Loading...
01/28/1988r CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - JANUARY 28, 1988 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace was called to order in the Council Chambers, Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on January 28, 1988, at 5:30 p.m. PRESENT: Byron Matteson, Mayor Barbara Pfennighausen, Mayor Pro Tem Hugh J. Grant, Councilmember Dennis L. Evans, Councilmember Susan Shirley, Councilmember Thomas J. Schwab, City Manager/Finance Director Randy Anstine, Assistant City Manager Juanita Brown, Deputy City Clerk Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney David Sawyer, Planning Director Joe Kicak, City Engineer ABSENT: NONE The meeting was opened with invocation by Pastor Steve Fox, Inland Christian Center, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen. APPROVAL OF MINUTES JANUARY 14, 1988 CC-88-06 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen, second by Councilmember Shirley, ALL AYES, to approve January 14, 1988 Minutes. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Matteson asked Council if there were any items to be deleted? The City Manager replied there were no items to delete. Mayor Matteson stated 5(B) on the Agenda should be Council Reports. Mayor Matteson asked Council if there were any items on the Consent Calendar to be removed for discussion. Councilmember Grant requested Item (A) -- Approve Check Register No. 011488; Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen requested Item (D) -- Approve January 14, 1988 Minutes. CC-88-07 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen, second by Councilmember Grant, ALL AYES, to approve the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Item B - Ratify January 14, 1988 CRA Action Item C - Waive Full Reading of Ordinances and Resolutions on Agenda Item E - Reduction of Filing Fee for AB2020/Recycling Project. Item F - Authorize staff attendance at the School Age Child Care Conference to be held on February 19 - 20, 1988, in Hayward, CA. Mayor Matteson asked where was the recycling project to be relocated? Planning Director Sawyer replied that the proposal is that it will be located on the southwest corner of the parking lot behind the buildings in the far corner. Councilmember Grant asked if the Check Register should be 011488 or 012888. The response was 012888. CC-88-08 Motion by Councilmember Grant, second by Councilmember Evans, to approve Check Register No. 021188. Councilmember Evans questioned on Page 2 -- All Pro Construction, what was done that cost so much ($7,670.00). Assistant City Manager Anstine replied that was not a full description of the work that was constructed; this is the drain that is adjacent to the Forest City Dillon Project on Mt. Vernon where it runs into Canal Street. The water flows above the surface and they had to go in and totally rebuild that canal. Councilmember Evans asked if that was due to any work being done on Forest City Dillon's behalf? Assistant City Manager Anstine replied, "no." Councilmember Evans asked if we had officially entered into the contractual agreement to lease the site referred to as Pico Park? City Manager Schwab replied, the lease has not been signed yet. We will sign the lease after the check is approved tonight and present it with the check to Edison tomorrow when we have our first lease payment. 0 D Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 2 r Item 17872 Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen referred to Item 17872 - Park Custodian Constance Chapman. She questioned the amount of $20.00 per day, since one of the biggest complaints about the park is f the condition of the restrooms. She asked how long was Ms. Chapman working each day. Assistant City Manager Anstine replied, about 2 1/2 hours a day, indicating she was the cheapest individual they could find. He stated they have consulted with several janitorial services and they wanted to charge up to $50.00 and $60.00 a day. Item 17880 Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen referred to Item 17880 - Foothill Foothill Journal - stating she was aware of paying the Journal Ad Foothill Journal for a half -page ad, but noticed the Public Hearing Notice Ad inside that ad and wanted to know if we were paying for an ad inside of an ad that we are already paying for. City Manager Schwab replied, we did not start the half -page ad until the January Issue, indicating the holiday ad, as well as that Public Hearing Notice, appeared in prior issues before we had that half page. Item A Councilmember Grant referred to Page 1 - Item P5480, and Check Register asked, "what is the Employees Relation Institute Seminar on No. 012888 February 24, 1988?" City Manager Schwab replied, it's the Annual League Employees Seminar about employee negotiation with your staff on labor relation matters, to be held in San Diego this year, and two Councilmembers have elected to attend. City Attorney Hopkins interjected or terminations. Councilmember Grant stated he had made the motion to approve Check Register No. 012888 and Councilmember Evans seconded it. Motion CC-88-08 carried ALL AYES. Item D Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen referred to January 14, 1988 January 14, 1988 Minutes, on Page 9, 5th paragraph; the word incohesive Minutes should be cohesive. On Page 17, 2nd paragraph, Councilmember Evans is speaking; for clarification, it should read "utilize the southern entrance to the freeway," instead of "utilize that entrance." Councilmember Grant asked how does Councilmember Evans feel about this. Councilmember Evans replied, "no problem." Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 3 N CC-88-09 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen, second by Mayor Matteson, ALL AYES, to approve the Minutes as corrected and amended. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Dick Rollins Mr. Rollins stated the Parks and Recreation Committee had 22700 DeBerry their first Citizen Patrol meeting at the new Sheriff's Headquarters on 3rd Street, San Bernardino. He stated they were addressed by Sheriff Tidwell and other staff members of the Sheriff's Department. He stated on behalf of himself and the other Citizen Patrol members he wanted to thank Council/City for providing the funds for their membership at that class since other communities had to pay their own way. Dick Yost Mr. Yost furnished Council with a copy of the Chamber of Chairman of the Commerce Newsletter commenting that there were quite a lot Chamber of of worth while items in this publication. He read a letter Commerce he received from the Highland Chamber of Commerce and gave an update on what is going on with their current and future activities. Gene McMeans Mr. McMeans pointed out that this was an extension of the Manager of conversation that was held two meetings ago regarding Riverside/ hazardous waste and disposal of same. He stated Mayor Pro Highland Water Tem Pfennighausen asked what happens to medicine when it is Company thrown out. He stated he talked to the County people and 12004 Glenwwod was informed that there is a program for household hazardous Colton waste disposal of poison materials. He reported that the City of Redlands has a booklet, indicating there are collection centers, the closest being County Agriculture Commission Office, 777 E. Rialto Avenue in San Bernardino, and they are opened 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Councilmember Evans asked Mr. McMeans if he had any recommendations that Council or our community could look into or possibly initiate as far as recycling hazardous materials or materials that could be recycled? Mr. McMeans mentioned maybe possibly putting trash in one color trash can and recycling material in another color can. Gary Arnold Mr. Arnold made reference to the fact that the appointment 709 N. Bradford of a City Attorney and Assistant City Attorney was on the City of Agenda Packet, but not on the other Agenda. He commented on Placentia how in some cities Closed Sessions are misused and felt they should be taped and kept for three years. He gave the name to contact at the Judicial Council if anyone felt this was being misused. Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 4 r City Manager Schwab stated the item that was removed was originally on the first Agenda. On the Revised Agenda the r- item regarding the appointment of the City Attorney was removed. He stated the personnel matter that is being discussed does not involve appointing a City Attorney. Joe Floyd Mr. Floyd stated that in Los Angles the City Attorney is 118 Shakespear voted in by a vote of the public, indicating the public Street should be aware of the people who are up for this job and Santa Ana who are putting in bids for this job. Mayor Matteson stated that at the present time, there is no position open for a City Attorney stating he did not know where Mr. Arnold and Mr. Floyd got their information. Mr. Floyd stated he was saying the next time the job comes open, the public should be able to decide. Mayor Matteson replied, the public has, they voted Council in office to make that decision for them. He thanked the people from out of town coming in and telling us how to run our City. ORAL REPORTS COMMITTEE REPORTS Crime Prevention Mayor Matteson stated Council had a copy of the Minutes of Committee January 11, 1988. Emergency Mayor Matteson stated Council had a copy of the Minutes of Operations November 16, 1987. Committee Historical and Mayor Matteson stated Council had a copy of the Minutes of Cultural January 4, 1988 Committee Barbara Conley Ms. Conley stated she did not have a report from the Parks 22285 Dove St. and Recreation Committee, but wanted to discuss Item 5A-3(b) Chairman of under the Historical and Cultural Committee, indicating the Parks and Committee had submitted an action item for City Council to Recreation approve their purchasing a banner for their use at all City Committee functions. She asked Council to set their decision on this Item 5A-3(b) item back a couple of weeks, so they could attend the next Bids for a Community Events Calendar meeting and bring their group permanent up-to-date on existing banners in the City, and also bring banner all the groups up-to-date on her and the Chamber's efforts on City banners. Mayor Matteson asked whether the Chamber would be interested in heading that up. Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 5 N Ms. Conley replied they had their first meeting in November 1987, and at that time stipulated to all the groups that they're hoping to get together and decide who does what and - come up with the 1988 Calendar. Councilmember Grant stated we recognize the need to coordinate the efforts of the various committees in this community and he supports that as long as the integrity of each committee is taken into consideration and preserved. CC-88-10 Motion by Councilmember Grant, that the request of the Chairperson of the Historical and Cultural Activities Committee for authorization to purchase the items indicated in the Memorandum of January 17, 1988 be approved by this Council. Motion CC-88-10 died for lack of a second. City Manager Schwab stated he wanted to give some clarification because there seems to be some confusion, indicating the Chamber and the Parks and Recreation Committee are interested in putting a banner that would span the street width. Ms. Conley replied, "not necessarily." City Manager Schwab stated at least something to advertise events, indicating what they are going to do is get a banner that will be more like a flag, 2 1/2 X 4', sort of like what the Lion's Club puts up on their table before their meetings. CC-88-11 Motion by Councilmember Grant, that the request of the Chairperson of the Historical and Cultural Activities Committee for authorization to purchase the items indicated in the Memorandum of January 17, 1988 be approved by this Council. Motion CC-88-11 died for lack of a second. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she has no objection to the Historical and Cultural Activities Committee having a banner to display when they are having events. She requested this item be continued for two weeks and that a member of that committee be present to answer questions. Mayor Matteson stated the Chair will table that item until the next Council meeting and you might save money by everybody buying together. 0 Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 6 Y COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Councilmember Shirley stated she had nothing to report. Shirley Councilmember Councilmember Grant reported he represented the City at the Grant Local Agency Formation Commission on January 20, 1988, at LAFC which time they are scheduled to consider the possibility of City -hood for Apple Valley. Councilmember Councilmember Evans asked the City Manager for clarification Evans about an item that was discussed at the last meeting Land Acquisition regarding park acquisition, indicating he wasn't sure what the City Manager is instructed to do in reference to getting the broker. He asked the City Manager, if you retain this broker, what specific guidelines or instructions are you going to provide to this individual as it relates to potential park acquisition land and what will the time -line be in reference to that item? City Manager Schwab replied Council's direction was unlimited in that they would allow staff to look at any parcel. He stated from staff level, he felt it is more efficient to narrow down the parcels, indicating staff will be looking at two acre or larger parcels identified on the map. He stated the general consensus was that there was a need for ball parks and felt there was a minimum level in which you could put a ball park on a site. He indicated staff will be directing the broker to the most promising sites that were listed on the map and get an idea on the value then bring it back to Council. He stated, depending on how long it would take the broker to make contact and to negotiate with the property owners, it would be approximately two months before staff could bring it back to Council. Councilmember Evans asked if he was telling him that when he contacts this broker, he was going to tell this broker that "I want you to go out and look at land, starting at two acres and up?" City Manager Schwab replied, "no," we have already done that, we have a parcel map that shows what staff feels is all the parcels within the City that had some potential to be developed into a meaningful park site and it is those properties that we are going to look at first and bring back to Council. Councilmember Evans asked the City Manager in his opinion what did he feel is the meaningful park site as far as it relates to acre? Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 7 City Manager Schwab replied, staff is going to look at anything approximately two acres or larger, but felt staff will probably target a parcel at least five acres. He believes the Parks and Recreation Committee had indicated eight acres, but staff will leave that option open to Council. Councilmember Evans asked the City Manager if he was going to instruct or direct this broker as to what the amenities will be? He asked do we want to look at a potential site that would encompass a sport complex, if so, can they identify what it is they would like to see in that park site? City Manager Schwab replied staff is going to give the greatest emphasis to the larger parcels, the one that shows the most promise, but will not overlook any of the parcels that had originally been identified. He felt once we get to the point where we have an appraisal and idea of what kind of cost and what possible land we can afford to acquire, then Council can take issue as to what can be put on those parcels. He stated the broker is not going to be taking a look at any type of use. Mayor Matteson stated Council has already given the City Manager instruction to find out what land is available and when the plan comes back with the availability, then Council will decide what to put on it. Councilmember Evans asked the City Manager when could Council expect to get a final report on this? City Manager Schwab replied, it depends on how negotiations go with the property owners, indicating several of them live out of town and that makes contact somewhat difficult, but projected staff will probably have it back to Council within two months. PUBLIC HEARING Item 6(A) City Attorney Hopkins stated the City Council had directed Adopt Eminent that we institute and initiate proceedings for the Domain acquisition of certain properties on Mt. Vernon Avenue and Resolution of Barton Road in order to improve the signalization at that Necessity intersection. It was felt that rather than wait for the property to develop, it was necessary for public health and safety to acquire that property and get this signalization improved. He stated this Resolution is a necessity to initiate these proceedings. He stated as late as this evening he was having discussions with the owners and the people who indicated they are likely to acquire the property and it appeared we may still be able to resolve this matter Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 8 short of litigation, but we want to be certain that we are prepared to institute these proceedings in the event that those fall through. Councilmember Evans asked the City Attorney, for the benefit of the people in the audience and those at home, tell them that what we are looking at is a small area which will be utilized for upgrading the signalization at Barton Road and Mt. Vernon? City Attorney Hopkins replied we are asking Council to adopt this Resolution of taking approximately 600 sq. ft. at Ross's Liquor and Rex's Barber Shop, which would allow us to put the controllers for the signal lights at that location. He stated in addition, we are wanting to acquire a 10 ft. construction easement so that we can construct and put the improvements in at that location. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked the City Attorney if this was for a left -turn signal at that intersection? City Attorney replied that maybe the City Engineer could better describe what the improvements are that we intend to put in. City Engineer Kicak stated the proposed improvements are the installation of a three-way signal at the four corners, providing for one other phase that does not exist at that intersection at the present time and that is the left-hand signal for every direction or pedestrian signal. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she believes trying to get this done has been in the budget for two years. Mayor Matteson opened up for pubic input, being there was none, he turned it back over to Council. CC-88-12 Motion by Mayor Matteson, second by Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen, ALL AYES, to adopt this Resolution of necessity. Item 6(B) The Planning Director stated on August 17, 1987, the Extension of Planning Commission recommended approval of a one-year Tentative Parcel extension for Tentative Parcel Map 13050, which was to 13050 expire on September 12, 1987. He then continued to give a scenario of his staff report. He stated the Planning Department recommends that the City Council approve the following alternatives, which he then read. Mayor Matteson asked for clarification, that if we give them the extension, the developer will have to go back to the Planning Commission and come through the procedure again, Ci right? Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 9 Planning Director Sawyer replied, "that's correct." Mayor Matteson asked what was the advantage of giving them the extension if they have to come through it all again? Planning Director Sawyer replied that the reason they are going through it is that the changes are significant enough to where staff and the City Attorney feel it is appropriate for the Planning Commission to consider, indicating that way, before Council makes their decision on the revised map, they will have Planning Commission's input on such a revised map. Mayor Matteson stated he still did not know what the benefit was. Planning Director Sawyer replied, as of right now, it's a matter of whether or not Council is going to extend the map as it is so that they can go forward and submit a final map and go ahead with their plans as they are drawn up right now with the smaller lot sizes. Mayor Matteson asked will the moratorium prevent them from doing that? Planning Director Sawyer replied, "no," the moratorium is to a point where we have said that anything in the pipeline could go forward. Therefore, they could go ahead with the final map, but they would not be able to go ahead with the Site and Architectural and obtain the building permits, indicating that would simply be a matter of coming back and relying on the final map that we have approved. Mayor Matteson asked what if the General Plan is revised? Planning Director replied, the question is whether or not we change the requirements after they have the final map and whether or not they would have to meet the new requirements of the General Plan and zoning and he felt that was a legal question that has to do with vested rights. Mayor Matteson asked would they? City Attorney Hopkins replied they would not be affected by that change. Mayor Matteson asked by any change we might make in the General Plan? City Attorney Hopkins replied they would not be affected by lot size changes, but would be affected by some changes in the General Plan, but not that particular element. Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 10 s Councilmember Shirley abstained due to potential conflict of interest. Mayor Matteson asked if anyone had questions as to the clarification of this recommendation by staff. He then opened it up to the public. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Ed St. Germain Mr. St. Germain stated he was against the recommendation and 12600 Warbler expressed his feelings about the agreement presented Avenue tonight. He talked about impaction to the schools, traffic development and lot sizes. City Attorney Hopkins stated he wanted to clarify one issue so there is no confusion. He stated the agreement Mr. St. Germain was referring to is a proposed agreement that was submitted after the package went out by the developer and is not recommended for approval and Council does not have it in their package. Councilmember Evans asked if that agreement does reference what Mr. St. Germain said on the moratorium. City Attorney Hopkins replied, "no," the proposed agreement references his comments as to the new agreement with the ones that reference attorney fees. Barney Karger Mr. Karger stated he has never seen a traffic problem in 11668 Bernardo Grand Terrace. He stated the earthquake problem is on the Way other side of Blue Mountain in the Reche Canyon area and disagreed with the comments Mr. St. Germain made. Robert Sankster Mr. Sankster stated he represented T.J. Austyn and Gary Lawyer for Fudge who are the developers of the project being talked T.J. Austyn about. He stated this is an on -going project. He stated, as a matter of law, in his opinion, a map has a life of three years and that is beyond its normal expiration date because of various public improvement requirements. He stated he has had some discussions with Planning Director Sawyer and City Attorney Hopkins regarding this and the fact that the subdivision Map Act provides that the maps are good for two years, not one, as is provided in the original map condition for this project. He stated they have put that legal argument aside. He stated since last September they have been negotiating and discussing ways of achieving this project through good planning and have tried to approach this from a planning standpoint not a legal standpoint, indicating that's the context in which they come before Council tonight. He stated his client has one goal and that is to produce a quality development that is marketable in Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 11 this town; marketable in prices that are affordable to prospective buyers and will ensure a fair return investment for the developer. He stated in pursuing that goal, his - client has followed all of the rules, regulations and ordinances of the City throughout the life of this project. He stated in efforts to resolve the concerns raised by Planning, his client has agreed to enter into a compromise to reduce the number of lots, increase the lot sizes and culdesac one of the streets. He stated this is at a considerable cost because it involves elimination of lots. He stated the owner's desire is to get on with this project, indicating they have met with staff and worked out an agreement that the City Attorney alluded to to amend the tentative map to implement these changes and he urged Council to approve the agreement. He stated there are no legal requirements for review of this agreement by the Planning Commission. He stated they have already had a full opportunity to review this project, indicating what is before Council is the narrow consideration of the extension of the map of the parameters they have laid down. It doesn't reopen up the entire project; it is not a zoning ordinance, which would require reference back to the Planning Commission if they hadn't considered; it is not a General Plan Amendment; it's not a development agreement, and as far as he could tell from reading the codes, those are the only types of changes concerning this project that would legally require reference back to the Planning Commission for comment, but the Council holds the power to amend and deal with subdivision maps under the Government Code. He stated they are in something of a time bind and his clients have considerable holding costs based on cost of money, indicating having a statute of limitations problem because there is a statue in the Government Code that only gives him ninety days to initiate action. He stated he may be facing one from the September action of the Council, relating to the limited nature of the extension in relation to the moratorium. He says that not as a threat, he just wants to explain his obligations, indicating his client would rather embark upon the project and conclude these phases without litigation. He stated his client owns other land in town and will be with Grand Terrace for a long time and he wants and needs Council's consensus behind him in this project, and not to refer it back to Planning Commission. Councilmember Evans took objection to the reference to statute of limitations ninety -day time frame, stating the delays that have brought us here have been at your request, not ours, indicating we were acting in a timely fashion Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 12 after we had learned about the public hearings. He stated it has been his understanding that at Mr. Storm's request, they have either been pulled or delayed for whatever reason. He asked Mr. Sankster, in his opinion, were there any statutes in the Government Code that states that this body must grant that extension? Mr. Sankster replied he did not think there was any statutes that expressly state that. Councilmember Evans stated, so we are not required by law, in your opinion, to grant that extension. Mr. Sankster replied he believes there are a number of reasons why Council is required to grant that extension, but he doesn't think there is a statute in the subdivision Map Act that mandates that particular requirement. Councilmember Evans asked the City Attorney if there was a section in the Government Code that legally mandates Council to grant the extension? City Attorney Hopkins replied the only one that would mandate to grant an extension would be the one he has made reference to and that's a section that indicates that if they have put in improvements, what he calls off -site, off the area of the tentative map, then they are entitled to an extension. Councilmember Evans asked Mr. Sankster to describe shall and may as it appears in legal terminology. Mr. Sankster replied, shall is mandatory, may is permissive. Councilmember Evans asked Mr. Sankster to tell him, in reference to Government Code Section 66452.6, an approved or conditionally approved tentative map shall expire twenty-four months after its approval or conditional approval. If he understands, Mr. Sankster just agreed that Council has no legal requirements to extend it and shall is mandatory, so this map shall expire twenty-four months from the approval. However, its states an additional period of time as maybe prescribed by local ordinance, not to exceed an additional twelve months, you can be granted an additional twelve months. He states it goes on and talks about if you have done $100,000 or more to construct, improve or finance the construction of public improvements outside the boundaries of the tentative map. He then asked what has T.J. Austyn done outside the tentative map area that exceeds $100,000.00? Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 13 Mr. Sankster replied, he will defer the technical aspect of that question to Mr. Storm, but he would like to focus on the text of the statute Councilmember Evans was reading. He stated the statute does indeed provide for the initial period of twenty-four months and then it says that the period shall be extended for an additional three years after the normal expiration date if the requirements of the tentative map require the expenditure of sums in the amount of $100,000.00 or more for public improvements. He stated it does not require those to be in place at this time as the question suggested, it relates to the requirements of the map and it is the position of T.J. Austyn that the requirements for this particular development, for public improvements and for fees which are encompassed within that section to do indeed exceed $100,000.00, but as to what those are specifically, he would ask Mr. Storm to address that. With regard to the statute of limitations issue, he did not mean to suggest that the Council had in any way delayed this, we have been negotiating for sometime, we have been waiting for a consultant's report that the City had hired, so there was a couple of months delay for that and he still has not seen that. He wasn't sure if that was in, but they haven't dragged their feet either. He was not suggesting any fault lies on either side he was just telling him that there are those time periods. Bill Storm Mr. Storm stated that Mr. St. Germain brought up a lot of T.J. Austyn arguments that they all talked about three or four years ago when they first started doing this project. We have had a number of public hearings, had neighborhood meetings and went through all of these things many times before and he wasn't going to try to get into any arguments or try to defend some of the things that Mr. St. Germain brought up because they have gone through those things many times in the past. He stated when he first brought the project before Council, he had some ideas of doing smaller houses, smaller lots, lower prices, but Council convinced him they wanted something more along the lines of what Griffin was doing; larger lots, larger homes, more expensive and they finally agreed to do that. He stated during the course of the process, it turned out that the water company needed a 24-inch watermain run across their property, and they agreed to that as part of the condition of approval. It costs $90,000.00 and he believes, as of today, about $25,000.00 has been spent on it. He stated they have probably spent about $7,000 to $8,000 on just the improvement plans. He stated he heard the Griffin Homes Project was building a V-ditch behind Griffin's parcel that comes down to a location just above Observation Drive, indicating the ditch will carry water into a future retention basin that they are required to build. He stated they agreed to build that basin after their map had been approved, which they weren't Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 14 required to build since it was outside their property, but in order to get the second half of their final map approved by the City Engineer, it was fairly clear that they needed to agree to build it. They agreed to build the basin, and Griffin agreed to build the V-ditch; they went ahead and designed it and he believes it cost about $4,000 or $5,000 to design the plans for the basin. He then listed all of the things they have reconsidered and done to get this extension approved listing their investments made so far with the expectation of being able to build. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked the City Attorney for clarification as to their interpretation of $100,000.00 in expenditures, indicating he said that all it had to be was expenditures that the project would have incurred as a result of that project. In other words, they wouldn't already have had to put in the improvements or invested the money, just that Council conditioned that project that way by our requirements. City Attorney Hopkins replied the requirements are for $100,000.00 or more of improvements, etc., off -site from the tentative map then they are entitled to an extension. Mayor Matteson asked didn't it say expenditures, not proposed expenditures, indicating there is a difference. r Planning Director Sawyer read that section of the Code. Mayor Matteson stated according to that if he has the requirement to spend $100,000.00, it's almost an automatic extension. City Attorney Hopkins replied it's not almost, it is, if that requirement exists. Mayor Matteson asked do we have that requirement? City Attorney Hopkins replied, "he did not know." Mayor Matteson asked Mr. Storm if he had a requirement to spend $100,000.00 on off -site expenses? Mr. Storm replied, he wasn't sure what the definition of off -site expenses was, indicating that may be the problem. He stated if Council would consider the portion of the fees, that would easily be over $100,000.00. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked Mr. Storm what improvements outside of your tract map would you say Council has required you to do? Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 15 Mr. Storm replied there are some 24-inch watermain improvements that a portion of goes outside their tract map; some sewer and waterline improvements on Pico that's on the easterly side of Observation Drive, some full -width street requirements and a retention basin. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated the extension of Observation Drive was removed, indicating that's not ever going to be done, is that correct? Mr. Storm replied the extension was removed, but he was talking about the portion above Phases 1 thru 4 as it comes off of Griffin's property, indicating they made the connection from Griffin property and brought it down to Van Buren. He stated much of that property was beyond their tract map, so the street improvements within that area were beyond their tract map. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked the City Engineer if he is familiar with the citation of the watermains outside the tract map and what were the sewer and watermain requirements? City Engineer Kicak stated Pico Street portion of the sewer referenced by Mr. Storm has been constructed, it was constructed by the Sisters of St. Benedict and they are the ones that are asking for the reimbursement. He stated Observation Drive that Mr. Storm referenced is an improvement they did along the frontage of the parcel that the City purchased from Griffin Development about four or five years ago, indicating the improvements along the frontage of that parcel clearly fell outside the tract boundary of their tract. He believes the 24-inch waterline that runs through there, is strictly a matter between the water company and the developer. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she believes Council has a lot of things to consider and resolve here tonight and indicated she believed T.J. Austyn's attorney was interpreting things one way and Council another way. She stated if indeed these citations should affect us negatively, she was certain there would be others waiting too that have had tract maps in projects that had gotten quite a bit farther along than this one. She stated she hoped that Council/staff could continue to work with T.J. Austyn to benefit all involved. Ed St. Germain Mr. St. Germain asked the City Attorney if he had the agreement that the City Council did not have copies of? City Attorney responded, "yes." Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 16 Mr. St. Germain asked if there was anything in the agreement about $100,000.00 of off -site improvements? City Attorney Hopkins responded, "yes." Mr. St. Germain asked City Attorney Hopkins what did it say? City Attorney Hopkins replied, the development project requires the subdivider to construct, improve or finance the construction of public improvements outside the boundaries of the map costing $100,000.00 or more. Mr. St. Germain stated that agreement has been signed by a representative of T.J. Austyn, has it not. City Attorney Hopkins replied, actually by Mr. Fudge, the developer who purchased Phases 5, 6 and 7. Councilmember Evans asked Mr. Storm if you did not do these improvements which are outside your area, you then would not have a project, so you were actually putting them in in order to do your project? Mr. Storm replied the sewer situation on Pico was that if we were to develop first, we would put in the sewer and get a partial reimbursement from the church, but if the church developed their property first, then we would get a reimbursement. Therefore, we owe them a reimbursement. Councilmember Evans asked the City Attorney what was his interpretation of public improvements as defined in the Government Code where it talks about flood control or storm drain, sewer, water and lighting facilities. He asked the City Attorney if the improvements that T.J. Austyn has done, meets that interpretation or did he feel that the interpretation of public improvements was something in a broader scope than the immediate geographic area of their project? City Attorney Hopkins replied the answer could be a broader scope than the immediate area, although, he believed it is generally in that immediate area that's outside of their tract. Planning Director Sawyer stated there have been some questions regarding the definition of public improvements, indicating the Section of the Code states, the public improvements as used in this subdivision includes; traffic controls, streets, roads, highways, freeways, bridges, overcrossings, street interchanges, flood control or storm drains, sewers and water and lighting facilities. Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 17 Robert Sankster Mr. Sankster stated the legislature in enacting this real or mandatory extension provision provided that the off -site improvement requirements apply to all of the off -site improvements, not just the off -site improvements for the particular phase, because those have to go in before you can start the project. He stated for the record, on October 22, 1987, T.J. Austyn did submit a list of off -site improvements to the City and incorporated also those which were required of Fieldcrest. He stated they do substantially exceed $100,000.00, indicating he wanted to make the point that it does relate to the entire development, not just to the phase. Sandy Windbigler Ms. Windbigler stated she represented the businesses in Grand Terrace and stated the businesses want traffic, residents, revenue, and a chance to succeed in Grand Terrace. She stated if the City continues to push out development, Grand Terrace will become a ghost town as far as the business community. Barney Karger Mr. Karger stated he wanted to make his position clear, indicating he would like to see larger lots on the T.J. Austyn property. He stated when T.J. Austyn first came up, he came before the Council and the Planning Commission asking for larger lots saying that is what should be done, but the Council and the Planning Commission did not agree. Mayor Matteson thanked Mr. Karger and then turned it back to Council. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she thought it was interesting that it was pointed out that the earthquake danger occurs on the Reche Canyon side of Blue Mountain, indicating having made a study of earthquakes and felt it was a little shortsighted to think that one side of Blue Mountain shakes while the other side stands still and is concerned about the potential of earthquake damage. She also stated there is no flood control project between the uphill projects and the downhill receivers nor is there one planned for the near future. She stated a catch basin is not a solution, but a flood control system is. She mentioned two possible solutions in case of potential earthquake damage if it does occur and for the potential downstream flooding problems. She pointed out two things Council did not deal with two years ago: (1) That we should work with the developers and look at the things that could happen; (2) Plan into the project the things that would keep those adverse conditions from existing. Mayor Matteson asked City Engineer Kicak what was his comments on the flooding in that area and asked if he was satisfied that it has been resolved? J. Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 18 City Engineer Kicak replied, the facilities that are being proposed by both developers are in no way going to retain the amount of water that is going to flow through the channel, which is now being constructed. He stated with respect to the storm drain system that was discussed earlier, he agreed with Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen that years ago we estimated it to be $5,000,000.00 and felt presently it is considerably more than that. He stated the bottom line is flooding will occur and they have identified those areas where flooding potential is the greatest and as the area uphill develops, we will have additional run-off and eventually someone will have to deal with that problem. Mayor Matteson asked where will that flooding take place? City Engineer Kicak replied, we know where the flooding is taking place today, generally westerly of Mt. Vernon on Pico, westerly side of Mt. Vernon, north of Pico, northerly side of Pico, westerly of Mt. Vernon and also westerly side of Mt. Vernon there is an area there that does have flooding problems. He stated on the westerly side of Michigan, there is a very definite problem there with facilities that are inadequate . Mayor Matteson asked the City Engineer if he was saying this development will aggravate the already existing problems? City Engineer Kicak replied any additional development will. Mayor Matteson asked Council what was their desire, being there was no response, he stated the applicant has requested an extension and unless we get a motion, a second and a vote, it will be denied, being there still was no response, he stated the request is denied. Recessed at 8:05 p.m. Reconvened at 8:16 p.m. Gene McMeans Mr. McMeans stated that the Riverside/Highland Water Company Manager of is supplying water to the Grand Terrace area and they do it Riverside/ in three elevation zones, indicating this eliminates the Highland Water need for regulation stations, in addition, booster stations, Company which keeps the energy, cost and maintenance down. Zone 1 is at 1,200 feet. At the present time, Zone 1 has a capacity of 2,000,000 gallons, the other reservoirs being Palm and Paradise and a 1,000,000 gallon earthen reservoir above the Austyn Project that was just discussed. He stated the requirements in Zone 1 in 1987, on an engineering basis, they need to look at the needs for water, storage of water for emergencies, also fire protection and domestic users. He added, there is a significant savings in the winter time of 10 to 17 percent of energy. Our domestic energy bill is Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 19 $177,000. He stated the average peak days are in June and July and sometimes in August. The services that are being added in 1988 are 511 additional units, because of new development. In Zone 1 there will be a 4.8 percent increase in the services in that area. He stated the total storage capacity that would be needed for best operation in 1989 is 3.46-million gallons; we presently only have 2-million gallons. Mayor Matteson asked what was the pumping capacity per day? Mr. McMeans replied, they are at a 6.2 million gallon per day; we attempt to pump in the less expensive areas, as it costs anywhere from $18.18 to $54.20 an acre foot to pump. He stated as they need to pump additionally, because of the demand peak period, they need to run less economic wells and they prefer not to do that. If they had the storage to catch up with the more economical wells, they would do it. They have been looking at this since early 1986. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked how long would it take to use up all of the water in storage if there was a power failure or a system failure? Mr. McMeans replied at peak demand about half the water goes into irrigation of your lawn and in the event of a catastrophe failure you could have watermain damage. He stated they have the system designed now where they can isolate most cases. It could drain within 24 hours or less. Mayor Matteson interjected that we have three different sources and the probability of them going down at the same time is very remote. Mr. McMeans stated there are two power sources and three water sources and they have made arrangements for other backups in order to have the necessary temporary power to get back on line. Mayor Matteson asked then your proposal is for a 3-million gallon tank? Mr. McMeans replied they are proposing taking out the earthen reservoir above Austyn, which will eliminate the concern and maintenance problem, which will give us a 4-million gallon capacity. Councilmember Evans asked Mr. McMeans to indicate the area that this will service. Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 20 Mr. McMeans stated Zone 1 services approximately between Oriole and the lower west side and as you come further north, it cuts across about Holly Street, indicating Grand Terrace is in three zones and that particular zone is serving about 54 percent. He stated the other thing that makes this of importance as we begin to look at 1989 is the construction time, indicating they have ordered the tank for delivery, which should be sometime between March and June. He listed several reasons for that, stating they are looking at total construction, minus any plan checks or anything else, is about 34 weeks. Councilmember Evans asked where on the aerial are you proposing to put the tank? Mr. McMeans pointed out on the aerial the different sites they have been looking at where the site would be. He stated the most economical property belongs to Barney Karger. He then gave the pros and cons of why they were asking to be exempted from the current residential construction moratorium. Mayor Matteson asked him why he didn't keep it on the same property as the existing one? Mr. McMeans replied, because they need 150 feet in diameter to construct a 3-million gallon tank. Councilmember Evans stated it seems the problem is that you cannot proceed with actual site location of the tank because of the potential subdivision that Mr. Karger may come in with. If he is going to be required to put bigger or smaller lots, it may dictate as to where you would put the tank, is that correct? Mr. McMeans responded, "yes." Councilmember Evans stated Mr. McMeans was caught between a rock and a hard spot because the Planning Director cannot give him direction because of the moratorium and the clock continues to runs and we incur two things, (1) you are incurring additional cost with the increased cost of steel, and indicated you have already placed on reservation what you feel will be necessary, which if not done in a timely fashion will ultimately come back and reflect on the entire community in cost; (2) the need to provide water service in a timely fashion and if you want to say another four or five months, that pushes us back even that much further. He stated if he understands, Mr. McMean$ wants us to be able to say tonight we are going to waive this requirement on the moratorium, the subdivision map can be submitted and you can go to the Planning Commission, is that what you are asking? Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 21 Mr. McMeans replied, that would be the ideal situation, yes sir. Mayor Matteson stated he did not know how that was possible. We are going to let someone come in with a plan and we don't even know what we are going to approve ourselves, it's impossible. If this were an emergency situation, it would be different, but this is not an emergency. You want to upgrade our facility and we appreciate that, but he couldn't see how Council could do that when they don't know what's on the General Plan. City Manager Schwab stated that staff was trying to work out a compromise, not to provide any formal exemption, but to allow the developer and the water company to come to the Council with a tentative tract map, not for approval of that map, but for approval to go to the Planning Commission and to go through their process. He stated this will allow them to come back with something more concrete than what you see there to propose to the City Council, indicating City Council could deny it at that point or allow it to go through the full Planning Commission process. He said that Riverside/Highland had asked for help and that was the best staff could come up with to help them out. Mayor Matteson stated just to save them some time he felt their trying to get an 8,000 sq. ft. lot is kind of wasting their time. Barney Karger Mr. Karger stated he gave a plan to the Planning Director and if he remembers correctly, it was 10,200 sq. ft. minimum lot size ranging up to 18,000, so we are well above anybody around there. Mayor Matteson asked if any Councilmember had questions or needed clarification? He told Mr. Karger he did not know how Council could give him any guarantees, indicating they had just turned down another development down the street from him because of flooding problems. He stated until the General Plan is worked out, the other things have to be taken into consideration. Councilmember Shirley stated she will have to abstain from this discussion due to a potential conflict of interest. Councilmember Grant stated he has been in support of the moratorium and will continue to be, indicating he feels this represents a very reasonable exception to an otherwise excellent effort on the part of this Council, but we are all owners of this water company. He stated he did not believe this was going to jeopardize what ultimately we are going to have in the revised General Plan. U Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 22 CC-88-13 Motion by Councilmember Grant, second by Councilmember Evans, that Council permit the development that has been proposed, a tentative tract map and for Council to request for a moratorium waiver. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen thanked Mr. McMeans and the water company for what they are trying to do for the community for today and tomorrow and thanked Mr. Karger for what he is trying to put together. Motion CC-88-13 carried with Mayor Matteson voting NOE and Councilmember Shirley abstaining. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she had three things to bring before the Council and citizens, indicating the same problem that seems to occur and re -occur in regards to the skating rink. A lady called the Sheriff's Department reporting 6 cars drag -racing on Commerce Way and Michigan, assuming that they were going east on DeBerry, north on Mt. Vernon, west on Barton Road and back again. She stated when the lady called she was told that there were no patrol cars in Grand Terrace that could respond. She noticed in the Riverside paper where teenagers are gathering on the parking lot of the old Gemco Store where three people were shot. She stated kids can gather any place and do anything, indicating not understanding why citizens of this community or any community need to be victims of kids that don't have anything better to do than sit around and make victims of the citizens of the community. She stated we need to take control of our young people, indicating that the drag racing incident could have resulted in death. Mayor Matteson stated they were checking into a loitering law, indicating he would like to get a report on that and find out what we have on that and what we can do to get that passed as a resolution to correct this situation. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen told Mayor Matteson that drag racing on public streets has nothing to do with loitering. Mayor Matteson replied that's where it starts. Councilmember Grant stated he has been over to that skating rink and seen that kind of garbage that's going on, indicating he believes the answer is law enforcement, and he is a firm believer in that and will keep this in mind when the budget cycle comes up again and believes this is a very serious problem. Councilmember Evans stated he was informed that the City Manager was provided with some statistics showing that since we have increased law enforcement in the City, response time by our units has been cut in half. He stated there is one Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 23 thing we are going to have to face, there is not a whole lot of law enforcement officers in this City and there are certain items that are going to take priority, not saying drag racing is not a serious problem, but would like to think that an officer would be responding to homes being broken into before responding to drag racing. He stated he was bringing up this point because of limited law enforcement personnel and felt that citizens are going to have to get involved in what's going on in this community; that we should have a strong Crime Prevention Program that targets our youth; crime prevention as it relates to our home and the elderly and that is the support to the police officer that is coming out to try and maintain order. Mayor Matteson stated we paid for one to be there. NEW BUSINESS Item 8(A) Planning Director Sawyer stated the Site and Architectural SA-87-14 Keeney Review Board had considered Mr. Keeney's application for S&A RV Park and Approval of the combined RV parking and retail shopping Commerce Center facility and at their meeting they approved the architectural elements of the proposal, but the site plan portion of the proposal dealing with ingress and egress onto Barton Road was referred to the City Council for consideration. He gave a scenario of his staff report regarding the applicant's proposal. Robert Keeney Mr. Keeney stated he has discussed this with several retailers and banks and the banks are unwilling to finance a project with only one entrance. He believes Caltrans has put the City Engineer in a Catch-22, stating that the City Engineer has always indicated that he was in favor of this proposed project; the ingress only on the easterly portion and the egress on the westerly side. He stated if you close off the easterly driveway, it would be like coming into the back of a shopping center and is not feasible. He stated as a point of reference, he had a traffic study done that the City Council wanted and they said this is a very viable alternative, the one that we are proposing. Mayor Matteson stated anybody heading east on Barton Road that doesn't come off the freeway cannot turn into that Texico Station. Mr. Keeney replied, they will have the same situation with their project. Mayor Matteson stated, "right," which is not a good situation. 