schools, the Colton Unified School District has indicated this project will have little or no impact on the school system, although we will be paying a total of $362,000 in school fees. The project is so designed to have recreational facilities within the project and to have as little impact as possible on other recreational facilities that exist in the area. We will be paying in addition to that, approximately $93,000 in school fees. To discuss for just a moment and to recap the economic situation, sales tax revenue to be produced by not Mt. Vernon Villas' Phase II will be approximately $80,000 just in sales tax that will be paid by our future residents in the first year of operation. The tax increment that will be attributable to the Phase II will be the difference between something over a $1,000 a year that was paid originally on the property to approximately $195,000 per year which we will be paying in property taxes. We are also paying slightly over $821,000 to the City in Capitol Improvement Fees in addition to the school fees we are paying. We have, in fact, agreed to the condition that was stated relating to the landscaping of the Gage Canal area, for the beautification of the City and hopefully to enhance the value of our real estate investment. As regards to Dr. McDuffy's property, I have made an offer to purchase that property; we have not reached any agreement towards that, but basic reason for doing that, basically, being to resolve the issue with the three hundred and some odd feet of street frontage on Mt. Vernon Avenue that needs desperately to be improved and included in the street widening process. If at some point in the future there is an agreement reached on that issue, we will file an application for an amended Specific Plan. If no one has any questions, I will give someone else a turn here. Mayor Matteson Thank you. Is there anyone else in favor of the project like to speak? Steve Buswell Mr. Mayor, Councilmembers, my remarks are general and brief. I Foothill Blvd. think we are in agreement when I say that home building per se Upland does not cause growth. It is the economic growth we've had Building Industry County wide in the southland that has caused population growth Association and enhanced the demand for housing. I believe I've heard an interest expressed by members of this Council for quality shopping centers. Following housing comes centers. Builders use formulas based on radi or radiuses to determine when they build centers. For a local center, a 5-mile radius is used. For a regional center, a 25-mile radius is used. Builders have their own formulas for the number of people and the number of discretionary dollars they require to build a center. Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 21 Steve Buswell When the local population reaches these thresholds, the centers come in. Population continues to expand when no homes are built. When housing isn't available, household sizes expand as people double up in available housing. Young people under these conditions tend to live with their parents longer; unrelated individuals and families share housing to a greater extent when there's limited housing, and older citizens have more of an tendency to live with their offspring. Therefore, when a developer is committed to doing a quality job, we recommend going ahead with it, thank you. Mayor Matteson Thank you, is there anyone else in favor of the project. Okay, then apparently everybody aren't in favor. Rose Taylor I've been a resident of this City for 17 years, I have watched 12434 Vivienda it grow, some of the growth I have objected to. One of the things I moved out here for was because of the rural area, but also on the other hand, my husband and I were very active in helping to make this a City and making the incorporation a possibility. I am, I object to apartment complexes, but I would prefer to see an apartment complex in this City of this nature rather than a hodge-podge mess if this complex is not built. I have lived here, I love this City, I worked hard with a number of agencies in this City to be, to make it grow and I want to see it grow in a beautiful manner, not a hodge-podge of unplanned development or whatever, and if this apartment complex is not allowed, then the property may be sold off into small parcels and a bunch of junky apartments are something else may go in there and I want to see it grow in a beautiful manner like this complex is, thank you. Mayor Matteson Thank you, anyone else in favor of the project. Fran Van Geller I am speaking as a private citizen not as a Planning 11975 Mt. Vernon Commissioner. I live directly across the street from this project and one of my main concerns has been what kind of a project are we going to have there. We know there is going to be an apartment complex there and I was very concerned about what kind it was going to be. After a great deal of study of the project, I am throughly convinced that this is the kind of project that I would like to see across the street from my house. We have seen the pictures, we have seen the drawings, they have so many pluses going for it. They are going to have recreational facilities which I think is beyond most any apartment complex that I have ever seen. They plan to have their own security so that it will not be more of a burden on the City in that aspect. So, I certainly hope that the Council votes in favor of this project. Mayor Matteson Thank you, anyone in favor of this project. Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 22 Dick Rollins Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council, I'm very grateful I'm 22700 DeBerry not sitting in your seats tonight because you are caught between a rock and a hard place here. Twenty-seven or twenty-eight months ago you approved Phase I of this project,and since that time, Forest City Dillon Company has spent a great deal of time, effort, money and manhours. They got a million and half dollars invested in this project, at least. I've been in the construction business for 35 years; I've done business with these people. All I can say is you are trapped between some 300 people in here that say they don't want it and the fact that Forest City Dillon Company has got all of this money tied in this project. You disapprove it, turn it down, then I hate to say what's going to happen to the legal department because they have every right in the world to take this City to court. So there you are, you have your constituency out here who voted for you and this project, these people should have been here and you should have started this 28 months ago, thank you. Mayor Matteson Anybody else in favor of the project would like to speak? Okay, we will go to those who is opposed to the project. I would like to ask you to please condense your reports, there are a lot of people who would like to speak, please stated your name and address. Tony Petta Mr. Mayor, City Council, it is gratifying seeing so many people 11875 Eton Drive here participating in the democratic process that was established through a document "referred to as the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution has stood the test of time, 204 years and the precept being that the Government must represent the people as opposed to Government controlling the people. The people who live in this City are proud people; they work hard and they live well, this is a family -oriented community. Those who settled here liked what they saw and stayed here. From time to time when there were public hearing at this Council crowds showed up as they are tonight; they told the Council how much they enjoyed living here and pleaded with the Council to please let things grow in such a manner that we may continue to enjoy living here. Beautiful cities just don't happen, they are planned. Those at the helm established standards, essentially growth through control. The people here this evening and those watching on television are beginning to see an erosion of those spenders that made Grand Terrace a enviable place in which to live. A place where people want to settle and raise their families. They are here to protest and to affirm their constitutional rights, consentually that Government must serve the people as opposed to dictatorial control of the people. Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, subsequent to the citizen's participation here this evening, and when the meeting reverts back to the Council, statements may be made by Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 23 Councilmembers whereby the citizens may want to address. We understand the procedure, however, due to the critical issue at hand, we would appreciate the opportunity to interject and comment. Those who feel a need to comment will stand here at the podium and wait to be recognized. This will ensure that the residents will receive fair treatment. Mr. Mayor we would appreciate that consideration. So that we understand the proposal before the Council this evening, I will take just a few minutes to allow the history that resulted in the apparent current problem. Now when the area known as the Mt. Vernon Corridor first became before the Council for a change of zone the R-3 which would then permit apartments, the Council Chambers were filled as they are tonight with concerned people. The concerns centered upon the impaction that this type of development would have upon the neighborhood. They asked questions relating to density, parking, landscaping, to traffic impaction upon Mt. Vernon. The Council at that time, pointed out to those people that those concerns would be addressed at the time that the developer apply a Conditional Use Permit and the Specific Plan. The Council made a commitment to those people. The commitment was that those concerns would be addressed and resolved satisfactorally. Subsequently, a Specific Plan for 248 units was submitted to the Planning Commission, that Plan was known and referred to as Phase I. The Planning Commission had great concerns about this project and their concerns related to density, parking, the horrendous traffic impaction upon Mt. Vernon, the bottleneck of so called, Jap Hill. Because there were so many unresolved issues, the Planning Commission rejected the project without addressing the condition of the Specific Plan. I must emphasize, Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, that at that point, the Planning Commission rejected the project without consideration nor the conditions of the project, because it's an important factor. The developer appealed this decision to the City Council and the City Council resolved one basic issue and that issue was density and sent the Specific Plan back to the Planning Commission, who's function is to address and impose conditions to the Specific Plan, relative to the size of units, parking, landscaping and street impaction. It was proper that the Planning Commission perform this function. It was during the Planning Commission's Hearing that the developer objected to this review, saying that the City Council had already approved the Conditional Use Permit and the Specific Plan. Therefore, said the developer, neither the Planning Commission nor the City Council has any rights to impose standards and conditions, it's too late, they said. There was a series of maneuvers by the developer with the help of certain Councilmembers; 248 units were approved without the Planning Commission or the City Council reviewing conditions which would have set the standards for the project. Subsequently, the City Council attempted to convince the developer to upgrade the project in the matter of sizes of units, garages, parking on Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 24 the honor system. The response in cost would prevent them from building affordable units as a result. The commitment by the City Council to the people that their concerns would be adequately addressed was violated. That's the master plan of Phase I that's being used as a prototype to gain approval of an additional 308 units. So that this injustice to the people would not be repeated, the City Council appointed a special Ad Hoc Committee. This Ad Hoc Committee composed of two Councilmembers, two Planning Commissioners, two citizens at -large, to review Title 18 and that's the Ordinance relating to zoning and development standards. The Committee, among other things, recommended a minimum developed standards design designated minimum size of units, one -bedroom, minimum 800 square feet, two -bedrooms, 1,000 square feet and 3-bedrooms, 1,200 square feet. I was pointed out on a number of occasions that those standards are harsh. Just today I received a book of which many of you may have also received and the first page that I turned to was an advertising of apartments, Plaza Mediterranean, which is just down the hill. That project was built a number of years ago and it quotes one -bedroom as 773 square feet, two -bedrooms, two -baths, 1,043 square feet, two -bedroom town houses, 1,072 square feet. Further, we have an apartment house in Grand Terrace, I forget the name DeBerry, what's the name of it, Terrace Mesa, built some fifteen years ago, one -bedroom, 750 square feet, two -bedrooms, 1,000 square feet. Further, this Committee established a minimum parking requirements that required minimum single -car attached garages and required adequate landscaping. The City Council approved those recommendations and enacted City Ordinance 100 to 104. Projects that has been approved since the Ordinance was enacted, complied fully with the Ordinance and one project in particular, what is known as the Britton Development, they complied fully with the Ordinance. The reason for these minimum standards is basic, to alleviate the impact that these projects would have on our existing neighborhoods. Why a minimum square foot requirement. Phase I, already approved and Phase II, seeking approval, contains so called studio -apartments, so I am told. The definition of a studio -apartment, a unit lacking even a one -bedroom, lacking, does not even having a bedroom, it's one unit. Generally, is what you find in highly -populated centers, such as Orange County and Los Angeles, squeezing people together, essentially caters to the transient population as opposed to a family -oriented neighborhood, studio -apartments are not compatible in this neighborhood. Why minimum parking? Look at DeBerry and Mt. Vernon, Terrace Mesa Apartments, 328 units. DeBerry is continually impacted with cars, people will park wherever space is available. We don't want that here. Why minimum single -car garages, generally, apartments