02/05/1988CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
COUNCIL MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING - FEBRUARY 05, 1988
An adjourned 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 February 05, 1988, at 6:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Byron Matteson, Mayor
Barbara Pfennighausen, Mayor Pro Tem
Hugh Grant, Councilmember
Dennis L. Evans, Councilmember
Susan Shirley, Councilmember
Juanita Brown, Deputy City Clerk
David Sawyer, Planning Director
Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney
ABSENT: Thomas J. Schwab, City Manager
Randy Anstine, Assistant City Manager
Joe Kicak, City Engineer
The meeting was opened with invocation by Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen, followed
by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilmember Evans.
Mayor Matteson informed everyone the meeting tonight was an
information -type workshop regarding the General Plan,
indicating getting input from the Planning Department on the
proposed zoning in the General Plan and will be getting
information on what the proposals are from the consultant.
He stated this is not a public hearing and Council will not
be discussing the pros and cons, stating that will be done
at the public hearings.
Planning Director Sawyer stated tonight is a workshop on the
General Plan Draft, Master Environmental Assessment and EIR
Document, which now has become a public review document for
a 30-day period until approximately March 4, 1988.
Mayor Matteson stated that when the public hearings start,
he wants to make sure the public is well informed about
those meetings, to have ample coverage in the newspaper, as
well as notices going out as to when the public hearings
will be held.
Planning Director Sawyer stated the general time -line for
public hearings will be March 21, 1988 for the Planning
Commission meeting, then a City Council meeting directly
after that. He stated it will have to be decided whether or
not we will have a special meeting or wait until the next
available Council meeting which will be April 14, 1988. He
then introduced Mr. Ross Geller and Mr. Jerry Haas, of
Willdan Associates. Mr. Haas worked on the traffic and
circulation elements of the document.
Ross Geller Mr. Geller gave an outline of what the General Plan Update
Willdan contained, indicating the study he prepared of the Land Use
Associates Map is a general distribution of land uses being proposed.
General Plan He went over some of the things that have already been acted
Update on and dealt with when they dealt with the western portion
of the City. (1) He wanted to go over the land use plans,
what his thoughts were during the land use plan, and talked
about the major areas of changes on the plan. (2) He stated
as a follow through to the General Plan, he wanted to
discuss how we are going to take care of the traffic and
move the people based on the plan, indicating Mr. Jerry Haas
will do his presentation on the circulation - the master
plan of streets and highways. (3) Discuss park issues.
Mr. Geller indicated the most innovated part of the General
Plan is that they have created a new General Plan
designation, giving an outline of his concept of a business
park, the needs and uses and what is the best tax
increment. He indicated on the Land Use Map a number of
aspects to the proposal. He showed slides of the types of
business park uses.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked, in reference to
single-family residential that exists in that area at the
present time, would this concept interface with them without
disturbing their life style?
Mr. Geller stated you mean retrofitting the industrial into
a residential area.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated the business park flowing
into the single-family residential that exists there at the
present time, because there is a great deal of that.
Mr. Geller stated he could take this back to his thought
process that he shared with Council in terms of how do we,
particularly on the large 38-acre piece on Michigan and the
street closest to Michigan there. He stated the types of
users he was talking about are 5, 6, 7 and up acre parcels
at the time. For certain portions of that area there
wouldn't be any problem, but at other times the agency will .
have to get involved for friendly negotiations.
Adjourned Regular Council Minutes - 02/05/88
Page 2
Mr. Geller stated they deal with this change all the time
when land use is changed, at what point does this phase out
and what point does this phase in or that nothing is
happening and it kind of just sits there forever and ever.
He stated if you are going to pull off a change like this,
to implement a plan that needs to be supportive at the
Council and Agency level and there needs to be some
interaction and activities by the agency. He stated there
is residential there now and the other option is to leave it
and let everything just go to the wayside until no one wants
to live there anymore and then come up with a new land use,
indicating if you are going to phase it, there needs to be
some activity from the public side to see that it comes
together.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated that, in essence, he was
telling her that there is no compatibility factor between
the the two uses, indicating if the business park is what we
choose to put there, single-family residential will not be
compatible with it and will have to be done away with.
Mr. Geller replied he wasn't going to suggest that if
somebody had a single-family house and somebody comes in and
builds a 300,000 sq. ft. research and development office
facility there isn't going to be a. conflict, he was saying
in terms of the phasing of it, the phasing has to be
sensitive to the fact that there is residential there. He
stated you can deal with it before hand or not approve
projects, as proposed, until there is some type of long term
interface done.
Planning Director Sawyer stated that is why we are having
this meeting this evening and the public hearings are going
to be so important because we are taking a look at the
General Plan which is our long-range document. We don't
want to have to go through this again for another ten years
or so, and we need to recognize that we are making a
decision that that area has developed somewhat hodge-podge
between what's been there and there is residential in there
now. We are looking at it as a business park or whatever we
end up saying it's going to be and that the residents that
are in there are not what we want to see there in the
future. If that's the decision that we make, and then
recognize that when the proposals are brought in for
development, that we will be looking at those on an
individual basis. How they do affect their surrounding
properties. We can put mitigation measures on them so that
they have as little impact as possible on those residences
that are still going to be there for the short-term, but
also recognizing in the long-term that we made our conscious
decision and it's going to be something other than
residential, if that is what the conscious decision is.