0 17 Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 24 Mr. Keeney stated that's not true, there will be a turn -lane pocket they can turn into, it will be almost an identical situation to the northbound off ramp, except we will be between 50 ft. to 60 ft. from that off ramp, instead of 4 ft. with a stop sign. People coming south will have to stop before turning right and when you are going north, it's yield the right-of-way. He stated it's a similar situation, but only better and indicated to his knowledge, there has never been an accident on the northbound off ramp. Mayor Matteson asked the City Engineer what was his personal opinion on the easterly drive. City Engineer Kicak stated he expressed concern to Mr. Keeney even before Caltrans' comments, but felt it could be lived with. He stated his concern, as he expressed it to the Planning Commission at their meeting, which was the potential liability on part of the City in view of the fact that Caltrans has recommended against it and the City Council and/or Planning Commission approves it, as to what the City's liability is with Caltrans being on record stating that there is a potential problem, he doesn't know. He stated he and Mr. Keeney had discussed some alternatives on how to get the traffic into that driveway, which might mean the traffic turning westerly on Barton Road, to provide an additional area on the north side of Barton Road to get the traffic in there. He stated there are alternatives that could mitigate some of the problems that are seen by Caltrans. His concern is how do we mitigate a potential liability if an accident should occur with Caltrans on record with respect to potential problems at that location. Mayor Matteson asked how could Council go against Caltrans' recommendation when everybody else is recommending against it because of safety? Mr Keeney stated it is not a safety issue and Caltrans stated in their letter that it was none of their business since it was out of their jurisdiction, but since you asked, we're not in favor of it. He stated Caltrans isn't in favor of any ingress or egress, they would rather see nothing happen. Councilmember Grant asked Mr. Keeney if he were to move it, the westerly and easterly buildings further to the west, all of a sudden you are not coming into the back of the buildings, you are now coming into the front of them if you move them to the west. He felt Council couldn't pass this knowing that there is an alternative. Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 25 Mr. Keeney replied there is no alternative. Councilmember Grant asked him why can't he turn all of that around so that the front of those establishments are now facing towards the west. 0 Mr. Keeney replied, then they don't have any freeway exposure and that is the beauty of this property, stating this is an entrance only; (indicating on the map) move the entrance a little farther to the west, but we are exiting there and it's the exiting at this point that is the problem, not the ingress. He stated all of the exiting will be out of this side (indicating on the map). He stated the RV vehicles and the commercial traffic will be ingress only. He stated in talking to Caltrans, the attitude is they have no reason to change their mind. Councilmember Grant stated, not withstanding that type of attitude on their part, he is saying logic means that the further to the west you go, the less probability there is of those kinds of accidents. Mr. Keeney replied, the exiting will be the problem, not the ingress. Councilmember Grant stated, so the only objection that you have is that there wouldn't be any freeway exposure. Mr. Keeney stated no, that's not true, if we were to pull this building over here, we're moving the exiting. Councilmember Grant stated "no," if you were to turn your whole scheme around and have the front facing the west, then you are saying that would defeat the freeway exposure, so basically, that is the only problem with turning it around. Councilmember Shirley stated, what I think Councilmember Grant and I are suggesting is that the large building on the west side goes on the east side facing in and the small building on the east side goes on the west side facing that way, and architecturally design the back of the building that's facing the freeway to make it pleasing. Councilmember Grant concurred. Mr. Keeney agreed. Councilmember Shirley asked the City Attorney if the traffic study would override Caltrans or would it mitigate it in anyway? Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 26 City Attorney Hopkins replied the problem is, if an accident occurred there and the plaintiff's attorney found Caltrans' letter in the file, there could be liability. Councilmember Grant stated only if that is constructed the way that it is, presently. City Attorney Hopkins stated that's right and since it is out of Caltrans' jurisdiction, we wouldn't submit it to them. Mr. Keeney stated it has been redesigned, indicating originally when it was first submitted to Caltrans, there was an exit and an entrance at both places and then it was changed so there was an entrance here only. Councilmember Shirley asked if Caltrans had seen that plan. Mr. Keeney responded, "yes they have, but their letter indicates it differently than what they said verbally." Mayor Matteson stated the letter from Caltrans said easterly driveway, it didn't say whether it was egress or ingress. Councilmember Shirley asked would it be feasible for Mr. Keeney to flip flop those two buildings? Mr. Keeney replied, he didn't understand what that would do. Councilmember Shirley replied, you would have redesigned the project, you would have moved the easterly driveway to the west 10 feet. Councilmember Grant stated, leave the buildings exactly where they are, don't move the buildings, just turn them around and have them face the west, you'll have the ingress and egress to the west and you've defeated the problem created by Caltrans. Mr. Keeney stated he would like to have his project designed by the people who think they know what they are doing, pointing out that he did not know what he was doing as far a marketing, traffic and retail goes. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated her concern with that would be that Mr. Keeney has had the project designed so as to keep the incoming traffic into the park area from conflicting with the traffic in the retail area. Councilmember Shirley stated that wasn't what she was suggesting. Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 27 N Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she was alluding to what Councilmember Grant was talking about, indicating if she takes the big building and moves it where the little building is and vice versa, she could readjust the driveway probably 10 or 15 feet to the west, but there is a building with no landscaping sitting out there. Mayor Matteson asked why can't landscaping be there? Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen replied, you can only put so much in so many square feet. Mr. Keeney believed that if there is a liability problem, it wouild go back to CG Engineering, since they prepared the traffic report. Mayor Matteson said the problem is the "deep pockets law," if we are 1 percent liable and they are 99 percent, we are still liable for 100 percent. Councilmember Grant stated his problem is that the "deep pockets law" is very real and we have a responsibility to try to prevent it. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen suggested, as an alternative, striping the parking spaces so that the people would be backing out of a configuration that would make it almost impossible for them to turn around and exit at that point. Councilmember Grant stated the people would be directed around the building and coming out, thus keeping the integrity of that ingress point only. Mayor Matteson told Mr. Keeney it is not going to apply the way it is, you will have to go back to the drawing board and try to figure up another way and then come back to Council. Mr. Keeney asked what if they did what Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen suggested, stating we would lose a few parking spaces, to make sure that's ingress only. Mayor Matteson asked, to move it down next to the building? Mr. Keeney replied, no, what we would do is just angle all of the parking spots, so that when you pull in here, you will have to do a crazy U-turn to get back out; it would be natural to continue right on around. Mayor Matteson stated that doesn't solve the problem, the problem is the egress is still there. Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 28 Mr. Keeney indicated one other suggestion would be to move this down (indicating on map) much farther and bring the ingress in like this. However, we're losing parking spaces again, but we could do that. Mayor Matteson asked Mr. Keeney how many feet would that take up. Mr. Keeney responded, 20 feet. Mayor Matteson asked the Planning Director if 20 feet would make the difference. Planning Director Sawyer replied, 20 feet would be a substantial difference. Mayor Matteson asked the City Engineer what did he think about moving it down another 20 feet? City Engineer Kicak replied that at the present time, he believes it is 46 feet between the stop sign and where that driveway is proposed, somewhere between 46 and 50 feet. He suggested to Mr. Keeney to sit down with the Planning Director and work out 3 or 4 different alternatives, then go back and talk to Caltrans and present those alternatives to them. Possibly you could get one that Caltrans would agree with. Mayor Matteson suggested to Mr. Keeney to get Caltrans' recommendation and bring it back to Council. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Lois Pierce Ms. Pierce commented on the fact that as bad as traffic can 21845 Grand be at 5:00 p.m. when Stater Bros. lets out, stating the west Terrace Road side and not the east side is controlled as you approach the bridge. Mr. Keeney asked what was the final act on this whole discussion. Mayor Matteson replied, Council will wait until Mr. Keeney came back to Council, indicating Mr. Keeney could consider this as a denial, stating Council needs him to come back with some other approval or recommendations from Caltrans. Item 7(A) City Manager Schwab stated that at the meeting of Snack Bar December 17, 1987, Council directed staff to.... Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 29 N Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated that the snack bar is something that Council has discussed and discussed and did not think it was a matter that couldn't be handled just as well at the next meeting. CC-88-14 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen, second by Councilman Grant, ALL AYES, that Item 7(A) -- Recommendation for the completion of the snack bar be continued to the next meeting because of other more critical items to take care of. She stated that Barbara Conley had left and felt that her input on this matter was probably critical. Item 7(B) Assistant City Manager Anstine reported that on January 18, Award Contract 1988, the City Clerk's Department, in conjunction with the for Architectural City Engineer's Department, opened the bids for the Barrier Removal Architectural Barrier Removal Project. He stated Council has before them a summary of the results of that bid opening as stated by staff. Gosney Construction Company of Bloomington, CA appears to be the apparent lower bidder. He stated all items requested by the contractors were submitted at the time of the bid and staff is recommending that if Council desires to go ahead with the program, to award the contract to to Gosney Construction, and in addition to that, appropriate an additional $14,725.00, which would be required to complete the project. Mayor Matteson asked how come we are so far off on that estimate? Councilmember Grant asked what happed when we were figuring out this budget, were we out of line with reality, or what? Assistant City Manager Anstine replied, anytime anything goes to public bid, you can anticipate a 25 to 30 percent increase in construction cost. He stated staff has received a lot of requests from citizens to come out and investigate damages to the sidewalks, to the adjacent curbs and gutters, stating these areas that are included within the proposed contract are areas that have been deemed to be a public hazard and unfortunately the bids came in at the price they did. CC-88-15 Motion by Mayor Matteson, second by Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen, to award the bid to the Gosney Construction and to appropriate the $14,725.00 necessary. Motion CC-88-15 carried ALL AYES. Item 8(B) Councilmember Grant stated Council has the obligation to at Senior Citizens least examine the many facets of possible services to this increasing segment of our local citizens. This includes self-help programs, a permanent senior citizens meeting Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 30 11 center, transportation, meals, hospitals, medical and shopping. He stated he believes Council has the obligation r- to instruct Staff to research the full status of services to the senior citizens in Grand Terrace. He stated in December, the President of the Grand Terrace Seniors Club, Mrs. Jackie Perkins, corresponded with the City Manager regarding facilities for seniors. He stated members of this community additionally have spoken to him regarding this issue. CC-88-16 Motion by Councilmember Grant, second by Councilmember Evans, that this Council instruct City Management to initiate research into the needs of the senior citizens of Grand Terrace including, but not limited to transportation, a permanent meeting and activities facility and other social services and to report back to this Council as soon as possible concerning the feasibility of providing such services as/or determined as needed by said City Management in close coordination and cooperation with the members of the Grand Terrace Seniors Club. Councilmember Evans stated he could not agree more that the current facility they are utilizing is totally inadequate and they would like not to use it, listing the things that could be done with the center. He stated it goes hand in hand with what he have been talking about in reference to our park acquisition problem and that is we need to take a look at a good recreational center that would incorporate meeting halls and a senior citizens meeting room, and a room that could be set aside for possibly for our Tot program, as well as the other recreational needs. Councilmember Grant stated this is a request for staff to research the serious problem which has many facets important to our senior citizens. Whether a facility is feasible or not, we don't know, that's why we are asking staff, and if they determine that the structure would be feasible, then staff has the responsibility to determine where in this City it should be. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated one of the points that Councilmember Grant brought up was transportation, availability of these facilities to people that might not drive. She stated she was a charter member of that club and attended their meetings and was aware of their complaints and desires. She stated she thought if we could establish a park setting around this Civic Center, we could solve a lot of the problems and felt transportation wise, we have a bus line that goes in front of here. If we had a senior citizens facility near the Civic Center, people could ride the bus from the other end of town up here and take advantage of it. She stated directly to the west of us onto 1; Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 31 N Palm Avenue is a vacant piece of property that belongs to Mr. Petta, on the front of that piece of property facing Barton Road and adjacent to the Civic Center is also a piece of Petta property. She stated to the east of the Civic Center is property that belongs to the City and to Mr. De Benedet and the Zampese Family, and believes it would be the absolute situation to pursue seeking the assistant of these two families and creating a park -like atmosphere and a recreational facility near this Civic Center and ask that they either donate the land or make it available to the City. Councilmember Grant stated he is amazed that she and he had finally agreed on something and felt this is an excellent idea. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen suggested approaching these people regarding this. Councilmember Grant stated he can't speak as to whether they are going to donate, reduce or anything, but felt that this area for such facilities would be an excellent idea. Mayor Matteson asked who wants to go and ask if they will donate it? Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen suggested to send the broker. Councilmember Grant agreed that this is an excellent location and would enhance both east and west of the Civic Center. Motion CC-88-16 carried ALL AYES. Councilmember Grant stated that at Preston and Barton Road, the duration of a light remaining green for individuals walking across Barton Road is so brief that he received information from several people that they literally cannot make it across the street. He stated one of these days we are going to have an accident because people simply can't cross Barton Road at that point. He indicated he just wanted to make that clear and have it as part of the minutes. CLOSED SESSION Council went into closed session at 10:30 p.m. Mayor Matteson reported the closed session was to discuss personnel matters. No decision was made. Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 32 0 r Adjourned City Council meeting at 11:00 p.m. to an Adjourned City Council meeting on February 5, 1988 at 6:30 p.m. for a workshop regarding the General Plan. Respectfully submitted: D ty City Cler APPROVED: Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 33