have a minimum of storage space, people may not park their cars in the garage, but at least they will have an enclosed place in which to put their belongings out of sight. Why minimum landscaping, Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 25 that's what makes a city beautiful and then a place in which to live. In July of 1986, Mt. Vernon Villas, Phase II, the same project that is before this Council this evening, went before the Planning Commission requesting Variance Ordinances 100 and 104, which spells out the minimum standards that I have just discussed. The Planning Commission denied the waiving of the conditions. On August 14, 1986, the developer appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council, we are talking about the same project that is before you this evening. In answer to questions by Councilmembers, City Attorney, Ivan Hopkins said, and I quote "the proposed project, Mt. Vernon Villa Phase II, came after the adoption of Ordinances 100 and 104, the proposal does not comply with the Ordinance and if the appeal is denied, the project is dead and will have to start over again," the Council denied the appeal 3-2. Since that time on separate occasions, two Councilmembers made motions, each seconded by the other, to remove the standards established by Ordinances 100 and 104. Each time the motions failed, the vote 3-2. The project before the City Council this evening ignores City Ordinances 100 and 104. I read this morning's paper, the Press, the only paper that carried any information on this project and I quote the statement in the Press, "a Specific Plan enables the City to negotiate with a developer for including amenities in the project that would reduce the tenant's use of outside facilities in return for easing some zoning requirements," in this case the amenities would include two swimming pools and a recreational room. I don't know of any project of this magnitude that doesn't have swimming pools or a recreational room. We have a project directly south of our Stater Bros. Shopping Center, 98 units on ten acres with a swimming pool and two jacuzzis, with racketball courts with a gym; that's the pride of Grand Terrace, what did we give them. I can't imagine how the City can benefit by lowering the standards that have already proven successful in this City, and the reason that we have a beautiful City here is that we do have standards. We have a beautiful City now and if anything we should continue to upgrade the standards. Those who are bound and determined to destroy our quality and why, for whatever the reason, may want to re-evaluate their position. Mr. Mayor and members of the Council the people here this evening and those who are not here, but would have liked to be here, will closely monitor what happens here this evening and they are most serious of protecting the quality of life in this City. Again, I quote our City Attorney, on August 14, 1986, referring to this same project known as Mt. Vernon Villa, Number II. This project came after the adoption of Ordinances 100 and 104 and does not comply with the Ordinance, the Council rejected it then and it should be rejected now. Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 26 Tom Tillinghast Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, I was very pleased this 22667 Brentwood evening to see a project that on paper looks very good, it has nice colors to it, it slick, it is very well done. However, when Mr. Sawyer was talking about what the project actually consisted of, what I heard was substandard in size units, substandard in a top attached -garage parking, substandard in guest parking, substandard in front set -back. I don't feel that any of these items were mentioned by the Planning Director measure up to the brochure that they are producing, it seems they work much better on paper than they are going to be working on the ground. I would feel that it really behooves the Council to consider the Ordinances it has passed, to abide by those Ordinances unless there are exceptional circumstances, I don't see any exceptional circumstances here. As to whether the developer could sue because they put money into it, I'm sure that this Company, that they have over 12,000 units, has faced disappointments before. Monies they have invested and it's a business risk, it's a gamble, and when you come up with substandards, I believe it behooves the Council to reject that which is substandard. There was the argument that if this project isn't permitted to go, then there is no telling what will happen, we will have all sorts of small developments come in there, haphazard and all the rest. It seems to me we have well planned haphazards before us now and I would recommend rejecting it. Jack Booker I am a resident homeowner of Grand Terrace since 1956, 31 11785 Mt. Vernon years. I address Mayor Byron Matteson, Mayor Pro Tem Barbara Pfennighausen, Councilmember Susan Crawford, Hugh Grant and Dennis Evans. This evening I speak as one member of a grass -roots, citizen's group opposed to the proposed 308 units apartment project by Forest City Dillon. I say a grass -roots group, it is not an organized committee, but a number of citizens of Grand Terrace who work very hard to make sure that there is an excellent representation of the citizens of Grand Terrace here this evening. I'm thankful for everyone that turned out, those for and those against the project. There are many who would not like to be recognized, but Andre Brunner, Pauline Grant, Don Magnus and Linda Magnus are a few of those that are willing to have worked very diligently and very hard to make this evening one that is memorable for the City of Grand Terrace and the decision that will be made this evening. Mayor Matteson I have with me this evening a petition signed by many citizens of Grand Terrace opposed to this 308-unit apartment project. Not 250 signatures, not 500, not 750, not 1,000, but 1,134 signatures. I would like to read the petition as it so stated and which is so signed, we the undersigned are opposed to any more apartments on Mt. Vernon Avenue, north of Barton Road, plans for 344 apartments have already been approved for this block. A plan for an 308 additional units will be presented to the City Council for approval on October 22. This developer is also asking for smaller size Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 27 units and less parking than is called for in our City Ordinance. We are greatly concerned about increase crime, more street congestion and crowded schools. We are respectfully requesting that the City Council deny the request and re -zone the property in this area. We are requesting that the Council do for this area what was recently done for the residents west of the freeway, so states the petition, so signed by 1,134 Grand Terrace residents. I will present this to you at the close of my remarks. I'd like to open my remarks with a quotation that I believe is from Abraham Lincoln, "with malice towards none, with equity for all." Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, I did not receive the required notification through the mail from the City that this meeting would be held this evening and for what purposes. There appears to be, I want to emphasize that, a discrepancy on who receives a mail notification of Council and Planning Commission meetings, when they occur and why they are being called. Why I did not receive a notification by mail prior to the meeting, I do not know, I did check with other members, other residents on the City on the street which I live on Mt. Vernon Avenue, the east side, and to my knowledge no one received a mail notification from the City as to this meeting. However, that is not necessary due to the excellent turnout we see here this evening. I did read in the Riverside Press a notice of public hearing for the City of Grand Terrace in yesterday's paper, which was Wednesday, October 21, 1987. However, there was nothing in this advertisement, public advertisement to designate that this was a meeting called for approving or disapproving 308 apartment units in Grand Terrace. It did give the project specification CUP/87-1, but to the mind of most of the citizens of Grand Terrace that does not mean very much and certainly would not call their attention to the magnitude of the meeting called for this evening. It also misrepresented the location of the apartments, that would be the east mention, the east side of Mt. Vernon where it is really the west side, the west side of Mt. Vernon to Canal Street. I just thought I would bring these discrepancies to your attention and see if they could be corrected in the future. I would like to remind those who are present here this evening these are concerned citizens that may not be aware of the size of our city which is only 3.7 square miles, that is a small city. It's my understanding that there are either in existence plus those that have been approved, apartments in the City that are already in existence or have been approved, approximately 1,000 apartments in the City of Grand Terrace at the present time, either existing or for approval. For a city of only 3.7 square miles, that seems rather a large percentage in ratio and the present proposal for 308 more units in the heart of our city while hundreds of available apartments within 2 to 3 miles of our City exist are un-rented and are vacant today. Another reminder, only two exits out of this city to freeway I-215, that's the Barton Road exit and the Mt. Vernon exit going down Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 28 the hill to Washington Avenue going in that direction. Both of these are all ready showing signs of congestion. Another reminder, on August 30, 1987, less than two months ago, Fran Van Gelder, speaking as a private citizen of Grand Terrace, not as a member of the City Planning Commission of which she is a member, delivered an eloguent presentation for denying 37 units of apartments on a project west of the freeway of I-215. At which time, it is my understanding, the Council voted to re -zone that proposed project, R-3 project to an R-2 project. She also made a very fine presentation this evening, but in favor of 308-unit apartment complex, just two months later. I'm sure she has excellent reasons for doing so and I admire her for it because I know she wouldn't do it unless she did. But, opposing 37 units west of the freeway and approving 308-unit project is quite difference and would require some real thinking to do so. I'd like to list a few reasons why the Council should deny the approval of the 308-unit project of Mt. Vernon Villas here in Grand Terrace. (1) While soliciting petition signatures on the east side of Mt. Vernon from Minona Drive to Grand Terrace Road, everyone I solicited was opposed to the 308-unit apartment project on the opposite side of the street and was willing to sign the petition except for one person, Fran Van Gelder and I'm sure she had very good reason for not doing so. (2) The citizens of Grand Terrace are opposed to the project and many are present here in this rhmmhcr +hie avaninn to AynrecS their ODDOSition and I'm thankful for it. (3) The proje good project, it does not meet set by this Council and the Ple Just to name a few the 25-foot feet; the apartment size square and two -bedroom units has been Planning Commission; the parkir residents and those that are gt attached garages which are regt unattached garages, those are Ordinance requirements for R-3 the Planning Commission. This apartments for a city of its s' in the number of apartments wi' flow problems, crime, school ii density, because as you increa increase or decrease the probli city. And we will feel the pri individually than if we were p, density is the issue, and I cai Council chose to re -zone an R- freeway with a proposed 37-uni zoning classification. And I considered for this area of Gr this evening west of Mt. Verno the citizens of Grand Terrace Council Minutes - 10/22/87 ct proposal is not, is not a many of the minimum requirements nning Commission for this City. set -back has been reduced to 15 foot of floor space for the one reduced and accepted by the g spaces for those that are ests has been reduced; the ired has been allowed to be ust a few of the minimum zoning that have been waived by City does not need any more ze. Statistically, an increase 1 increase, traffic and traffic ipaction, but the real issue is e or decrease the density, you ms and we are already a small blems much more rapidly and ,rt of a very large city. So, see good reason why this { project west of the interstate apartment complex to an R-2 ;hink it ought to be highly end Terrace that's up before us i Avenue. Enough is enough and lave had enough of apartments, Page 29 they have so stated in signing these petitions. I request that the Council give very serious consideration to denying the approval of this project and to re -zoning that side of Mt. Vernon Avenue from an R-3 classification to an R-2 classification, west of Mt. Vernon to Canal Street, which would allow for a unit density of 5 to 10 units per acre. As I open my remarks, I close them with "malice towards none, with equity for all." Thank you. Sandy Collins Believe it or not, I'm somewhat a loss for words following Dr. 22697 Brentwood Booker and the two former Grand Terrace Mayors and the eloquent presentations that have been made. I don't even have a prepared speech to read from. I'd like to make a couple of statements since I was the Planning Commission Chairman the time this General Plan was made and I will apologize before I am through. We have to keep in mind that when the General Plan was changed several years ago, that piece of land over there was one of the open areas left in Grand Terrace and it was felt that perhaps we needed more R-3 property, therefore, that change was made in the General Plan. From that time on, and I'm no longer a member of the Planning Commission because I think I voted NOE too many times. So from that time on, there has been arguments about that area of Grand Terrace and the arguments have been all over the zoning of it and which the City did and the density of the people, the compaction, that's all been said so I am going to say a couple of other things. That needs to be re -zoned back to R-1 because there was a mistake made when we did that and the people of Grand Terrace has made it very plain that was a mistake, but there's been a problem with some of the people up in front, I'm sure. I was present at one time when a developer told one of the members of the Council that they would sue if we changed the zoning and I say let