Adjourned Regular Council Minutes - 02/05/88
Page 3
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked how will a park interface
with a business park?
Mr. Geller stated if you go through the recreational section
of the General Plan, you will see that a great deal of time
has been spent on focusing on what we want to do, what type
of facilities that we are looking for, but stop short of
actually applying it to any one site. He stated there are a
number of available sites in the City. He gave his thoughts
about the kind of business park he was talking about and
felt that a park could be developed adjacent to or within
the areas designated as a business park. He indicated he
could show where parks are in industrial areas or adjacent
to industrial areas. He addressed their analysis of Pico
Park giving their pros and cons. He talked about Commerce
Way and the Southern California Edison properties,
indicating not seeing any time conflict in terms of using
Pico Park as an interim. He stated the timing is an
important element. He discussed the property that has been
down designated in the second phase of the development
proposed off of Mt. Vernon, approximately 20 acres. He gave
an outline of how they came up with their proposal in terms
of park standards and their ultimate goal of 4 acres per
thousand people. He stated we need a minimum of 58 acres
and that's what the goals and policies of the plan are,
indicating right now he believes we have 36 acres, 3.6 acres
of parkland. He stated that the State Department of
Recreation recognizes schools, play fields and open areas as.
parkland.
Mr. Jerry Haas Mr. Haas explained what they looked at and how they
Willdan proceeded with the situation for Grand Terrace in trying to
Associates come up with a plan that will serve the needs of the
residents of this community. They took a hard look a the
interchange proposals as far as future transportation
capabilities for the area; future buildup anticipated along
Barton Road, especially from 215 to Mt. Vernon; trying to
look at a practical situation for getting in and out of the
community; had discussions with the City of Colton and your
City Engineer to try to come up with something that could be
done with Mt. Vernon going down the hill to the other
interchange with 215. He stated the construction of that
area to a full secondary highway classification would be
very difficult. He stated it would take many dollars to get
that done and believed it would be more of a solution for
Grand Terrace than Colton, and indicated it would be very
difficult to get a cooperative agreement with the two
entities to get that constructed. He said he also talked to
the City of Colton's Public Works Department about that
specific issue and they didn't come to a final agreement.
He stated they investigated the community for the desires
and needs for bicycle facilities, then gave his feeling
Adjourned Regular Council Minutes - 02/05/88
Page 4
U
about a bicycle plan for this area. He stated the next
situation we have as a transportation traffic planning issue
is to take a look at the street system and various modes of
transportation. He stated their proposal for Barton Road
being a major entrance into Grand Terrace and what it will
entail. He then addressed the pros and cons with Commerce
Way and addressed the interfacing between the residential
and the south end. He stated they took the existing plans
and evaluated the volumes indicated. They ran into some
problems around Barton Road and 215. He indicated taking
the past and future projections, find out where the traffic
would go, put them on the streets and then do a level of
service. He then explained what a level of service was. He
indicated in the plan is a diagram which will show a very
good solution from a planning and operational stand point of
how that interchange could be modified to handle the
traffic.
Mayor Matteson questioned what was the result of the study
on the Newport off ramp?
Mr. Haas replied the interchange probably could be
constructed at a very high cost, stating the substation
that's located on the northwest quadrant would have to be
modified, indicating there is a terrific fill in the area
that will have to be cut down. He stated there are also
some modifications that would have been made to the Barton
Road interchange. He stated he did not contact Caltrans
with this, it might have necessitated doing away with the
one Barton Road off ramp, southbound from 215 to even make
Observation Way work adequately. He stated once you run
into the high cost and the loss of your best entrance off of
215 into the City, it seemed like a good idea at the time,
but it doesn't really pan out too well.
Mayor Matteson asked if he had looked at the Iowa off ramp
as a ...., indicating he did not believe he was asked to
look at that one.
Mr. Haas replied he was not asked to look at it, but he
looked at it from a standpoint of the alternatives in the
other plan and how to improve that situation. He stated
from their analysis of cost, at this point in time, he
believed their cost was very reasonable. He stated the
problem with that improvement is that he doesn't see the
area developing economically enough in that area to afford
the expense of a ten to twenty -million dollar interchange
project, indicating that's possible, but a very difficult
one to build with the railroad tracks being there.
Adjourned Regular Council Minutes - 02/05/88
Page 5
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she believed that
sometime in the future, Riverside County or the City of
Riverside will do that, indicating they might as well take
the brunt of that. She believes as the pace of Highgrove
changes, then the City of Riverside is going to expand to
the county line and when they do that they are probably
going to re -engineer Iowa.
Mr. Haas replied that is probably a good possibility,
stating additional development in another area could very
easily warrant a major change there. He stated with what's
being proposed for the City of Grand Terrace that would be a
very costly enterprise rto come up with.
Councilmember Grant questioned if he looked at DeBerry or
Van Buren as it relates to the freeway, as he did to Iowa,
LaCadena, as well as Newport?
Mr. Haas replied for some reason he cannot relate to DeBerry
or Van Buren.
Councilmember Grant stated the reason it came to his
attention is that Mr. Hauss mentioned the problem with the
railroad tracks as it relates to Iowa; LaCadena and the
distance between Barton Road and LaCadena; the distance
between Barton Road and DeBerry and finally the distance
between Barton Road and Van Buren; and the issue of where
the railroad tracks are.
Mr. Haas replied they have basically looked at Iowa through
Newport, including the other studies as to any alternatives
that they felt could be constructed under the present
guidelines that Caltrans will allow to go in. He stated
from a practical standpoint, they saw no practical area
where we could get anything to fit in at a reasonable cost.
He believes the big project he sees for this community is
the improvement of the Barton Road Interchange, indicating
that is going to be very costly and he did not do a cost
estimate on it. Having done a similar bridge widening in a
jurisdiction that he just came from, we're talking probably
five to ten million dollars even to just do that one
interchange improvement.
Councilmember Evans stated Councilmember Grant raised the
issue of a off ramp at DeBerry, stating that in past
presentations from previous consultants, we have been told
that Caltrans requires so many feet of right-of-way,
something like a thousand feet sticks in his mind. He asked
if they were to select the DeBerry off ramp, would not the
Barton Road north bound exit have to be closed because of
the distance and the close proximity?
0
Adjourned Regular Council Minutes - 02/05/88
Page 6
Mr. Haas replied that is part of the analysis and that is
true, indicating there is always a possibility that with
enough money you could put in a weaving lane between the
two, but everything you do to try to make that work would
decrease the practicality of it actually working. He stated
as far as a thousand feet, what they want now in the present
standard, is a minimum of one mile between interchanges.
When you start getting anything close to a mile, as far as
the actual distance between the structures that separate
the freeway from the local street system, they start getting
very critical as to how to line those lanes up. He stated
even if they are a mile apart in many areas now, they would
require that at a mile spacing, they would require an
auxiliary weaving lane between the two.
Councilmember Evans asked if it would be safe to summarize
that if they were to elect to go with the DeBerry off ramp,
the Barton Road exit, at least northbound, would have to be
closed?
Mr. Haas replied he believed you would loose the northbound
off and the southbound on, stating the only way you would
get DeBerry in, is that if you did a couplet -type
interchange where Barton would have the northbound on and
the southbound off and DeBerry would have the other two
ramps, northbound off and the southbound on.
Councilmember Evans stated you discussed the topographical
problems with the Newport exit and asked would you not also
experience the same if DeBerry was identified as a site,
recognizing the distance to exit, you have a trough from the
Iowa interchange that you go into and then you start coming
out of that just about the time you come to the Barton Road
exit. He stated taking into consideration the railroad
tracks, the distances and the fact that you have a canal
that runs over in that area south of DeBerry, which creates
a canyon, would you not also have major cost if you were to
try to engineer an off ramp there.
Mr. Haas responded, "yes."
Mayor Matteson stated what you are saying is that our best
bet is to just improve the Barton Road off ramp and forget
the others.
Mr. Haas replied, that if you go with this General Plan, he
believed this is the only practical solution. He indicated
believing it would solve some curb problems, it's something
that possibly could be staged and worked into maybe a
twenty-year plan. He stated that is the big issue of having
a major entrance in the City of Grand Terrace.
Adjourned Regular Council Minutes - 02/05/88
Page 7
Councilmember Evans stated he did not believe there was any
question to the fact that the Barton Road Interchange is a
nightmare and has to be upgraded, indicating the cost factor
is what we have to look at. He asked where would the
suggested landscape median extend from?
Mr. Haas stated the one that would require the 120 feet
would extend affectively (indicating from the Land Use Map
on the board).
Councilmember Evans stated as of right now, your vision
would be from the interchange, east to at least Mt. Vernon,
some kind of landscape median and of course with turnouts at
key locations. The response was, "yes sir."
Councilmember Evans stated, taking a look at the Barton Road
interchange concept stating that would encompass some type
of median from the interchange up to Michigan and then you
will have the intersection and then picking up east of
Michigan and then it will continue east on Mt. Vernon.
The response was, "that's correct."
Councilmember Evans stated your primary reason for making
this recommendation is to create a statement for the City.
Mr. Haas replied, statement also has an affective operation
advantage and median islands provide safer turning
movements. 0
Councilmember Evans asked in Mr. Haas's opinion, would it
behoove the City to seriously consider putting in the
medians?
Mr. Haas replied, it's our consensus that it should be
considered.
Councilmember Grant indicated he got left behind on the
issue of DeBerry, Van Buren and Pico, stating he made it
clear that he was talking about the possibility of DeBerry
and Van Buren and Pico, not just DeBerry. Stating
Mr. Haas's responses to Councilmember Evans' question as to
the northbound off ramp to Barton Road in the event this
thing were to connect at DeBerry. He stated since Van Buren
appears to be approximately halfway between Barton Road and
the City limits and Iowa and not withstanding the gully
area, plus the Southern Pacific Tracks, you no longer have
the problem that Councilmember Evans referenced in terms of
what Caltrans was concerned about, a stack up of traffic
going off the ramp. Stating you got the additional distance
from DeBerry to Van Buren, indicating to be sure, of course,
that Van Buren is further away from the freeway than
Adjourned Regular Council Minutes - 02/05/88
Page 8
DeBerry. He stated he could understand the emphasis on
Barton Road and was inclined to agree with that, but he
wanted to make it clear that whatever objections may apply
to DeBerry they are not quite as valid as when you start
talking about Van Buren.
Mr. Haas concurred stating that one of the things he was
trying to respond to Councilmember Grant's question is he
was trying to find DeBerry. He stated Van Buren is a
sufficient distance away, but it would be a very costly
interchange.
Mayor Matteson stated if you are talking about a mile, Van
Buren will only be about a half of mile and it still
wouldn't be ...