em. They are saying their property is being decreased if you change it back to R-1, the City gave them the windfall by changing it from R-1 to R-3 and I think the City has the right to remove that windfall and if any reasonable court in this land would say that windfall is decreasing their property, you know, I will admit that could be done, I have not to much faith in the justice system anyway. The other thing I would like to say is, but I'm standing here saying I would apologize, we made a mistake on that, I think you need to re -zone it, I'm man enough to say it and I wish all of you would do the same. Jim Rigley Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council, I'll make no comments 22605 Desoto on the issue of substandard because it's been adequately covered. I really want to expound on congestion, first a little background. High -density apartments has been an issue in this City for many years, and in fact, when I ran for re-election to this Council three years ago, one of the planks on my platform, which I was totally against high -density apartments, I lost my seat on the Council. However, believe me, I'm not here tonight for any political reason, I'm here Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 30 one -hundred percent as a concerned citizen. And also, incidentally, it seems to me that some of the members of this Council, maybe the majority, and maybe all of them had that plank on their platform. They were against high -density apartments, but from what has happened in the past, you would never know it. The Grand Terrace City Council are elected by the voters of Grand Terrace and they have sworn to carry out their duties and responsibilities for the betterment of the residents of Grand Terrace. Now this is for the betterment of the people and not the developers. Each of you five members have sworn, so help you God that you will at all times do your utmost to ensure that Grand Terrace remains a nice place to live. You have no commitment to developers, but you do have one commitment and that is to the residents of Grand Terrace. You are committed to do the best, to achieve the best living conditions possible for the people. I'm sure all of you drive a car and I'm sure you've driven down Mt. Vernon across Barton Road many times, especially during heavy traffic time and I'm sure you've noticed the congestion now. Well, what's going to happen when we build the 248 units that has been approved. If we say one car per apartment, that's 248 more cars right now, probably half of those 248 may have two cars, we are talking about 350 more cars right now. Not counting the 90-odd units that Keeney is putting up behind the plaza there, that's another 150 more cars. You don't have to be really brilliant to see how bad it is now and how much worse it's going to be. Now, in addition to that, you throw 308 more apartments, that's about 450 more cars, well, you better quit driving. It seems to me you ought to spend more time and efforts in finding ways to give the city, the community what they want, what they need, what they demand here. So you should remember your commitments that you assumed when you were sworn into office and remember approval of this project would be detrimental to the welfare and the wellbeing of the City of Grand Terrace. Dan Massey I've been a resident there for 17 years, I'm a mailman, I've 22583 Brentwood been working for the Post Office for 12 years in this area. Last year, apartment builders vastly overbuilt to take advantage of the tax laws in 19 years appreciation. And something that might bring it to all of your attention, in the Sunday Sun there was an area, there was an article which in bold print on it is area apartment industry price flood with discounts. This describes how many apartments in this area, San Bernardino, Colton, Rialto area, Inland Empire, is over built and the discounts that the developers are having to give to attract people to their apartments. It goes on to say there is fierce competition, discounts, low-cost smoothing packages, microwaves given with move -ins, VCR's, free weekends, trips and cash discounts. This is talking about the entire Inland Empire area, but I work in this area and Grand Terrace and Cooley Ranch and today after work, I came by some of the apartment complexes, right down in the Cooley Ranch, one mile down the Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 31 Dan Massey hill from where this apartment complex is located. Here are some of the deals that are offered right down the hill, because of over building and vacancies in apartments. One apartment offers every third -month rent free; one offers the first, fifth and the twelfth month free; one apartment offers $300.00 off every third -month, plus one manager volunteered the information and showed me 15 eviction folders that he has by offering these discounts and attracting these people, they get non -quality people and after they get their free months rent, they have to evict them. Here is a list of the apartments in the Cooley Ranch area, Terrace Oaks has 136, The Meadows has 200, Country Woods has 172, Council Bluff has 253, Harbor Ridge has 110, Center Point 360, Casa Mediterrania has 250, Casa Del Rio has 150 under construction which will bring them up to 620 and they have a 120 empty besides the 150 they are building, Cottonwood has 388, Windrush Village has 366, Meadow Lane has 208, and Willow Wood 150, that brings the total to 3,213 apartments right down the hill within two miles. Now, personally, I don't know why an investor would want apartments up here to compete with that competition. We in Grand Terrace have a common zip code with Colton, it's one business area, we're in the same school district, Colton Unified School District, so why do we need to compete with them on building apartments when by every standards apartments are over built in this area. We live in a democratic society, we have elected you as our representatives and now we are telling you our desires, we do not want or need additional apartments. Stuart Hartman Mr. Mayor, members of Council, as a resident of the City, I've 12237 Pascal Ave. lived here for 6 years, 5 of those years, I lived at Terrace Mesa Apartments on the corner of Mt. Vernon and DeBerry. For 3 years I worked at the project and I now supervise that project. I've listen to people speak all evening about the proposed apartment complex for Mt. Vernon, and personally I don't agree with any reasoning behind allowing this project. When I moved to the City, I moved here because it was a nice quiet little community, its congestive, heavily congestive, I've listened to people speaking about Mt. Vernon Villa's and how it will be a secure project and it create any affect on our police protection in the City. I don't know how many of you have ever lived in an apartment complex, I know Ms. Pfennighausen was a resident of mine at Terrace Mesa. As far as security goes on a complex, you have on the average one to two men that might walk throughout the evening. A security guard company is paid $6.50 to $7.50 an hour for an unarmed security guard, for an armed security guard they are paid $10.00 to $11.00 an hour. On the average, you are going to receive an unarmed security guard on the project to reduce your liability, these unarmed security guards, which has been my experience over the last 4 years receive minimum wage. Any person receiving minimum wage, encountering a problem on a property is not going to stick Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 32 their neck out to save anybody's property. At the present time, Terrace Mesa Apartments, which I hate to admit, we experience a tremendous amount of car vandalism every night. Car stereo's being stolen in the light. Rarely, have we had an apartment broken into, but it's an unsecured project and I don't see where Mt. Vernon Villas coming in with security, there's been nothing mentioned as to whether they are going to have to keep the security on the project for a specified amount of time, which a year down the road, security guards are going to be one of the first things cut in this development. As other people stated tonight, there has been thousands of units dumped on the rental market in the last year and a half. The market is throughly saturated, everybody has a gimmick to run in apartments, including us. I don't agree with it because it does reduce the quality of residents, it reduces the quality of people in general that we are bringing into the City. Living so close to the project that I supervise, I've watched this building over the last 3 years deteriorate as far as the people are concerned. It use to be a highly respected project, they had several nurses and medical students and doctors and professional people living in it. Now the quality of the residents has dropped, rent cannot go up in this area due to the saturation of the market. I reviewed an article in the newspaper where Forest City Dillon had proposed $645.00 to $700.00 in rent on their new apartments. Anybody that believes for a minute that they will get that is crazy, and in addition to that if you do not get the rent, they will only fund that project for a year to two years to loose money on it. After that happens, you start cutting services, you start letting the property deteriorate, then what happens. Everybody that is in favor of the project at this point is in favor of it because it is attractive and it will be new, but you have to look at the long run, what happens 3 years from now, 4 years from now, when the project is not making the money. You not only have 3,000 units dumped on the market down the hill, they, traveling to Redlands, which is a 6 or 7 mile drive, they had 4,000 units put on the market. There was an article put in the Sun about 6 months ago that stated that if there were no more apartment construction in the Inland Empire, that the available units could not be rented until the year 1990. Why put so many units on the market? I'm totally opposed to this project, and not because I'm in the business, simply because I think it is a ludicrous idea to put a project, another project into the City when we can't rent up what is currently available and the rents that they have proposed are crazy. Kelly Isaac I agree with what the gentlemen just said about the 12114 Palm Ct. properties. I am also familiar with a property that's local and I'd like to say that I've seen rapes, burglaries, auto thefts, car thefts, you name it and it goes on. And I'd just like to say that this community is a bedroom community and we would like to stay that way. Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 33 Kelly Isaac I agree with the gentleman that it is ludicrous the rents that they proposed, nothing is going to stop the activities that go on in these apartment communities. We do have an inflex of property apartment renters all over the place. It scares me to death to think what these apartments have to do to get rented up. The things that they have to do to stay rented up, lowers the quality of people and it's a severe problem and we want to keep these apartments out of Grand Terrace, we have enough. Andre Brummer I have lived at 11785 Kingston Street for 15 years. Member of 11785 Kingston the City Council, most of the people in Grand Terrace are Street opposed to more apartments in our small City. Especially the 308 apartments that are before you for approval tonight. We came to Grand Terrace because of the small town atmosphere, more large apartment complexes will change this. We already have a large apartment project on Mt. Vernon with many empty apartments. Two Councilmembers, Mrs. Pfennighausen and Mr. Evans have supported apartments on Mt. Vernon and continue to push for approval of 308 more, what will be next. Mrs. Pfennighausen don't you and your friend Mr. Evans realize the serious impact this will have on our small City. Mt. Vernon will be like a freeway. We already have serious problems with the streets. I live two short streets from Mt. Vernon and this additional apartments will have bad affect on me and others in my neighborhood. Why you two been supporting this apartments on Mt. Vernon all these years. Mayor Matteson, you have responsibility to the people of this City who voted for you, we expect you to live up to your promise of 3 years ago to fight against apartments in this area, so please do for us what you and the Council did for the people west of the freeway. There you changed the zoning from R-3 to R-2 because the people wanted to preserve their way of life, we ask you to do the same for us. Let's continue to make Grand Terrace a better place to live. Bea Gigandet Good evening Mayor, members of the Council, I have lived in Grand Terrace for 29 years when it was a beautiful community with a Country Club and nicely landscaped homes, children were well behaved and there was no problem walking down the street or worrying about burglars or who are going to accost you when you are taking your dog for a walk or child for a walk. I am a concerned citizen and I love this City and I like to keep it this way. I am also a member, recently appointed to the Crime Prevention Committee, so I have been working diligently. I make two and three trips, sometimes daily, sometime every other day to see what is going on in our City. I think that our City Manager and members of the City Hall knows how many times I have called, when the grafitti started, because he said, now Bea, what are you going to do about it. So, I called, as you remembered and you responded very well, you did clean that side of Mt. Vernon and I appreciate that, but it kept expanding toward the other end, so I sent my little helpers to see what Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 34 is going on and they would report back to me. It's graduated towards Riverside, but if necessary, I'll get after the Mayor on the other side to clean that end near Highgrove. We have found, I have found a change taking place because of increase, but can you imagine what's going to happen when we have this increase of population and the complex and additional apartments. We cannot cope with the situation now. The other day, Grant knows that, I was down there two cars coming forward toward one another playing chicken, I was just coming out, I wasn't afraid, I'm not afraid, Gods taking care of me. I walked out there and said hold it right there, the car stopped, both of them, I said what do you think you are doing and this fellow rolled out of his car, rolled down to the other car, over the fender motor and landed on the street. Another car was coming in the right