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she believed they were
talking about just extending. She asked Councilmember
Grant, if she understand what he was saying, is just
extending an off ramp to go all the way to Van Buren as
opposed to just coming off that short.... tieing into Barton
Road is that what you are....?
Councilmember Grant replied was there to be a supplemental
off ramp at Van Buren, supplemental to Barton Road, the
distance from that off ramp on Barton Road to the off ramp
on Van Buren would be sufficient to allay the concerns of
Caltrans, indicating it would make a tremendous difference
to him in the flow of traffic in and out of this City. He
stated a considerable percentage of our population is in the
southwest and southeast end of the City.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she will only say and
point out what the Mayor has already pointed out that there
would not be the one mile between those two and that
Caltrans doesn't consider those options viable. She
indicated addressing the extension west of Barton Road and
asked Mr. Haas if he had taken into consideration that it
would take two bridge replacements within two jurisdictions
to facilitate his plan?
Mr. Haas replied he did look at that extensively and felt
that one structure, not sure what jurisdiction it was
located in, is so old that it may get replaced via another
mechanism anyway. He stated it appears it might fall under
the category of bridge replacement, indicating there are
special funds where that might be able to be facilitated.
He stated there is another structure that is a railroad
structure that has a curve in it, indicating where there is
an ability to get the necessary vertical separation between
the roadway and the railroad track. He stated he has been
out there repeatedly with about four or five different
Adjourned Regular Council Minutes - 02/05/88
Page 9
people from his staff trying to figure out if there was
anything they could do out there different than what they
show. He stated he does not see a way of changing that and
he would view that as a very difficult intersection design
problem that would have to involve widening of the existing
structure, not that bridge replacement. He stated the one
bridge will have to be replaced and was sure it will have to
be replaced from age anyway.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen felt the major problem he was
talking about was the all steel bridge this side of the
Stater Bros. Warehouse. She stated that if you look at that
and extended the roadway about 25 feet, you're driving
through Stater Bros. Warehouse if you are doing that to the
north. She stated to the south, you run into either 250 or
500 tower for Southern California Edison, indicating both
were major considerations. She stated Council was
discussing bridge replacement a number of months ago and it
was suggested from Council that that bridge be replaced with
a four -lane bridge and they got shot down on that because of
those constraints. She stated it is going to take a lot of
cooperation when you start moving those big towers,
indicating you have a major project and did not feel Stater
Bros. will move there warehouse at all.
Councilmember Evans stated in reference to Michigan Street,
your narrative, as well as your statistical data, appears on
the MEA on 238, you proposed that Michigan from Barton Road
south to DeBerry should be ultimately developed as a
secondary highway which would give you a level of service in
2010 of "C", indicating this is contingent upon the land
use. He stated you show north of Van Buren and he can only
assume that between DeBerry and Van Buren that it's going to
be a collector and a collector will provide the service of
"C". He stated if we were to assume that sometime in the
future all of that area were to be developed in a business
park theme, would it not be better to then widen the street
to a secondary width between DeBerry and Van Buren.
Mr. Haas replied, "yes," if you take that whole area down to
Main Street and change that usage, he felt you should look
at doing something different with Michigan. He stated the
whole goal behind Commerce Way and hopefully the way it
would be developed is that the major access points will be
off of Commerce Way and any traffic coming in from Michigan
will be discouraged.
Councilmember Evans asked would it be safe to say that in
his opinion that from Barton Road south to Main Street that
Michigan should be widened to a secondary highway?
Adjourned Regular Council Minutes - 02/05/88
Page 10
Mr. Haas replied if it is changed to an industrial park all
on the west side.
Councilmember Evans stated so it should all be changed.
Mr. Haas replied, no, what he was saying is that if that
land use is changed from residential to business park, then
you would want to have the additional width, even if the
traffic volumes are not high enough, you would want
additional width.
Councilmember Evans stated you are still, if he understands
what he was saying, you are recommending a secondary highway
along Michigan Avenue on the west side.
Mr. Geller replied the reason that Michigan is shown as a
collector south of Commerce Way, from a planning standpoint,
was as a way to discourage traffic from using Michigan and
to encourage them to use ...
Councilmember Evans stated he understood, but felt if people
get off of Barton Road, go straight down Michigan and use
one of the streets into that area, if it were to develop,
(DeBerry, Van Buren and Pico), he has concerns with the
intersection of Commerce Way and Michigan. He stated the
proximity of that intersection to Barton Road, if this area
were to develop in a business or industrial environment, do
you not envision a potential problem with that configuration
recognizing the closeness?
Mr. Haas replied he anticipates the need for a traffic
signal control at that intersection, indicating that would
be another opportunity to try to induce the traffic to go
over to Commerce Way if they were trying to get into that
area. He stated the concept of that secondary status going
all the way to DeBerry would also require a transition
because you can't just end a four lane and start up a two
lane, but agreed there would be a situation that will have
to be handled with a coordinated traffic signal installation
between there and the one on Michigan.
Councilmember Evans asked Mr. Haas if he had an estimate as
to the distance from Commerce Way to Barton Road?
Mr. Haas replied it is very close to 600 feet.
Councilmember Evans asked Mr. Haas in his opinion as a
traffic engineer, was it good to have signals so close
together?
Adjourned Regular Council Minutes - 02/05/88
Page 11
Mr. Haas replied, if you have them you will have to
coordinate them with the one adjacent to it, indicating what
they envision on the major movement with that operation of
the traffic going around and using Commerce Way in the vast
majority, felt it could be made to work. 0
Councilmember Evans asked Mr. Haas if he felt it would be
better if you didn't have the proximity of those two signals
because there is going to be a lot of phasing.
Mr. Haas replied, you are trying to lead me into a no win
situation.
Councilmember Evans stated what he was trying to say to the
situation, is the fact that, that intersection is going to
ultimately become a nightmare depending on land use and
Michigan would be widen to a secondary street and everybody
would use Michigan instead of Commerce Way. He stated
although he understood his reasoning of Commerce Way, the
fact of the matter is, that if I was driving along there and
I knew I was going to have to come up to that nightmare, I'm
going to transition from that area up to Michigan and then
from the streets that I come in, whether it's DeBerry,
Van Buren or Pico and then north.
Mayor Matteson stated he did not think there was enough land
down there that's going to be developed to create that kind
of traffic problem, indicating the streets are going to
adequate and could not see a problem.
Mr. Haas replied he did not think it will be a problem, but
felt it is something that will have to be analyzed and
worked out in a traffic system management (TSM) type
operation to make it both safe and reasonable. He stated he
felt even if it is light industrial park, there probably
will have to be some regulations on trucks; keeping the
trucks off of Michigan to keep the integrity of that
neighborhood.
Councilmember Evans asked Mr. Haas if he was going to
develop that area along Michigan on the west side of that
road, should in his opinion, be widened into a secondary
width?
Mr. Haas replied that isn't what he was trying to convey, he
was trying to convey that if you change the overall
complexion of that issue and you have all of that west side
developed as an industrial park and you also have access to
that industrial park from Michigan, yes, it needs to be
widened.
Adjourned Regular Council Minutes - 02/05/88
Page 12
Councilmember Evans stated what you said earlier from Barton
Road to Main Street, if the complexity continues, you feel
that it should be a secondary highway.
Mr. Haas replied what he is saying is if the City determines
that they want to change that from R-1, that's an issue that
should be discussed at that time on how that access should
be handled.
Mr. Haas stated he felt he has hopefully covered the
overview of where he wants to come from and hopefully
answered some of the questions so Council can be prepared to
hit him with some more later on. He indicated this is an
opportunity for the City to make a practical step forward on
trying to solve some of the problems, indicating the
development status of the City, you don't have a wheat field
to develop, you have a community that is pretty well
developed. He stated they tried to take that into
consideration when they came up with classification and make
those recommendations based on trying to preserve some of
the existing characteristics and at the same time handle the
areas that will be developed to a higher level in the
future.
Councilmember Shirley stated she felt Mr. Haas had put a lot
of thought and foresight into this and felt it was a very
logical traffic pattern he devised for the City. She stated
that if the business park light industrial area were
developed properly, which is ultimately our responsibility,
that the traffic will flow on Commerce Way and we won't have
to worry about Michigan.
Councilmember Grant asked where was some good examples of
interfacing of the parks and residential areas and wanted to
know if there were anything close around he could go look
at?
Mayor Matteson asked him if he had been to Script's Ranch,
on the way to San Diego, indicating they have the same
business park in there and it all blends in together.
Planning Director Sawyer stated nothing local, but over the
next couple of weeks, staff will try to do some exploring
and get some pictures to Council of different areas that are
doing similar items like that.
Mayor Matteson stated he felt most of them that have that
are master plan communities that had the foresight to do
that ahead of time.
Adjourned Regular Council Minutes - 02/05/88
Page 13
N
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated if she recalls the
topography around Script's Ranch, it's not level and you
have a lot of hill rise and that kind of thing that has a
tendency to break that up. She stated Cerritos is flat and
we might be able do some comparison there. She stated she
has always had concerns about widening Michigan Avenue to
widen to a secondary highway, you would take out houses or
drive through living rooms. She stated, as a whole, the
circulation element pleases her and felt Mr. Haas has done a
good job with that.
Councilmember Grant stated he believes the distance, which
was described as a secondary highway only goes to DeBerry,
indicating the issue of going through living rooms would not
apply to the collector's road. He stated you are talking
about a difference in width.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated that is correct in as
much as what they proposed here, indicating what was being
discussed prior to that was if all of the land use west of
Michigan were to be changed, he was recommending the
extension of the length of Michigan as the secondary highway
and that would create problems on the east side.
Councilmember Grant asked if it would be mandatory that
under that scenario that the whole length of Michigan would
have to be secondary or could it still, even with that kind
of development, would because of the complete development,
would it be almost mandatory to make it secondary?
Mr. Haas replied, you have some planning alternatives if
that comes about that would not necessitate Michigan being
widened, indicating there are processes to close streets.
He stated the street connections at DeBerry, Van Buren and
Pico could be modified or eliminated, whatever is necessary
to do to a plan, indicating you would still then force all
of the traffic over to Commerce Way. Those are just some
alternatives and he was not suggesting that as being a
solution, but there are alternatives to develop these
properties to where they would attract the traffic on the
street that you plan to attract the traffic on rather than
the one that you are trying to keep the traffic off of. He
stated there are also other ways if you are trying to
eliminate the traffic and that would be to remove total
access via a street requiring four or five right turns or
something like that to get around to. He stated he could
see some alternatives where Commerce Way could even be
realigned if that happens, there might be some alternatives
to have a connection different than what's there now
existing.
Adjourned Regular Council Minutes - 02/05/88
Page 14
Councilmember Evans asked if we were to keep the existing
streets, DeBerry, Van Buren and Pico, could he give an
example of what you mean by closing the streets to feed the
traffic onto Commerce Way?
Mr. Haas replied, access to the developments that are off of
Commerce Way rather than an easy access off of DeBerry or
one of the east -west streets.
Councilmember Evans stated, if he understands, you're saying
that those streets, if they were to exist, that they would
ultimately be culdesaced some distance west of Michigan
Avenue and that if traffic wanted to feed into this so
called industrial business park environment, they would have
to go onto Commerce Way. They would not be able to access
it by these streets because of the culdesac.
Mr. Haas replied, what he is saying is that is an
alternative that Council would have on a future plan if they
determined they would want to go commercial in that area.
Mayor Matteson asked if he wanted to summarize on his part?
Mr. Haas stated he felt this was an opportunity for the
community to try to assess some reasonable goals for the
traffic circulation, the traffic level of service for the
community. He stated he felt this was a great opportunity
for the City.
Councilmember Evans asked if he handled all of the
infrastructure? The response was "no."
Councilmember Evans asked Mr. Geller on his figure 2-5 in
the MEA, storm drain system, there is no legend reflected
and he was curious as to what is shown, you have some dotted
lines and some solid lines. He asked if they were all
proposed or if they were existing?.
Mr. Geller replied he believes the dotted are the proposed
project Nos. 315 and 317.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she believes it is
probably just the opposite, indicating the DeBerry line and
the Van Buren exist today and the Pico line does not exist
today.
Councilmember Evans asked are saying there probably should
be a legend that tells us what is what?
Adjourned Regular Council Minutes - 02/05/88
Page 15
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated her common sense tells
her that it was an omission on the Land Use Map, indicating
the area on DeBerry and Mt. Vernon, as designated on the
Land Use Map, has no designation and wanted to know if it
was their intent to designate that as multi -family?
Mr. Geller responded "yes," as shown on the map.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated the owner of that
property was in and looking at this and had several
brilliant suggestions for uses if you aren't going to
designate any.
Councilmember Evans asked why would you designate that
multi -family since all of the area just north of there is
primarily single-family residences?
Mr. Geller replied the area to the north is single-family
residents, indicating they are catch -products, are they
not?
Councilmember Evans replied, no, the street immediately, it
looks like Desoto, but wasn't sure what the other one is,
but all that land is single-family homes. Pointing out two
structures in there that are probably fourplexes, and maybe
two structures are duplexes. He stated all of the homes up
to what is referred to as Cape Terrace, directly behind
Stater Bros. are single-family homes. He stated if Mr.
Geller was going to continue with the basic theme, why are
you not continuing with single-family for that area.
Mr. Geller stated it is his understanding that those are
catch -products there, asking if those were attached units?
Planning Director Sawyer stated he believes they are
attached units, they may be single-family homes, but they
are at a density that is not standard with the other
single-family homes.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated not along Desoto,
indicating those are somewhat large lots and large homes.
Councilmember Evans stated they have alleyways for entrances
into the garages.
Planning Director Sawyer stated that is a piece of property
that has restraints on it because of the size, the shape and
whatever easements that may run on it. He felt that
multi -family zoning would probably lend itself better to
having that property developed and it is in an area that is
generally a higher density than our normal single-family
residential areas in town.
Adjourned Regular Council Minutes - 02/05/88
Page 16
Councilmember Evans asked what is the criteria that governs
an existing geographical area of changing it from one land
use to another? The response was what is the criteria?
Councilmember Evans stated as an example, let's talk west of
Michigan between DeBerry and Van Buren, that's primary
residential and now you are showing a business park. He
stated he would think you would continue with a residential
theme in that area before I would go with a business park.
Mr. Geller stated there is not clear-cut criteria, we don't
pull something off of the land, stating we are looking at a
plan that is twenty some odd years; long term land uses;
what is the long term viability in this area. He stated to
do that, they look at other aspects, such as looking at
parcelization on a property; look at long term viability in
terms of things that are going on around that property,
indicating all of these factors come in. He stated the
parcelization of that particular area, the manner in which
it is developed in the past; the age of the structures that
exist there; the interface of the existing uses old and new
there, all enter into it. To answer your question,
judgement is his professional opinion based on this input.
Councilmember Evans asked the Planning Director if this
particular land use plan were to be adopted, anybody that
lives in that area, if they decided that they wanted to
improve their property, upgrade it, room additions, swimming
pool, patio's, whatever the case might be, if the land use
designation were to change, does it create problems for them
from a planning standpoint if it requires a permit?
Planning Director Sawyer replied, "yes it would." It would
be non -conforming uses and our Code has different
definitions for non -conforming both the buildings and the
uses, but our attorney has interpreted it to a certain
extent that you can replace something if it is destroyed by
fire, that kind of situation. However, our Code is specific
where it says you cannot expand a non -conforming use, so if
you had wanted to add onto the building an extra bedroom or
increase the value of the property with a swimming pool, you
would then have problems getting a permit, as the Code is
written now.
Councilmember Evans asked what would someone have to do?
Planning Director Sawyer replied, first of all we wouldn't
let them per Code and then they would have to come to
Council for what type of exception they would be able to do
legally, other than change the Code.
Mayor Matteson stated you can do a variance.
Adjourned Regular Council Minutes - 02/05/88
Page 17
N
Planning Director Sawyer replied, he did not believe
variance would be the mechanism that legally we could do it
with.
City Attorney Hopkins stated individual waiver or changing
the Code.
Councilmember Evans asked would it be safe to summarize that
if somebody has a single-family home or residence over
there, if this land use were to change and if they intended
to stay there for any period of time, that we could honestly
tell them they've got problems if they want to expand?
Planning Director Sawyer replied, "yes," indicating the only
other thing he would point out is that any residential
properties developed in that manner that are now in the C-2
zone would still be in the same boat they are in now, it
would be in those areas that we are talking about changing
from residential to the business park, stating there are
some areas like that.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated the majority of those,
when we went through this process before, were set aside
from that C-2 and returned back to R-1. She stated she
needs to understand, indicating most of the homes facing
onto DeBerry in that area are relatively new sizable homes.
She stated that when we did this before with the discussion
that just ensued, we set aside those areas that are
residential, knowing that people would not be able to do
anything else with their residential property and at this
point when it comes time, she hates to destroy their hard
work, but she will again suggest that what is residential
remain residential, what is not residential can be something
else.
City Attorney Hopkins stated this is a workshop and we can't
make anything that approaches a decision.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she was simply stating an
opinion, not a decision.
Mayor Matteson stated like we said at the beginning of the
meeting that this is input from them and then Council will
give their opinions and discussions at the public hearings.
Councilmember Evans asked Mr. Geller in light of some of the
recent Supreme Court decisions, as it relates to land use,
do you envision, based on some of the recommended changes to
land use, potential litigation from this?
Mr. Geller referred that to the City Attorney.
I
Adjourned Regular Council Minutes - 02/05/88
Page 18
City Attorney Hopkins stated there has been no decisions
that were that far reaching that indicated any liability as
a result of down -zoning, although there are cases that are
coming up the ladder and will be coming before the Supreme
Court in all probability, but at this stage, there's not
been any decisions by the Supreme Court to that affect.
Councilmember Grant asked the Planning Director if he had an
approximate date when the public work session would be for
the people to have input?
Planning Director Sawyer replied, the month of February the
public document will be public and will be available for the
public to come in and review, indicating then approximately
March 4th, it's not set until we get our confirmation date
back from the State, but approximately March 4, 1988, that
public period will end and then we will take it back at a
staff level and make any changes and will respond to the
comments we receive in writing. He stated it is all well
and good to come and speak at the hearings if you have
concerns or questions regarding the Environmental Impact
Report, but he encourages anyone who has concerns or
comments to put them in writing and get them to him at the
Planning Department and that way the Planning Department can
respond to them in writing and they are formally
incorporated in the draft document.
Mayor Matteson asked the Planning Director to announce that
in the newspaper.
Councilmember Grant stated he would like to have the very
maximum coverage on this issue to let everybody know because
this is going to be the most monumental thing that's going
to happen to this City, we are changing the whole outlook of
this City possibly, and felt all the newspapers should have
notices in them.
Planning Director Sawyer replied, staff will do everything
to make it public news.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated to Mr. Haas, that on the
north side of Barton Road, there is an existing elementary
school, you've already indicated that if we were to widen
Barton Road to 120 ft. that it would impact that school
ground. She stated that at the present time, a large
contingent of the children that attend that school cross on
foot. As the area builds out and with the potential of the
business park traffic and the potential of the commercial
development on Barton Road, do you see that the foot
crossing of children across Barton Road, a six -lane highway,
as a viable alternative for them to get to school.
Adjourned Regular Council Minutes - 02/05/88
Page 19
ti
Mr. Haas replied he didn't think crossing six lanes of
traffic is really probably the question, he feels it is how
you handle it, stating he felt it would be preferable not to
have it, indicating he prefers not to see elementary schools
on major highways, secondary or major arterials. He stated
he likes to see them in a neighborhood from a traffic safety
standpoint, but felt it could be handled safely. It's an
issue and is something that will have to be solved. He
stated at this point, it is kind of out of scope of what
they would have looked at from a traffic systems management
standpoint in a plan like this, but many communities have
identical problems where children have to cross arterial
highways to get to schools.
Councilmember Evans asked if the public hearings on this
document are tentatively scheduled for March 21, 1988 at the
Planning Commission?
Planning Director Sawyer replied after they have responded
to the comments in the EIR and bring the final documents of
both the EIR and the General Plan back to, in essence the
public, will be at the March 21, 1988, Planning Commission
meeting. He stated that will be a public meeting where the
Planning Commission will be presented with the document and
they will make their recommendations; they will hold a
public hearing and consider the public comments; formulate
their recommendations; then their recommendation will be
forwarded on to the City Council; there will have to be
another public hearing at the time that the City Council
will make their decisions. He stated at that time, Council
will have the Planning Director's recommendations,
Mr. Geller's recommendations, Planning Commission's
recommendations, and then Council will hear from the public
with their recommendations and then Council will make the
final determinations.
Mayor Matteson asked if that would be April 14, 1988?
Planning Director Sawyer replied, that's the next regular
City Council meeting which they could logically bring it to
Council.
Mayor Matteson stated then we have to announce that 30-days
prior, is that not correct.
Planning Director Sawyer replied, we will have to make the
announcements prior to the normal public hearing notices.
Mayor Matteson asked the Planning Director to touch base
with the City Manager and make sure that you set those dates
up and we give proper notice.
I
Adjourned Regular Council Minutes - 02/05/88
Page 20
Planning Director Sawyer replied, as mentioned before they
are considering putting notices in the sewer bills which is
a good idea to get to most of the people, but not always the
residents pay the sewer bills because of the apartment
projects and other things in town. He stated there will be
ads in the newspapers.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen recommended the Chamber
Newsletter, indicating it goes to every home.
Councilmember Evans asked if the Planning Director was
planning on having any more "workshops" prior to the public
hearings.
Planning Director Sawyer replied, staff will be working with
the Planning Commission, since the bulk of the Commissioners
were unavailable this evening, indicating going over things
briefly with them at their meeting on February 16, 1988,
starting at 6:30 p.m. during their normal workshop prior to
their meeting. He stated it won't be as extensive as this
one, and at that time if it is felt that the Planning
Commission needs a more detailed workshop, we will bring
that up during March, but a date hasn't been set.
Councilmember Evans asked for clarification as to what
happens with this document after the public hearings,
indicating he had been told that when the previous General
Plan was done, that document then went to the State; the
State reviewed it and gave their input; it was then sent
back before they went to public hearings. He asked with
this particular document, we are going to have the public
hearings, then go through the process, then are we going to
ship it to the State for their approval?
Planning Director Sawyer replied, one of the things staff
has done currently, is that they have sent it to the Office
of Planning and Research which is the State Office who will
review this, indicating they also sent it to all of the
different State Agencies which they feel are appropriated
reviewing agencies. He stated they are looking at the
document right now, indicating during this 30-day review
period, is the time they will come back to us with comments
and then we will respond not only to the public in writing
included in the final document, we will also respond to any
of the reviewing agencies comments. He stated the State and
other agencies are looking at it now as an overall General
Plan project. He stated he felt what you are beginning to
touch base on is the housing element and how the State has
different review procedures for that, indicating we are not
totally rewriting the housing elements in this go round, we
are simply updating the facts within the housing elements as
Adjourned Regular Council Minutes - 02/05/88
Page 21
IN
they would be changed with the new land use designations.
He stated they are having their housing element reviewed in
1990, and at that time, staff will be submitting it to the
housing authorities in the State.
Councilmember Evans asked if the State was aware as far as
the timing on our pubic hearings, indicating if these
agencies are reviewing this document and if we are going to
have their input back and available before we go to these
hearings so it would guide us.
Planning Director Sawyer replied, actually the State
Reviewing Agencies normally have 45-days, we have requested
that the documents be reviewed in 30-days and that is the
reason he said the March 4th date is tentative because they
have not received a confirmation from them, indicating even
if they required 45-days, he felt we are still on a
time -line in order to do this. He stated that's their
guidelines, their rules and that is what they play by and if
they can't make it, we don't have to listen to them, they
know that so they'll get it done.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated we have made, according
to this document, some appreciable reductions in an area
that required a great deal of negotiation with the State in
our housing element prior to this. She asked are we not
going to submit the housing element to this in hopes that
they just kind of let that glide on until 1990.
Planning Director Sawyer replied, those changes have been
submitted in the document that was sent up to the State,
indicating perhaps Mr. Geller could help him explain how
that is reviewed as far as housing elements.
Mr. Geller stated he thinks that Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen
had it just about right, indicating the Housing Assistant
Plan, so we don't confuse the housing element in the General
Plan, is basically general policies to guide housing. He
stated the Housing Assistant Plan has not be updated per se,
indicating that you are not required until 1989 to update
your housing elements based on the five-year plan to review
it, but the best information that is available to day, is
the 1980 Census Data, the 1990 Census Data will not be
available until probably 1991 or 1992. He stated to update
the housing elements in terms of any of the detailed census
information you need to do it, is basically a waste of time
until you wait until the census data is available. Yes, you
are basically putting it off until sometime in the future to
deal with it.
Adjourned Regular Council Minutes - 02/05/88
Page 22
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated, but we are changing it.
We are significantly changing and doing something we were
told we couldn't do in 1982 or 83.
Mr. Geller stated he did not know how to respond to that, we
have kicked this around awhile, certainly the decision has
been made in terms of the densities and he would say that
they acted as Planning Advisors in communities where the
maximum density is one unit to the acre for the entire City,
indicating you go one to the acre, there are no
subdivisions, everything is big estate houses, stating they
get away with it and they don't seem to be suffering that
much from it. He stated we just have to deal with it when
it happens, indicating there are communities that obviously
do not provide their fair share of housing.
Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she is willing to do it,
if in Mr. Geller's considered opinion, we can get away with
it. She then asked Mr. Geller if it was his considered
opinion that we could get away with it?
Mr. Geller replied it is his considered opinion that if
that's the Council's desire, lets proceed and see what
happens.
Planning Director Sawyer stated the period for the public
comments is during the month of February, anybody in the
public that has any questions, are more than welcome to
contact the Planning Department, to sit down and explain it
to them and tell them what's being proposed and explain how
the process works. Indicating this is a draft document and
can be changed at the public hearings.
Adjourned the adjourned regular City Council meeting at
8:40 p.m. until the next regular City Council meeting which
will be held Thursday, February 11, 1988 at 5:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:
9� e ty City clerk —
APPROVED:
amovvt
Mayo
h
Adjourned Regular Council Minutes - 02/05/88
Page 23