direction and she almost ran over him and I said hold it, she stopped and said I didn't see him, I said I know, do you realize that you just this minute have done if I hadn't been hear, you would have caused maybe death to yourself and destruction to yourself, people in your car and the lady that was driving the right way would have ran over this young man. Oh they were very nice, they apologized to me, they were very responsive, and said we are sorry, we're sorry. I said to them, you see these eyes, I'll remember everyone of your faces and don't you forget it, so and I said unless you want to wind up in the pokie, they looked at me like what in the world is pokie, I guess, that's a generation gap there, so I went around, they thought I was going over to my car, so I want to check on them again, I went around and there they were and their eyes open wide, and said, oh my God there she is, and I said I'm just checking out your faces again. I'm registering them up here and so they drove out and drove on side of me, stuck their head out and said we're sorry, but mam, what's a pokie. I said I'll tell you, I'm glad you asked, would you like to find out, find out, they said no thanks, we get the message. Now, this is just one incident. I was standing out there yesterday with Pauline Grant and all these skateboard riders were going like fury and eventually someone is going to get hurt. I just feel as a citizen I am doing my job, but I want, what I'm concern about, the reason I'm bringing this up, if we have these problems now, what's going to occur, we have these additional apartments, additional children, we will need more schools, more police protection, more fire protection, more people like me getting out there and watching and stopping them from committing crime, this is why I am concerned. We were hit going down Jap Hill, almost daily someone has an accident there. It frightens me to death to go down that hill. It's really frightening, we have to go all the way down to Hunts Lane and make a turn to go up Washington and those, I'm sure when those apartments go in there, all of that will not be taken care of, all you are going to have is chaos, we don't need additional apartments or people, we have enough as the gentlemen said and I can't follow those eloquent speeches Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 35 because I talk off the cuff. I'm just as I say, I'm a concerned citizen and as long as I was appointed as a crime prevention, a member of the committee, I want to be out there watching and I will report about everything I see, so be prepared Council, you are going to be hearing from me and I thank you very much. Mayor Matteson Excuse me Mr. Howell, we are going to take a 10 minute break, don't go a way, response, I won't. Recessed at 8:20 p.m., Reconvened at 8:31 p.m. Mayor Matteson Mr. Howell did you want to finish speaking. I would like to just a, I've been waiting for people to start duplicating so I can cut it off and revert back to Council, but everybody's come up with something different so far, but I would like to get it back to Council so we can make a decision on this tonight. Homer Howell I'm across the street from this your favorite area. I've been fighting this for 25 years, I've lived here since 61, I guess I have to add on a few year, I don't want to get any older, but I have to admit that I suppose. I made a few notes here as we were going along with things I didn't want to forget that I hadn't planned to say before. On the corner of Brentwood, another gentleman talked about the trouble he had getting out and into the street. Quite a few years ago now one of the Mayors of this City had the curb painted red along Mt. Vernon on Brentwood and they did it because when the cars parked there, the traffic is so heavy that his wife almost had an accident there one day, coming out in the morning, now that was years ago, not today. And today, anyone coming out of Brentwood onto Mt. Vernon knows what the traffic is like, that's with no apartments across the street from us. We moved here, my wife and I and two children to raise our family here because it was a great area, centrally located, with access to any place in the whole Southern California. Jump on freeway go to L.A., jump on the freeway go to San Diego. I don't see why Orange County doesn't provide a real attraction to us today to build homes over there. We're are building homes out in Sunnymead and on out to Moreno Valley. People from Big Bear, up in the mountain commute to Orange County. I've supported R-1 on that property ever since it's been questioned. I think Mrs. Hickson started zoning back in 61/62. It's a problem area, there's no question about it, but I think the main problem with more apartments is traffic, just come down there and watch it in the mornings as it is right now and take a look at Jap Hill, the bottom of Jap Hill. I had written a speech that I had wanted to make, but everyone has said it already and you told me you would cut me off if I repeated myself too much. My son does manage an apartment complex in north San Bernardino and he has the same kind of problems as this gentlemen here, his quality of people going down, they're giving free rent for Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 36 a few months, they move in and move out again. It's just a problem and I think we are creating a real sink -hole in Grand Terrace if we allow more apartments to go in that area. So I'm strongly recommending that you disapprove this and re -zone the area into R-1 or R-2, something else that's more compatible for the needs of the Terrace, not the needs of Orange County and builders or anyone else that's interested in making money off of it. Mayor Matteson Okay, we'll like to have one more speaker to summarize it up and then I like to turn it back over to Council because I think we got your general consensus. Mike Roach I didn't really come down to summarize, but I've been involved with corporations for a lot of years now. I moved to Grand Terrace. Mayor Matteson Would you state your name and address. Mike Roach Oh, I'm sorry, my name is Mike Roach and I dealt with 22799 Fairburn corporations for quite a few years now. I moved my family here to get away from the Los Angeles and Orange County area. I think one thing that the lady from the development company happen to overlook is that one of the corporations prime objective is not to make a nice home, there prime objectives is to make money, that's the only reason they are up here. Mayor Matteson Okay, I'll turn it back over and bring it back over to the City Council. Councilman Grant. Councilmember Thank you Mr. Matteson, it's a fantastic turnout, I'm Grant absolutely delighted that you've probably figured out by now. I want to read a statement and then I'm going to make a motion. To members of this Council and to the people of Grand Terrace, I want to say and I'm absolutely opposed to these proposed 308-unit apartments. As a clear danger to the health, safety and welfare of the people of Grand Terrace, there is no doubt in my mind that if they are built, the result will be severe increase traffic problems, crime problems and impact upon our schools. Basic logic tells you that Mt. Vernon, Canal and Barton Roads simply cannot support much more of an increase in traffic. I'm not saying that people who live in apartments commits anymore crime than anyone else,what I am saying is that the increases in population has traditionally resulted in more crimes, that's common knowledge, as well as increases in school overcrowding. Back in June of 1985, the City Attorney stated that the State of California have granted the authority to City Councils to disapprove projects based on substantial evidence that certain conditions exist which could be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community even though the project conforms to zoning and the General Plan. I believe common sense and simple observation and simple logic show that Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 37 the test of "substantial evidence" has in fact, in this case, been met. This project will in fact negatively impact the number and frequency of property and personal crimes, traffic congestion and school overcrowding. And to the Councilmembers who would wish apartments to be increased in Grand Terrace, I ask why they voted with the remainder of the Council on September 24, 1987 to approve the Urgency Ordinance clarifying re -zoning of areas west of I-215, thus eliminating apartments that had been planned over there. Why are these apartments between Mt. Vernon and Canal any different? This Council had, in fact, already taken action on August 14, 1986 to deny the Specific Plan in Phase II. First a denial on a vote of 3-2 with Mr. Evans and Mrs. Pfennighausen, voting NOE, of the developers appeal of a Planning Commissioner's denial for a variance of the Ordinance 100 & 104 referred to earlier by Mr. Petta. Again, on a vote to 3-2, they appealed the Commission's denial of Architectural Review, again with the same vote. And finally, and most importantly, another vote to deny the Specific Plan. So, my question is, how many times is this thing going to keep coming back and coming back and coming back. Ladies and gentlemen I walked the streets of Grand Terrace during the past several weeks, I'm proud of that, I went from door to door, learning from the people of this community, they all were unanimously opposed to this project. Many other people in Grand Terrace have been going from home to home, including my wife, Pauline, asking people to support the denial of these apartments and circulating these petitions with over 1,300 names objecting to this project. I am indeed very proud, deeply proud of all of them. As I have stated in the beginning, I'm very much opposed to this project and I hope that the remainder of this Council will join me in a vote to over -turn the Planning Commission's approval of this Specific Plan. So Mr. Mayor, I would like to make a motion. CC-87-206 Motion by Councilmember Grant, move that this Council act to deny the Specific Plan, SP/CUP 87-1, with a 308-unit apartment complex by the applicant, Forest City Dillon, Incorporated, second by Councilmember Shirley. Mayor Matteson We have a motion on the floor, open up for discussion, anybody. I think, I just want to say that we do have a problem here and the problem is this, is that, this property is zoned R-3. And the problem started in 1984, when I ran on the platform that I was against high -density and after I got into office, this project came up to be re -zoned and a motion was made by Councilman Evansy second by Councilwoman Pfennighausen, to make it R-3. Councilman Grant and myself voted against it, but it passed with Tony Petta joining those two and passing it to R-3. Once it went to R-3, then the problem starts because people sell the property, someone else buys it for that value and they pay these exhorbitant figures for it to build these complex. So now, we have the job of trying to figure out how Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 38 to undo something and it's not that easy, so we're probably going to have some problems with this thing. The proposed project they have, except for a few minor changes, meets all the requirements of the City. They have a larger density, not larger density, larger units and proper garages and parking, those are the main objectives that they have not complied with. So we may, if this fails this evening, or if it passes, we may have some problems down the road. Mr. Brunner, you want to ... City Attorney Mr. Mayor the public session has been closed, unless you want to re -open the public hearing, you cannot accept the testimony from these people. Mayor Matteson Alright, we do have a motion on the floor. City Attorney Yes sir. Mayor Matteson Sorry Mr. Brunner. Mr. Evans did you want to speak, Councilwoman Pfennighausen? Okay, for clarification, Mr. City Attorney would you clarify the motion. City Attorney Yes, the motion is to disapprove these specific, excuse me, the motion is to disapprove the Specific Plan that has been recommended to you by the Planning Commission. I assume that as a result, if the motion carries that you will be making findings on the basis of why the disapproval, so, you can either include those findings before you vote in the motion or after you have voted on the motion, whatever your preference is, but you do need to make some findings. Mayor Matteson I think Councilman Grant included that in his motion, health and welfare to the City. Councilmember Right, that was in my preference to my motion and I made very Grant clear specific statements as to why I was doing this. Councilmember I have a couple of questions. First of all, I don't care if Evans Ivan, Tom, Joe, we are currently working with the General Plan which was approved through late 1983 and formerly adopted April of 1984. Can you tell me what the credentials were of the Firm that prepared that General Plan. City Attorney They were obviously well authorized, had good credentials, they specialized in this type of work, so they were experts in the field of General Planning and of planning in general. Councilmember When you prepare a General Plan, I know there are a multitude Evans of different elements that go into that document. Are all documents, are all elements examined and evaluated individually as a unit or are they evaluated as an integrated and coordinated unit based upon the adopted land use of that document. Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 39 City Attorney The latter, they are not looked at as a unit, but rather each of the elements is individually looked at and considered on that basis. Councilmember So, then I'm to assume that if the General Plan land use Evans element designates a multi -family development for a particular area, that all the elements are evaluated based on how that impact will increase population, school impaction, traffic and the other infrastructure. City Attorney Yes sir. Councilmember When the document was evaluated back in 83/84, what was the Evans density that was used as it related to multi -family development to determine the community impact. City Attorney Do you recall Joe, I think it was twenty, if I recall, the density of twenty and that was a compromise, the State had requested that we use twenty-four and they agreed to... Councilmember I'm not asking what was ultimately decided. When it was Evans evaluated, was it twenty that was used to determine the impact of all these elements, or a higher density. City Attorney I don't remember, do you? City Engineer Are you speaking of all the elements of the General Plan or.. Councilmember As Mr. Hopkins has just indicated, all of these elements are Evans going to have to relate to the land use. City Engineer I believe that the housing element which finally approved twenty units per acre was the last one to be approved and the balance of the General Plan was approved based on the twenty-four recommended by required by the State. Councilmember So, the plan was actually evaluated on twenty-four units to the Evans acre? City Engineer Yes sir. Councilmember So, it was evaluated at a higher density than what has been Evans proposed for this unit this evening as well as the other units. City Engineer That is correct. Councilmember We have a large group standing out here, sitting, I like to see Evans a show of hands, how many of you people out there would like to see another supermarket in Grand Terrace. You want another supermarket, right, you'd love to see another supermarket. That's a very interesting response, because most of the people that I have talked to in the community since I've come onto Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 40 this Council long before is they would like to see another supermarket. Now, for approximately the last 9 to 12 months, this City has been trying to bring a commercial development into this community which would hopefully increase the sales tax revenue as other members of this Council have spoken towards. October 7th of this year, we received a letter from the developer that we were trying to attract which would help increase that sales tax potential and basically summarizing, he said that he had contacted, he felt first of all that the project would not go unless you had a major anchor of a supermarket that was committed to that project. He stated we had been turned down by both Vons and Alpa Beta due to the fact that their larger stores cannot be accommodated by the existing population. Luckys has also turned us down due to the fact they do not feel there is significant population to support their store with the existing Stater Bros., and of course, the new Albertson being built in the Cooley Ranch area. Other markets, which we have received a negative response from, are Ralphs, who are not going into the Inland Empire at this time and Stater Bros. who have decided to take a wait -and -see attitude. In other words, they want to see how their sales are affected by the new Albertson. I appreciate the patience on behalf of the City and your Council, and wish we could have more, been more successful. However, it would appear that the timing is wrong. Perhaps, if the City had reacted earlier, you may have had the Albertson/Payless project, rather than the City of Colton. However, we cannot look over our shoulder and we cannot look back. He ends by stating I sincerely believe that at some point -in -time, this would be a neighborhood center location. And the site that was being targeted at that time was the area on the south side of Barton Road from Michigan east essentially to Canal. He completes, however, I think it will take continued growth, not only in the Grand Terrace residential based, but perhaps the adjoining Highgrove, Riverside County area to the south. If there is anything that we can do to assist the City in the future on information we have collected, please feel free to give us a call. It was signed by Robert K. Bresius, Westar Associates. I share that with you because as you saw, there is a major gathering of folks who would like to see another supermarket. I think that letter was very forth right and as basically, as basically sets and said you are not going to get one. Consistency of development is something that has concerned me since I came on here and long before. I didn't create the problem that I have to be faced with this evening, previous Councils did. I also have a responsibility that if development has to happen, I must ensure that it will be the best planned and integrated project. Also, I have to ensure that my actions do not jeopardize the financial status or create any potential legal repercussions for this City. My decisions have to be made based on staff input and on their best professional opinions. I believe that you should expect consistency from your elected Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 41 officials. I believe that your elected officials should also diligently study as well as understand how their vote impacts this community as well as any other community. I am going to address the feelings folks because I didn't create this problem, well if you have any suggestions, I would welcome you to come over to this side of the table and address them. Mayor Matteson Please, let's keep in order. Councilmember On March 22, 1984, previous Council specifically adopted the Evans General Plan Land Use Element. The land unit element only to help expedite pending developments that were waiting for review. The minutes reflect that no one at that time, objected to multi -family development. That vote was approved unanimously with Mayor Grant at that time, former Councilman Mr. Petta, current Councilwoman Pfennighausen, former Councilmembers Nix and Rigley. April of 1984, the Council adopted the General Plan with the Housing Element wherein the City would encourage the development of multi -family units of twenty units per acre. Again, that was the unanimous vote by Mr. Grant, Mr. Petta, Ms. Pfennighausen, Mr. Nix and Mr. Rigley. The question that I ask at this particular point is, if they were concerned about the impact of multi -family, and they didn't want it zoned for apartments, then why is it that they approved that document and that Land Use Element back in 1984, but they did and relying in good faith upon that document, correct me Ivan, that document you have told us in the past is a legal document, is that not correct. City Attorney Yes sir. Councilmember We had individuals that came in and they purchased property, Evans relying in good faith on that document. Now, they didn't hold their land, granted, maybe they could gamble if they want and see, well, we'll just set back, maybe the market isn't quite correct for this. However, they didn't, they immediately came to the City with proposed projects. June 28, 1984, City Resolution 84-27 was adopted. Wherein the City expressed the intention to provide for multi -family rental housing bonds, on what was that time Phase I of the McMillian/Trevenio Project, which is referred to currently as the Forest City Dillon Phase I. Now, that particular resolution indicated that the City was going to help through their powers of approving and developing a development an apartment complex on 14 acres, it was 280 units. Rough calculation shows that at that time that would equal out to 20 units to the acre. They were asking at that particular moment $12,000,000 and the document states in one part that the City desires to induce the developer to construct the project. That resolution passed 4-0 by Mr. Grant, Mr. Petta, Ms. Pfennighausen and Mr. Rigley. I have to ask the question again, if they don't want apartments then why is it they are encouraging the development of an apartment by voting for a bond issue, the intention to help with the bonding. Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 42 Councilmember July 26, 1984, Mr. Al Trevenio, as a partner with McMillian Evans Development, came to the City Council and presented the first of the conceptual master plan for that area which became known as areas 10, 11 and 12. It was a conceptual plan that showed apartments for that entire area. That passed ALL AYES, Mr. Grant, Mr. Petta, Ms. Pfennighausen, Mr. Nix and Mr. Rigley, voting all in favor of it. Again, if they are against apartments, why didn't they vote NOE and why didn't they give staff direction to immediately change the zoning. Councilmember September 13, 1984, Resolution 84-30 was another intention Evans intent to provide for multi -family rental housing bonds as what was known as the Chapparal Pines Project. This is the first deviation at this point on anything as it relates to apartments. Mr. Petta supported that, Ms. Pfennighausen and Mr. Nix, but Mr. Grant and Mr. Rigley, voting NOE. Councilmember October 11, 1984, after direction by the City Council that the Evans City, by law, will go ahead and initiate what they call a Mass Zone Ordinance at no cost to the land owners, brought the re -zoning of areas 10, 11 and 12 to the Council. This was by State Law and they were bringing the zoning now, in compliance with the General Plan, keeping in mind that was originally approved by all the members of the Council. This is the first time you see any opposition, where you have seen any opposition before and area 10 was defeated, area 11 was defeated. However, area 12 only had 3 members that were against zoning. Councilmember In November 1984, there was an election and this particular Evans project has been an issue for the past two election periods. After the election, however, on November 29, 1984, after the zoning on these projects just prior to the election had been defeated, USA which was another developer, an apartment developer, came into the city with McMillian Development which is the current Forest City Dillon Project and they asked that the City address the inconsistencies between the General Plan the existing zoning which had to be resolved and which our Legal Counsel has stated had to be resolved. Again, they could have defeated that issue, but they didn't, they gave a re -hearing with Mr. Grant, Mr. Petta, Ms. Pfennighausen and now at that time, I said yes. Councilmember February of 85, areas 11 which was primary the area which would Evans encompass the Forest City Project area came up for approval and zoning to R-3, again, following legal counsel advice, which I have to rely upon in this community, that zone was zoned R-3 and I can guarantee you this house wasn't packed, it was approved by Mr. Petta, Ms. Pfennighausen, and myself. Mr. Grant voted NOE, Mr. Matteson voted NOE. Now, if we wanted to set there and stop apartments again, back in February of 85, Mr. Petta should have joined the majority and voted against apartments at that particular time. Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 43 Councilmember May 23, 1985, Chapparal Pines Project which had come before the Evans Council in a resolution, where the intent for bonding assistance was ultimately denied. Was a 157 unit on 8.8 acres, that was 17.4 units per acre that it averaged out. Now, this is the first apartment project that was denied, it was denied by Mr. Matteson, Mr. Grant and Mr. Petta. This is the first deviation Mr. Petta had had from that point. Again, based on legal counsel, I supported the project. Councilmember June 13, 1985, Mt. Vernon Villas Phase I came to the City Evans Council, it was approved. It was approved by Mr. Grant, Mr. Petta and Mr. Matteson and I voted NOE and Ms. Pfennighausen voted NOE. It was approved at 15-3/4 units. Again, my NOE was not a denial of the apartment project, it was based upon legal advice and direction. And one of the concerns Mr. Brummer like to attack me on was the fact that I'm not interested in planning, I'm probably more concerned sir, and realize the impact on this community than many members of this Council, and I don't particularly like you referring to me as her friend. I'm going to stand up on my own. Councilmember July 1985, Mr. Trevenio brought a conceptual master plan for Evans areas 10, 11 and 12 which was presented in a joint Council/Planning Commission Workshop. That was to bring a conceptual plan that would hopefully integrate free -flow development that would have the least impact to this City, recognizing the fact that Mr. Petta, Mr. Grant, Mr. Nix, Mr. Rigley and Ms. Pfennighausen started this whole mess. That was approved unanimously by all members of the Planning Commission and the City Council. Councilmember A resolution on July 25, 1985, approving Mt. Vernon Villas Evans Specific Plan was approved unanimously by Grant, Petta, Pfennighausen, Matteson and myself. Councilmember In August 22, 1985, we see the third apartment project, it came Evans before the City Council. It was USA properties, had 138 units on 8.8 acres, average out 15.7 units to the acre. That apartment project was approved unanimously by this Council. I only ask that if these people are opposed to apartments, then why is it they didn't vote against that project at that particular time. Councilmember December 12, 1985, Resolution 85-28, which granted a Evans $30,000,000 bond issue to Forest City Dillon for Mt. Vernon Villas which would encompass both Phase I and Phase II, which unanimously passed by Grant, Petta, Pfennighausen, Matteson and myself. If they were against apartments, then why is it they didn't vote NOE. Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 44 Councilmember On the same date, the Site and Architectural Review appeal Evans which had been filed by Mr. Al Trevenio on behalf of McMillian Development, was passed by Mr. Grant, Mr. Petta, Ms. Pfennighausen and myself, it was voted NOE by Mr. Matteson. Again, if they are against this project, why is it that they didn't vote NOE. Councilmember On August 14, 1986, the time extension was requested for USA Evans properties and Phase I of Mt. Vernon Villas. The extensions were granted for both of those properties. Mr. Grant, Mr. Petta, Ms. Pfennighausen, Mr. Matteson and myself granted the extension. You wanted to stop apartments, you could have stopped it again right there by voting NOE. Same day, Phase II Mt. Vernon Villas came before the City Council and it was ultimately defeated. At this particular time, the trend seems to be that any of the other apartment projects would receive favorable consideration, but for some unknown reason, this project seem to incur the distaste of those Councilmembers and it would go down. The Specific Plan on that same day for Phase II was denied. Councilmember November 20, 1986, Community Redevelopment Resolution amending Evans the bonding which was approved in December of 1985 for Mt. Vernon Villas was approved. At that particular time, it was unanimously passed 4-0 by Mr. Grant, Mr. Matteson, myself and Ms. Crawford and we were the only members who comprised this body. Ms. Pfennighausen and Mr. Petta in a run-off election. Again, if you wanted a "Deep 6" apartments, then why not disapprove the bonding or the amendment. Councilmember On November 20th of that same night, you had another apartment Evans project that has been touted as the best project that this City has ever seen. My own personal opinion is that it isn't and that was the Terrace Grove Apartments and I hope you folks will stay here this evening and address your concerns regarding to that project because it's going to be up for consideration this evening. That was a 96 unit on 6.9 acres. When you remove the street dedication, that figured out that you are going to have an average of 18.6 units to the acre, way above what had been approved todate. And they like to set there and say well really on the original acreage it was only going to 12 or 13 units, but they were going to dedicate the street. There is a major difference between this project and the project of Mt. Vernon Villas because all their density was based on street circulation which was not going to be dedicated and they were coming in at 15-3/4. So, if the issue was density, my question is, is 15-3/4 a low density, if it is then you need to support Forest City Dillon because it is coming in at 15-3/4 units. That particular project failed, failed 2-2 with Ms. Crawford and myself supporting, Mr. Grant, Mr. Matteson against. Again, because Ms. Pfennighausen and Mr. Petta were in the run-off election. It was interesting however, at that particular time, Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 45 but Ms. Crawford made some comments that she was supporting this particular project because she felt that rules should not be changed in the middle of the game, she believed it was unfair and unbusiness like to change rules at this particular point. Councilmember December 4, 1986, Terrace Grove Apartment Project was Evans ultimately approved 4-0 by the Council. If we are opposed to apartments, then my question is, why is it that those that have been speaking against this project didn't vote against all the bonding, the zoning, and everything else that has come before us. As I have already indicated, since I've come into this community, something that has been a major concern to me is how land use and planning intricately impact everything that happens. That's why I have been very supportive of having a good in-house planner and I feel we have an excellent in-house planner who is trying to do the best job that he can conceivably do given what has taken place by past Councils. Now, it would be, you had your opportunity...I will ask a question, there seems to be a feel amongst the people that are here tonight if no further development were to take place, I'd like to ask our City Attorney that since we conceivably have so many problems that we cannot work through or mitigate, if we were to impose a complete building moratorium in this community, could we do it and if we did it, what kind of litigation liability problem would that create for us. City Attorney That's a lot of question. Certainly you can impose a building moratorium for a period of time while you review the entire situation in the City. It would have to be a limited period of time, you cannot do it with your current ordinances and such on the books, that's just not permissible on a permanent basis, but you could do it on a temporary basis as you did on the west side of the freeway relative to multi -family housing. That, the imposition of that moratorium probably would not incur any liability to you because there are certain projects that would be exempted from it at any event, those that have a vested approval they're past you. The eventual denial of some of the project might impose some liability to you, depending upon the factual circumstances, but the action of a temporary moratorium, I don't think would impose a liability on you. Councilmember I understand temporary, I'm not talking about temporary, I'm Evans talking about a permanent one since we've heard tonight we have a lot of problems and I'm not disagreeing, we have problems that need to be address and hopefully, I'm going to try to address those as this current General Plan that will be coming before us within the next couple of months. And I encourage each and everyone of you to come to this body and address those concerns, as well as to the Planning Commission. We have also heard, let's rezone the area back, that's what I want. Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 46 Councilmember Ivan could you set there and really say that the General Plan Evans is suppose to reflect what the people of the community want to be like, is that a correct statement. City Attorney No sir. Councilmember Do you care to share please with us what the General Plan is Evans suppose to do as it relates to housing. City Attorney General Plans are suppose to and of course the requirements of the elements are set out in the Government Code relating to the General Plan, but in general, it is supposed to show how the land should be developed based upon the then existing circumstances and the projected circumstances within the City. The popularity of the issue is not one of the items that General Plans address. City Councils, being elected, have to address them at hearings such as this, but the General Plan cannot contemplate the popularity of the issue, but rather what good planning would encompass. Councilmember But, if the people say they wanted R-1 there instead of R-3, Evans can we do it. City Attorney If you don't, they have the initiative process available to them, so they could through the initiative process accomplish precisely that. Councilmember What would happen if we initiated the paperwork right now to Evans re -zone that R-1? City Attorney Of course you couldn't do that right now, but if you did it at your next meeting, you could down -zone it. Currently, the law has never indicated that there is liability or damages to be awarded on a down -zoning. Although, that is currently being considered by both the State and the Federal Supreme Court and it looks like probably in the not too far future that well will be a cause for a damages down -zoning, but right now, it is not. Councilmember So we should not technically rely upon the popularity and we Evans have to as you referred to Mr. Grant's question back in June of 85 when they were talking about condominiums that you review should not be capricious and arbitrary unless substantial evidence can be determined. City Attorney Yes sir. Councilmember This project, as well as other projects, have come before this Evans Council as well as the Planning Commission, other people who have submitted special traffic studies. We've had our staff which hopefully I would like to think has the best interest of the City at heart, and they have to review what impact that traffic will make to this City and I have to be relying upon Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 47 that input and I don't consider that we have staff that doesn't know what they are doing. However, I have some difficulties when everything that staff has provided to us, they have not given us one iota of information in which we could use and if I have understood your directions, substantive documentation in which we could use to deny, in this case, the Forest City Dillon Project. Do you know of any written findings? City Attorney I'm not aware of any written findings, no sir. Councilmember Why as I said, planning is something that has been very very Evans key with me and I'd like to refer back to the statement that Dr. Booker made in reference to the Abraham Lincoln quote, reference "malice towards none, equity for all," the United States of America has been considered the land of opportunity and Mr. Petta has eloquently addressed that in his opening statements. We've been viewed as a community, as a country that with open arms welcome people that are looking for opportunities. Coming from other countries with more dictatorial forms of government; we live in a free country; you have choice. And they are looking for a place to live where they could hopefully find a piece of the American dream. But, I'm a little concerned that when we collectively discriminate against a group and in this case, the apartment dweller, you make a mockery of our countries heritage and I have some concerns when that takes place. As far as I'm concerned this evening, Forest City Dillon, is a quality developer, they are coming in with an excellent well -integrated plan. However, because of what you feel regarding apartments, I'm going to vote against this apartment project, but you better be prepared when the lawsuit come down to help pay for it. Mayor Matteson Councilmember Shirley. Councilmember Thank you Mayor Matteson, Grand Terrace is an exceptional City Shirley with a small population and I think reality is that a population of 10,000 people won't support another supermarket, probably won't support a hardware store or some of the other amenities that we would like to see up here. But, I would be willing to bet that the people of this community would prefer to live with those inconveniences rather than live with the inconvenience of the density and all the negatives that high -density will bring to this area. I'm talking about impacted schools, traffic and crime. Forest City Dillon has brought to this exceptional town a substandard plan. Their plan does not meet our requirements for square footage, for attached garages, the parking space or for set -backs. This plan is not consistent with the quality of life that all of us who live here in Grand Terrace are seeking and feel we have found, I would vote against this project. Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 48 Councilmember Thank you Mr. Mayor. Mr. Evans' listing of the events leading Grant up to the present time, you notice he made reference to December 12, 1985 and he cited a vote that took place. What he failed to do was look at the second vote that was taken the same day, he bit past it and went on. What happened was when the Forest City Dillon Project, I'll read this. City Engineer Kicak briefly outlined the background of an appeal on November 18, 1985 Planning Commission approved Site and Architectural Review for Mt. Vernon Villas for a maximum of 252 units subject to additional conditions of approval. Some of which were being appeal by Forest City Dillon and Mr. Al Trevenio. The motion was taken to support that appeal, the vote was Pfennighausen and Evans in favor of it, Grant, Matteson and Petta, voting NOE, he didn't tell you that. Mr. Evans and Mrs. Pfennighausen have referred frequently about their concern, their deep concern for those who experience low income and people who need low -rental apartments. What they failed to indicate and what they had ignored are the rights and wishes of the people in this town who already live in Grand Terrace and who have worked hard all of their lives to afford the homes in which they are now living. There are numerous apartment vacancies, that was brought out by several speakers, there are numerous, my daughter lives in one of those apartments right now, and there are vacancies all around, and they are providing you with any kind of gimmick to get you move into those apartments, so now we need these apartments here like we need a hole in the head. One more thing, Mrs. Pfennighausen stated on October 8th to another organization, that the Forest City Dillon apartments would rent from $425 per month up. Now, that doesn't sound like low-cost affordable housing to me. Mayor Matteson Councilmember Pfennighausen. Mayor Pro Tem I couldn't agree with you more Mr. Grant and that's the first Pfennighausen time ever that you have, in public, said that this was not low-income housing, thank you, you clarified that point for everybody. As regards school impaction, someone has proposed that the area in question and then I would assume that you would propose that all other R-3 zoned area be re -zoned to either R-1 or R-2. All of you that would like to see that raise your hands, you would all like to see that happen? Very good, I'm just trying to find out what it is that you want. Now, we are talking about school impaction, you take a tract of houses or single-family residential units and the majority of those are going to sell at a hundred and five plus thousand dollars, hundred thousand dollars, and they are also going to generate at each unit, I think it's 2.58 children. Now, you are talking about school impaction, but that's alright because at this point I'm so tired of fighting this issue that I'll vote NOE on it too. Mr. Petta you don't have to leave the podium because you will probably want to have something to say when I'm through. Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 49 Mayor Pro Tem Mr. Petta has cited constitutional rights. About a month ago, Pfennighausen it was my privilege to attend a conference in Ontario in which they were discussion the development of the Inland Empire and housing impacts. And at that point, somebody did an experiment that I thought was extremely interesting. The first thing the gentlemen did was say, how many of you were born in the city in which you reside. How many of you were born in Grand Terrace? Alright, how many of you were born in the Inland Empire, born here, that's less than a fifth of the audience. How many of you were born in the State of California? That's less than half the audience. Alright, point being people, that if nativity gave you rights to residence only those who were born here have a right to be here. Alright, you know the one thing that a quality population has is respect for the right of someone that has set and patiently listened to what you had to say while I have my say, and I would appreciate it if you could do that. That's quality folks, let's have some of it. Now, Mr. Petta made reference to the fact that this project contains studio apartments, and indeed initially it did, it no longer does, it now only contains 1 and 2-bedroom apartments. The referencedwonderful petitions. Two figures have been cited 1,300 and something and I believe that Dr. Booker cited the figure 1,134. Those petitions began circulating by a member in this audience, Mrs. Hogue, at a soccer field and I was very interested indeed to hear the entire text of that petition because it took quite awhile to read it. But, that isn't what the people that were being handed the petition were being told, they were being, just said, you want to sign this petition to stop apartments. Mayor Matteson Please, please, lets have some order. City Attorney Mr. Mayor, if the audience continues like this we are going to have to adjourn the meeting and you won't get the decision that you're apparently wanting. This body is representing you whether you like what they say or don't like what they say. The only way it can function is if you let them speak. Interruptions continue like this.., you were all allowed to speak and the Council did not interrupt you. I can recognize why you disagree with them or the fact that you have the right to disagree with them, but please let them continue with what they're saying, you have many recourses, yelling in the audience is not one of them. Mayor Pro Tem There has to be something about creditability of people that Pfennighausen are circulating a petition. And if a petition is being circulated to stop apartments by a person that wanted and testified in these Chambers on two occasions that they should have the right to develop apartments, then I would say that person does not have credibility. And that is exactly what happened, one of the people that circulated a petition had property, told you that they wanted to stop apartments, but Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 50 they did not tell you that they wanted to build apartments and had been denied the right to do that, and that they wanted to develop at the present density of 15-3/4. It seems to you a simple issue, we don't want apartments, we want single-family homes, we don't want more crime, let's build single-family homes, let's build tracts of single-family homes where we would have had multi -family residential and not be able to sell them, talk about crime generators folks, you just found it. It's too bad we don't have people that have to service us from the Sheriff's Department to let you know that, but that's alright. Like I say, I'm tired of the fight. I'm only going to address one more thing and that's how you finance this government. Mr. Petta has from day one come before you and said we will never have anymore taxes in this City. Well folks, I spend approximately eight hours a day, five days a week, in my office, right here in City Hall and I handle one call right after another from people that are complaining because they don't get prompt service in this City. Service costs dollars. Property tax does not pay for services, you've heard that from here repeatedly, so if you want services in your City, then how do you get them, you have to pay for them somehow. A direct tax or sales tax or some kind of revenue. The best kind of revenue is sales tax, but all of you people said we'd sooner take our sales tax to Colton and help them pay their bills, or take it to Riverside or San Bernardino whatever, and that's great, they love you for it, continue to do it, but someday down the line you are going to have to bite the bullet and you are going to have to say, okay, we didn't want any of that stuff and we still want our streets paved and we still want our graffiti painted out and we still want all of these services and we are going to be willing to pay for it, be ready to pay the big bill, the great big bill. Mayor Matteson Question has been called for, please cast your vote. Motion CC-87-206 carried with Councilmember Evans and Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen voting NOE. After explanation from Councilmembers Evans and Pfennighausen, the vote was made unamimous to deny the Specific Plan, SP/CUP 87-1, a 308-unit apartment complex Forest City Dillon.) Mayor Matteson The Chair makes a motion to put a 90-day moratorium on all construction until the General Plan. City Attorney If I may Mr. Mayor, with due respect, the Ralph Brown Act does not allow you to make that motion unless you agendize it for the next meeting. Mayor Matteson Mr. City Manager, would you agendize that for the next meeting? Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 51 Councilmember Mr. Mayor, I would also like to correct as I stated, I was Evans going to vote against the project and it should have been a yes response, that's what I want it to reflect. Mayor Pro Tem Make it unanimous, unanimous vote for denial. Mr. Mayor, at Pfennighausen least some day when there are problems that you can't solve by pressure, then please do call me, because I'll continue to work. Councilmember Mr. Mayor, first of all I'm going to make a comment then I'm Grant going to request the Chairs indulgence in opening this back up for a little more public input. Mayor Pro Tem I think it's a dead issue. Pfennighausen Councilmember First of all, the people passing around those petitions were Grant dedicated people who worked very hard. I walked by Stater Bros., I watched those people making these presentations to the individuals coming up to the table and they read those petitions to them, there was none of this business of sticking it under their nose and having it signed as have been allegedhere. Again, I say I'm proud of what you've done, you came out in force, you made us stand up and listen to you, God bless you. Mr. Mayor, could we open up for public input. Mayor Matteson Being there has been some accusations, I will open up for rebuttal. Shirley Hoage In September or whenever it was, we was denied, we had a unit 11955 Rosedale for 18 units along with another man who had 35 units, well the 35 units or whatever it was was already to go and ours had just been submitted and that's when the Council put a moratorium on the whole area over there and our project was in that area and it was denied of course and down -zoned which we've lived here since 1963, and I think at the present time I have 10 parcels of land in Grand Terrace. My husband has a business here. We bought that as R-3 property and we just held on to it until the time was right and then we were going to build this 18 unit town house. That was better than this City had ever seen, I guarantee you that, but anyway, it was turned down so that's the way the chips fall. But, that was not the reason that I started the petition on the soccer field. It's because it was 600 apartments in one block or more when my grandchildren now has a hard time getting in classes because of the school over-crowdedness and the reason Stater Bros. is crowded is because most of the residents in Colton come up here to shop and maybe when they get that store down there we won't have as much problem. And we made sure that the people were aware and all we asked on the petition is to read it and to sign it as they agreed and I really resent you telling me what I did not do and Mr. Evans came up while I was sitting at Staters, he had Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 52 sun glasses on and a hat and he was asking all of these questions and the only thing I could tell him basically, because I'm not very intelligent when it comes all these building codes and all that and I don't pretend to be. But, he was asking all of these questions and he was very sneaky, never said who he was, he acted like he was Sherlock Holmes. Him and another Planning Commissioner and I really cannot believe that... One thing that I really want to say is, that the people has not been aware, they are like everybody, they are busy, they are not aware of what's going on in Grand Terrace and I'll guarantee you that from now on, I think people are going to be aware and I am proud of having a part of that. Stan Hargrave Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council, citizens of Grand 12048 Canary Ct. Terrace, I've sat here and listened to the pros and cons this evening and I must say I'm truly glad that the citizens of this City finally have decided to show up and show your opinion. It is unfortunate that this body of people did not show up three years ago when this whole issue started to be discussed. Things were different three years ago and we had certain legal issues that were passed on by this City that you and I as citizens are legally potentially responsible for. Whether it's a good or bad project, is not the point tonight anymore, I did a little homework and I have several friends who are attorney's, believe it or not, and I proposed this to them and I've stated the facts to them as what's happening and Councilman Evans stated those facts eloquently tonight as to the train. And I said if you were a judge and you were sitting in the court and you heard these facts, not emotions, not applauses, but facts that courts and judges go on, how do you think you would rule on this, and I had two of them from two different firms and who their specialty is litigating matters such as these. I could almost hear their lips chopping as I told them the story. And I said what would you ask as a contingency fund if we were to defend ourselves if there was a lawsuit, just playing if games here. And he said well, how many people are involved. And I said, lets assume 10,000 people. And based on the facts, he said to me that they thought, and I said now, bottom line of this give me a low rate, don't give me you know, don't give me some high number that you hope to get because you're a F. Lee Bailey type of person, but give me a low rate. And both of these firms within $1,000 per head, came up and said, we would request a contingency fee of approximately $10,000 to $11,000 per person of this 10,000 group inorder to go to court on this because the issues are very clearly in favor of the opposing party. It doesn't mean we are going to lose, it just means that on contingency basis, in order to go to court and have a shoddie part of defending this thing, we want $10,000 to $11,000 per 10,000 person. And that's okay, that maybe what we as citizens want. I, as a citizen, who is involved with four regulatory bodies on a daily basis, and I have to deal with them from the Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 53 Internal Revenue Services, down to the Department of Corporations, I have done this for 15 years, frankly have a very high degree of respect for the legal system in this country. I very seldom agree with it, but I have a high degree of respect for it because when that judge bangs his gavel and said I rule for this party, all of a sudden we have to scramble to find the dollars. Scramble to find dollars and then we can go to appeal, but we got to get the bucks first and deposit them before we go to appeal. The economics of lawsuits and it scares me, it scares me to be able to hear former city officials so easily say, let's go to court, it scares me because I as a citizen of this City and I love this City, don't want to fork out $10,000 to $11,000 from my family and there are four of us in my family including myself, that's approximately $40,000. I don't have that type of money and I wonder how many of us here tonight, can come up here tonight and deposit a check for $10,000 with the City Clerk to put into an escrow fund if we have to defend this issue, and we may very well have to, I hope we don't. (Someone in the audience interrupted.) Sir, I listened to you, I sure did and I have the podium right now and I think it's a courtesy to me to wait and you can have your turn. But, if that's what it comes to, then we all as we go home tonight should think about that and if that's a possibility, not a probability, but a possibility. I would advise all of us to start looking for those bucks to put into the escrow fund because at this point, for those of you that this is your first time at a City Council meeting, you will be happy to know that this City only has contingency of a little less than $400,000 to defend for contingencies, only $400,000. Now, we could as a group of citizens come up here and plop down $10,000 or $11,000 per man, woman and child and do contingency fund and if we win we get the money back plus interest. And I hope that is what happens if we do win, but if we lose, you know, those are some real bucks that we are talking about. Those are not my figures, those are from attorney's that specialize in this area, whether that's right or wrong, I don't know, but it scares me to hear people so easily agree to litigation without knowing the dollars and cents involved. And it maybe right to litigate this issue, I'm not the one to decide that. But for the man in back of me who wanted the pulpit, I would say to him, sir, could you put up $10,000 for you and your wife into a escrow fund right now so we can have the luxuries to go to litigation on this? If he can, God bless him, but I don't know how many of us citizens in this town can put up those types of bucks. So, on future issues, maybe the thing we should as citizens is get involved in this process at a much earlier stage. I am as busy as any of you, but I can't tell you how many hundreds of hours I've spent in these Council Chambers listening to the issues trying to find out what they are and I have a family just like everybody else and works 10 - 12 hours a day. But, some how, I found the time because this City I love and I need to be Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 54 involved and I need to understand the issues. So, if this is what we want, then all of you come out and start in this process at a earlier time. Make your feelings known way before we get to the eleventh -hour on the vote. It doesn't make any sense to bankrupt the railroad at the eleventh -hour. If we don't want certain things get in this Council Chamber before the appropriate body and state what you want clearly and early in the game, that is what government is all about. At the eleventh -hour, you have that right to do so, but you also have the right to have the litigation and the liabilities on our shoulders if we do that at the eleventh -hour. Mayor Mayor Would you summarize Mr. Hargrave. Mr. Hargrave Thank you. Mayor Matteson I just want to say one thing, we hear this constantly every time we turn down a project we are threaten with law suit. I know of three cases where there are three law suits where the developer sued the City. The City won in all three cases, and so I don't think that we should bend to blackmail or threats of that sort, we are not going to. Mr. Petta Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, Councilmember Don't leave folks you have the opportunity to take another one Evans down with you. Councilmember Just a minute Mr. Evans, let Mr. Petta talk. } Grant Mr. Petta Mr. Evans mentioned my name a number of times and I'm truly honored, if he had done that during the election, I would have won. Anyway, I'm happy to be on this side of the table. I want to make a couple of observations. The speaker before me, Mr. Hargrave, made a number of statements in the matter of legality, now whether they are right or wrong, I don't know, I'm not an attorney, but I know this, that just a few months ago, a developer west of the freeway was stopped and then Mrs. Hoage pointed out here she had a project ready to go, a land that she bought as R-3. She had every legal right to pursue her project. Now she was first stopped by a moratorium and then by a zone change. And every member of this Council voted to change that zone from R-3 to R-2, so that anywhere west of the freeway no one will be able to build apartments and I said to this Council at a previous time, that you wisely made that decision. Now, if Mr. Hargrave is so concerned about this City and he should be, then he should have been here at that point when I alerted the Council as to the consequences of that action, but he was not. So from here on, members of the Council, it's in your conscience. Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 55 Mayor Matteson Thank you. Okay, after Mr. Rigley is through, we are going to return it back to Council, we got some other things to finish up here. Mr. Rigley Mine will be short and sweet. I must make one observation. I sat and I listened to Mr. Evans and Ms. Pfennighausen and they spoke very eloquently, very effectively, very forcefully and they went back to the year of 1801 and came up to date as to what has happened in the past and they extolled all the virtues of having these apartments and they were completely in favor of them and then I lost all my respect, they konked out and voted for them. Great. Mayor Matteson Okay, we bring it back to City Council. Item 3-B, I mean 3G. Councilmember Mr. Mayor. Shirley Mayor Matteson This will take a minute. Okay, by request, we are going to take a 10 minute break. Recessed at 9:50 p.m. Recovened at 10:00 p.m. Item 3G The City Engineer made a presentation on Agreements and Bonds regarding Final Tract Map No. 13364. Councilmember Evans moved to deny the request with a second by Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen. The City Attorney stated that they could not do that, as the project had previously come before Council and was approved. CC-87-207 Motion by Myor Matteson, second by Councilmember Shirley, motion carries with Councilmember Evans and Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen voting NOE, to accept Final Tract Map No. 13364. Councilmember Motion by Councilmember Evans that (1) staff will specifically Evans idenify 10 plus acres of land with the boundaries identified by CC-87-208 the Parks and Recreation Committee which are over and above the Pico Park Site. (2) Staff is authorized to contact the property owner(s) of the designated site and specifically state the purpose of acquisition and cost of land. (3) Staff will prepare a financial time -line, including funding sources, wherein the city could acquire the site or obtain options. (4) staff will coordinate and continuely update the progress by bi-monthly reports to the City Council, Planning Department and Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Committee. Also, staff will accept input from the Parks and Recreation Committee regarding any concerns they may have pertaining to the progress. (5) All necessary actions will be taken to ensure that this community has the land by December 31, 1988 if feasible. (6) The initial task of site identification and Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 56 Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 56 potential funding will be submitted to this Council for review and possible action no later than January 14, 1988 which is the first meeting of the new year. Mayor Matteson Is this a motion? Councilmember Yes. Evans Mayor Pro Tem Mr. Mayor I move to second that motion (CC-87-208). Pfennighausen Councilmember Mr. Gellers' memorandum of October 2nd of 87 continues on. Grant Stating that it is not his intention to designate any particular parcels within that wide area for the development of a park and he states the problem with delineating specific parcels was to tantamount to "taking" land, designating private properties for public use was not proper use of their land without just compensation. I feel that we certainly need parkland, but I think that this is simply a statement of intent by Mr. Geller to Mr. Sawyer as a result of tremendous pressure applied by this Council on the consultant, and I am still prepared to wait for the formal report of that area to the west of 215. Mayor Matteson I have one point of clarification Mr. Evans. On Item 1, staff will specifically identify 10-plus acres of land within the boundaries identified by the Parks and Recreation Committee which is over by the Pico Park. What does that exactly mean? Councilmember The Committee has already identified through their minutes, as Evans well as a report, to this Council that they state 10 plus acres in addition to Pico will be bounded by Barton Road, Michigan, Pico and IS-215, that was an action item that this Council acted on. Also, they have recognized in their report to this Council that if we don't get a crackin right now, we're probably not going to get any land if we don't take action. And, all I am saying the General Plan Consultant has given usthe input, he concurs with what the Parks and Recreation has said and all I am saying is lets identify the parcel, lets authorize staff to find out if it's feasible to purchase that and do with what the Committee is requesting. Councilmember Mr. Mayor, I believe that, and correct me if I'm wrong, Shirley Councilman Grant and I at the time that action item came up, did our very best to assure ourselves that we were not voting for that specific area, but supporting a park within the city limits. And I would suggest now, in light of what has gone on here this evening, and considering any further revisions of our General Plan, that there maybe some other areas within this City that will be available for parkland in the near future and would suggest that we wait. Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 57 Councilmember Call for the question. Evans Mayor Matteson Question has been called for, please cast your vote. Motion CC-87-208 fails with Councilmember Evans and Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen voting Yes. Mayor Matteson I could support this motion if we took off the boundaries and Councilmember I'm only putting what the Parks & Rec directed this Council. Evans So you're ignoring the Committee .... Mayor Matteson They could still look in that area, but we are just opening up so that if they did find another spot they could do it, that's the only thing .... Councilmember Please go to the next Parks and Rec meeting and explain to them Evans that all their work and efforts have gone for not. Mayor Matteson That's not true, if we just open the boundaries, they could still pick the area they want to roll in. Councilmember That is what they have done, they have studied the City .... Evans Mayor Matteson I don't want to restrict them though, that's the only .... Councilmember Why did you want to restrict them when they did the study. Evans Councilmember They may have been guided however. Shirley Mayor Pro Tem Mr. Mayor, I think that in the past two months, it's become Pfennighausen painfully clear and it's too bad that the Chairman and some of the members of the Parks and Rec Committee aren't here because what we're constantly hearing is why do we spend our time and and our energy spinning our wheels when you don't give a damn what we say. Mayor Matteson But, we do. Yes. Councilmember First of all, we do give a damn, but this Council is not a Grant rubber stamp for other bodies, we take their advice, you know, I'm not just going to vote the way a Committee wants simply because I want to make the members of that Committee happy. Mayor Pro Tem Could we have that verbatim and in quote please? Pfennighausen Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 58 Councilmember Yea, be my guest, I'm not going to make any body happy simply Grant by voting for 'em simply to make them happy. They are here to provide input into this community. You can make anything you want verbatim. CC-87-209 The Chair moves to adopt this motion with the correction on Item 1, which would limit the boundaries to within the City, second by Councilmember Grant. Councilmember Call for the question. Shirley Mayor Pro Tem I'll vote for that. Now, who's going to go.., what we just Pfennighausen authorized staff to do is go out to the whole city, find 10 acres of land, any 10 acres, and I would assume that based on the rational that was just expressed by Councilwoman Shirley that we're going to also approach Forest City Dillon and ask them to sell them 10 acres of land, and if you believe that I've got a trunkload of gold bricks for you. Mayor Matteson Maybe they will donate it. Okay, Item 4-A, you all have a copy of the minutes.... Yes sir. Councilmember I don't think we did the lighting, did we. Evans City Attorney I don't think you got the reading of the vote. Mayor Matteson Didn't you read it? Motion CC-87-209 carried with Councilmember Evans voting NOE. Mayor Matteson Okay, 4-A is the minutes of Historical and Cultural, you all have a copy of that. Councilmember Did we do the Token Subsidy? Evans Mayor Matteson That was pulled until next meeting. The next item is Emergency Operations, we all have a copy of their minutes. Next item is 9-A, reschedule the next Council meting for the month of November and plan the City's birthday party. City Manager If I could just comment briefly on that, we need to reschedule the meetings in November and December due to Thanksgiving and also for Christmas. What you have on the calendar circled are the meting dates as currently scheduled, I'm suggesting that rather than the second and forth Thursday, we make it the first and third Thrusday which would be then November the 5th and 19th, December 3rd and 17th. Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 59 Mayor Pro Tem Cannot do, the Council will be in Arrowhead on the 19th. Pfennighausen City Manager Good point, how about the 5th and 3rd and 17th of December. I'm saying the 5th of November.. Councilmember Why don't we just stay with the 12th, have one meeting in Grant November and go with what in December, the 3rd. Do it on the 3rd and the 17th. Mayor Matteson What's the problem with the loth and .... oh that's Christmas Eve. City Manager Okay, we can do that then, we'll go with the 12th of November and then the 3rd and 17th, that would be fine. Mayor Matteson Does the Council concur? The response was yes. Mayor Pro Tem What were the December dates? Pfennighausen Mayor Matteson December 3rd and the 17th. Okay, we'll have the Council reports, Councilmember Shirley. Councilmember I've nothing to report at this time. Shirley Mayor Matteson Thank you. Councilman Grant. Councilmember I had the opportunity to attend the San Bernardino Sheriff's Grant Officer Crime Prevention Business Committee Watch on October 17th. I felt it was very beneficial even though I don't have a business I still felt it was very informative. I probably got even more out of the Emergency Operations Committee San Bernardino's Sheriff's Officer Crime Prevention Earthquake Workshop which Mrs. Pfennighausen was a panel member on October 20th. Eventhough some of the things that we were told, I already knew, there was many things that I learned and I hope will benefit me, God forbid if we ever get the kind of earthquake that it certainly could be. To the people of this community I invite you to the Historical and Cultural Activities Committee Country Fair on Saturday, November 7th from 10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. I understand they got a full agenda and it's going to be a lot of fun and I recommend that everyone that can be there, be there. For the record, I did attend the Omnitrans meeting as the alternate to Mrs. Shirley, who was there as the principle member. I also attended the SANBAG meeting that followed that meeting. And, finally for the record, on October 21st, I did represent the cities of this county on the Local Agency Formation Commission. That's all I have Mr. Mayor. Mayor Matteson Thank you. Mr. Evans. Council -.Minutes Page 60 Councilmember Nothing. Evans Mayor Pro Tem The only thing that I have to say, is not in the vain of a Pfennighausen report. It's simply in the vain of a statement, that the action that I took tonight, made me less of a person and I regret that, in spite of everything, I should have stood firm on what I knew was right and one of these days downline, whether in this seat behind this table or in that audience, I will have the opportunity to say, "I told you so and we are going to pay the price." And probably for the first time in my entire life, when I walk up to my mirror, I'm not going to like the person I see there. Councilmember I can echo that. Evans Councilmember Mr. Mayor, I'm competent we all acted in what we felt was the Grant best of interest City and when I look in the mirror tonight, I'm going to be kind appreciative of what I see. City Manager Mr. Mayor, we did fail to act on one item. We need to decide this year what date we traditionally have had a small celebration for the City birthday. As you know, in November of this year, we'll have come into our loth year, it will be the end of our 9th and we need a couple of things and one is, what date to set, if you want to have a 9th birthday and then to somewhat give the Historical Committee a direction as to how often they would want to have this. Whether then we recommend perhaps every 5 or 10 years after some certain period, so we are looking for some direction. Mayor Matteson Personally, I celebrate my birthday every year. Mayor Pro Tem I'm prepared to make a motion. I do too, I like to celebrate Pfennighausen it 365 days a year and each succesive day the present gets more CC-87-210 expensive. However, I think as a city, it was nice the first 8 years to do this every year. I would like though to make a motion that the next birthday party be in the anniversary year of our loth year and be held every 5 years after that. Therefore, there would not be one this year, that is my motion. Mayor Matteson Do we have a second? Councilmember I'll go ahead and second for a discussion. Evans Mayor Matteson Open for discussion, hear none, cast your votes. Motion CC-87-210 carried with Councilmember Grant and Councilmember Shirley voting NOE. Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 61 Mayor Matteson Okay, the next item. City Manager There is no other items, I do need to have you though adjourn the meeting to November the 5th, the agenda says the 12th because we just changed the meeting day. Oh, I'm sorry, you are right. The Council meeting was scheduled meeting to be 5:30 p.m. Council Minutes - 10/22/87 Page 62 adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Regular held on Thursday, November 12, 1987, at Respectfully submitted: NVA W-1 ON � APPROVED: