Loading...
11/06/1986CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COUNCIL MINUTES L_ REGULAR MEETING - NOVEMBER 6, 1986 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 November 6, 1986 at 5:33 p.m. PRESENT: Hugh J. Grant, Mayor Byron Matteson, Mayor Pro Tempore Barbara Pfennighausen, Councilwoman Dennis L. Evans, Councilman Seth Armstead, City Manager Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney Joe Kicak, Planning Director/City Engineer Ilene Dughman, City Clerk ABSENT: Tony Petta, Councilman The meeting was opened with invocation by Mayor Grant, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance, led by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson. ITEMS ADDED TO THE AGENDA - The following items were added to the Benda: 2C - Proclamation - Winter Storm Preparedness Week, November 17-22, 1986; 7C - Cable Television Rates. (This item was later deferred until next meeting to allow representation by the Cable Television firm.) SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS Bus Shelters - Kathy Bell, Pedestal Post Kathy Bell, representing Pedestal Post, 2855 East Coast Highway, Suite 100, Corona Del Mar, gave a presentation regarding proposal to install two Bus Shelters in designated areas within the City. (Reference Pedestal Post's October 3rd letter and Staff Report dated October 30, 1986, Subject: Pedestal Post Bus Shelter Special Presentation. Following Council discussion relative to maintenance, landscaping, design, graffiti, utility costs, and liability, Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, Second by Mayor Grant, to approve the installation of said bus shelters. (It was clarified that the Motion included approval of the Contract by the City Attorney and approval of design by the City Engineer.) Councilman Evans, with Councilwoman Pfennighausen concurring, saw no necessity for an Architectural Review by the Planning Commission due to the standard design of structures. Questioned whether proposal could be categorized under minor deviations with Council approval. Council Minutes - 11/06/86 Page 2 City Engineer Kicak saw no problem; however, requested Council direction with respect to permits and fees, since facilities will be located within public rights -of -way. Mayor Grant felt a more comprehensive staff report necessary to adequately address all issues. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson called for the question. CC-86-256 Motion by Mayor Grant, Second by Councilman Evans, to overrule the call for the question, carried, 3-1, with Councilwoman Pfennighausen voting NOE, and Councilman Petta absent. Councilmembers Evans and Pfennighausen opposed Mayor Pro Tem Matteson's Motion, feeling the Site and Architectural Review process unnecessary. Councilwoman Pfennighausen, in concurrence with Mayor Grant, felt all issues had not been adequately addressed and additional information should be provided. Mayor Pro Tem's Matteson's Motion failed, 2-2, with Councilmembers Evans and Pfennighausen voting NOE, and Councilman Petta absent. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson suggested item be deferred until next meeting to allow vote by entire Council. Mayor Grant requested additional staffing by Community Services Director Anstine and City Engineer Kicak to supplement information provided thusfar. Certificate of Commendation - Colton High Distinguished School Award Mayor Grant read a Certificate of Commendation commending the staff and students of Colton High School for receiving the Distinguished School Award. Noted it would be personally presented by him on November 26, 1986. Proclamation - Winter Storm Preparedness Week, November 17-22, 1986 Mayor Grant read above Proclamation proclaiming the week of November 17 as Winter Storm Preparedness Week. Copies will be provided to appropriate parties. CONSENT CALENDAR Item 3D, Minutes of 10/23/86, was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. CC-86-257 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, Second by Mayor Grant, ALL AYES, by all members present, to approve the following Consent Calendar items: A. Approve Check Register No. 110686; B. Ratify 11/6/86 CRA Action; C. Waive Full Reading of Ordinances on Agenda; Council Minutes - 11/06/86 Page 3 E. RESOLUTION NO. 86-40 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TE CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A "NO PARKING" ZONE AT THE INTERSECTION OF DEBERRY STREET AND ORIOLE AVENUE. F. Reschedule Christmas and New Year Holidays to December 25/26 and January 1/2; G. Reject Liability Claim No. GTLC 86-03. APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 23, 1986 MINUTES The following revisions to the November 23, 1986 Minutes were requested: (1) Councilwoman Pfennighausen requested last sentence of paragraph 3, Page 3, be amended as follows: "Responding to Councilwoman Pfennighausen relative to whether equitable and expeditious treatment had been received from the Planning Commission, Mr. Akar advised he would not have come before Council if he felt that to have been the case." (2) Councilman Evans requested Page 5, paragraph 6, Council Reports, include Mr. Rollins' discussion relative to consideration of the Terrace Hills Junior High School site for tennis courts, and was changed as follows: "Mr. Rollins advised that both the Pico Park site as well as the Terrace Hills Junior High School site was discussed. However, due to Colton Joint Unified School District's recommendation that the land in question be used for future development of temporary classrooms as well as the exhorbitant cost factor of constructing the courts at the park site, the idea was abandoned." Additionally requested Page 6, paragraph 6, be expounded upon and was changed to read: "Councilman Evans questioned potential problems with Gage Canal crossings relative to other parcels such as Barney Karger's which could result in a landlocking situation. City Attorney Hopkins clarified if right-of-way acquisition is made, the City of Grand Terrace would own the crossings; therefore, they would be public and available for access to future developments." Following clarification that Motion No. CC-86-254 requires no funds by the City for the purchase of the Gage Canal right-of-way property, CC-86-258 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, Second by Councilwoman Pfennighausen, ALL AYES, by members present, to approve the November 23, 1986 Minutes, as amended above. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Dick Rollins, 22700 DeBerry Street, questioned and it was clarified that both the northwest and northeast corners of the DeBerry and Oriole intersections will be designated "No Parking" zones. Chester Easter, 21963 Tanager Street, (1) Recommended the Cable Television Company make some technical adjustments to improve the television transmission of Council meetings; (2) Questioned whether under 30-units per acre is not considered high -density by the State; Planning Director Kicak stated that was correct. City Attorney Hopkins clarified under 30-units is considered medium density by the State as well as in our General Plan and that there is no high density Council Minutes - 11/06/86 Page 4 in Grand Terrace. Mr. Easter further questioned the density of the condominiums behind Stater Brothers; Mr. Kicak related they were approximately 10 units per acre. (Portion added per Councilman Evans' request at 11/20/86 Council meeting) Chamber Newsletter Larry Halstead, 21894 Vivienda, cited two paid political advertisements in the November Chamber Newsletter; understood the Newsletter was not to be involved in politicizing; specifically cited Councilman Petta's past positions. Unless there was a change in policy, felt rules established by Council and the Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors have been broken. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson stated the City does not dictate the Newsletter operation. Noted the Chamber derives revenue from advertisements. Objects to political editorials, but not to paid advertisement as long as all candidates have the same opportunity. Questioned and Chamber President Barbara Bayus responded no candidates were denied placement of ads. Mayor Grant did not feel previous Minutes would reflect that paid political advertisements were prohibited in the Newsletter; noted all candidates had an equal opportunity. City Attorney Hopkins felt no rules had been violated and that the matter of whether or not paid political ads were appropriate should be addressed to the Chamber, not the City. Councilman Evans questioned whether the person accepting the ads was aware the Newsletter is not to be utilized as a political tool; felt the problem to be that other candidates had not been offered the same opportunity. In response to Councilman Evans, Sandy Windbigler, Chamber Newsletter Editor, referenced Council's last direction that no City editorials appear in the Newsletter and that the Chamber is to operate it as it sees fit. Direction to accept paid political ads came from Past President Dave TerBest, not the Chamber Board and anyone could have placed an ad. Ed O'Neal, 22608 Minona Drive, stated he had placed a Grand Terrace political ad in the Sun on Election day, which erroneously appeared in the San Bernardino edition, thereby not being seen by Grand Terrace voters; noting the importance of one vote, questioned what impact his ad could have had on the outcome of the Election. Stated he would support whomever fills the two Council seats. Dick Kelsey, 22629 Lark Street, related the Newsletter is a vehicle to provide citizens information. As a citizen, supports political advertising. Council Minutes - 11/06/86 Page 5 Chester Easter, 21963 Tanager, requested more City information in the Newsletter. Regarding the Election campaigning, feels the town needs to pull together. Felt the Newsletter can now be utilized by all for political advertising. Barbara Bayus, Chamber of Commerce President, advised that the Chamber has requested the City Manager to have a Staff person provide articles summarizing City items; however, official approval must be made by the Board of Directors. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION - CUP 86-8/TENTATIVE TRACT Planning Director Kicak related October 20th Planning Commission actions with respect to Conditional Use Permit 86-8/Tentative Tract Map 13283/Specific Plan 86-5 for a development located on the easterly side of Grand Terrace Road, southerly of Vivienda Avenue. (Reference October 28, 1986 Staff Report: Appeal of Planning Commission Approval for CUP 86-8, for Lawson Terrace Apartment Project, by the Property Owners. Related receipt of property owners' appeal, dated October 24, 1986, and outlined the reasons including high density (12 units per acre), erosion of rural character of area, water drainage and traffic problems. (Copy of appeal on file with the City Clerk) Mayor Grant opened the Public Hearing. Kenneth R. McClellan, 21882 Grand Terrace Road, on behalf of residents opposing approval of proposed project, addressed various portions within the Environmental Assessment Checklist, feeling the issues were not adequately addressed therein; felt proposed project does not meet the necessary requirements and would in fact have a long-term adverse environmental impact for the reasons previously outlined by Mr. Kicak. Additionally, felt project would increase levels of noise, light and glare, road deterioration, crime, and school impaction; would increase need for expansion of utilities, police, fire protection, maintenance, parks and recreational services, as well as alter the existing single-family land use within the area and obstruct current view of Blue Mountain. In summation, felt the proposed project to be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of current residents. Requested Council give serious consideration before allowing the Conditional Use Permit to be granted. The following residents also spoke in opposition to the project basically citing the above reasons: Inez Stauble, 21945 Grand Terrace Road, saw a bigger issue with regard to the City s General Plan; questioned whether project is consistent with the people's wishes and if it would set a precedent for future developments; Lois Pierce, 21845 Grand Terrace Road, noting the property has only one entrance and exit, felt the proposed location will create a hazardous access problem in an emergency situation for both current and proposed residents; felt residents are not opposed to growth but concerned about type and amount. Mrs. James Ray, 21969 Vivienda Avenue, felt the project will adversely affect residents on Vivienda; Ben Gabler, Council Minutes - 11/06/86 Page 6 on behalf of Viola Fields, 21952 Grand Terrace Road, emphasized existing storm drainage problems would intensify and the current rural atmosphere would no longer exist; (The following detailed conversation added per Mayor Pro Tem Matteson's request at 11/20/86 Council meeting) Larry Halstead, 21894 Vivienda Avenue, believed the project in the proposed loEation to be high density and made the following comments: Our health, welfare, and safety is being currently impacted at peak loads - we don't need a high density project to come in and impact it any more. Relative to high density, there seems to be a semantical game; in the last election we noticed a political game being played with the whole idea of high density. What is high density? The General Plan says high density is 20 units per acre - the indications are that this project could exceed that. Mr. McClennan defined high density by farm boy standards of two people per acre. I came to Grand Terrace 30 years ago and at that time they were building a brand new project. It was all that area north of Barton Road and east of Mt. Vernon (the oldest tract we have now) and if you asked the people who lived out there on rural farms, they would have called that high -density and said they didn't want it. But, now we've grown up, we're a big incorporated City with elected officials and negative smear campaigns; we have it all now. Without pointing a finger at any particular candidates, not only this election, but the last election, was predominated by one single issue - high density. If you survey those people and had put another referendum on the ballot and asked them to mark what their opinion is of high -density, most of these citizens probably don't even know about a General Plan and, if they do, they're asking the question, so what? We'll define high density by units per acre as opposed to single-family housing. We have a referendum by the overwhelming voice of the people of Grand Terrace that have flooded this Chamber before. You're looking here tonight at many people that have never shown up at Council meetings before in the history of Grand Terrace. They are here tonight because they are from that sector and want to join all those other people that have flooded the Council meetings, written to the newspapers, have complained to their elected officials, and said, "Stop, we don't want high density." High density is defined by any standards other than single-family housing. I have a hard time dealing with the fact that we're at all addressing high density areas anywhere in Grand Terrace and our sector of this community wants to put the message across that we don't want it by how the State defines it or by how the General Plan defines it; we don't want it by any definition. I heard former Councilman, Mr. Rigley, during the process of the past campaigning, address a small crowd and make a statement that if he had it to do over again, he would vote against that General Plan and he deeply, sincerely, regrets, "that he ever voted in favor of that General Plan." Maybe the General Plan is the problem. Either way, the General Plan calls for an out for you folks and the out is very simple - the health, safety, and welfare of the people of Grand Terrace. We're saying that we're impacted right now by it and don't want it anymore. William Liles, 21840 Grand Terrace Road, concurred with prior remarkspposition to proposed project. Council Minutes - 11/06/86 Page 7 BarneyKar, er, 11668 Bernardo Way, did not sympathize with property owners in the area who did not voice input when the General Plan was initiated. Suggested, if opposed to the proposed apartment complex, residents pool their resources and buy the property, noting the developer is within his legal rights according to the General Plan to build the proposed project. Rebuttals Lois Pierce noted the City Council was elected to represent the people and protect their interests; did not feel Members should take advice from Mr. Karger. Inez Stauble advised that the residents are not interested in the economics of the issue and do not want to buy the property in question; requested Council take into consideration all that has been discussed and review the Environmental Impact Report to assure all issues are properly addressed. Mayor Grant closed the Public Hearing. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson related that some Councilmembers were not seated when the General Plan was updated; personally felt too much property has been designated R-3 and, if the areas are build -out as such, congestion will be created along with other problems previously mentioned by appellants. Therefore, felt it necessary to review the General Plan and place a moratorium on all building until that has been accomplished to arrive at a satisfactory solution. Agreed with Mr. Halstead's comments relative to the density factors (low, medium, high) as set forth by the State of California not necessarily being condusive to a particular community such as Grand Terrace; does not feel it takes many units in a small community to create high density. CC-86 -259 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, Second by Mayor Grant, that a moratorium be placed on all construction in the R-3 area west of the freeway for a period of six months or until the General Plan is reviewed. (It was clarified later in the meeting that the basis for the Motion was because of potential detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community.) Mayor Grant, concurring with Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, felt that density is in the eyes of the beholder and is directly related to the community in which it is located. Councilman Evans questioned City's liability if Council were to impose a moratorium on this particular project. City Attorney Hopkins related his opinion that the Motion would not apply to this or any project that precedes the moratorium - Council would have to act on the appeal separately. Felt the moratorium itself does not create a liability problem. If decision is made to uphold the appeal and deny the project, findings must be made to support that action. Related that individuals do in fact have a right Council Minutes - 11/06/86 Page 8 to develop their property in accordance with the General Plan. The City's recourse would be to amend the General Plan in accordance with what is desired. However, in the interim, the project on appeal is in compliance with the existing General Plan and must be either approved or denied, which could result in litigation. Councilman Evans supported reconsidering the entire City's land use. Related the following possible substantiation to deny this particular project: (1) Density exceeds City's General Plan; (2) Fire hazard for ingress and egress to the project; (3) Potential school impaction. (Requested a report relative to anticipated generation of students from project along with proposed mitigation measures); and (4) Water drainage and traffic problems. (Requested a report by the City Engineer) Based on those particular key issues, could not support the project. Mayor Grant re -opened the Public Hearing. Bill Addington, 12055 Westwood Lane, Engineer of proposed project, related the following: (1) Project meets the General Plan requirements including density; (2) Views of Blue Mountain will not be obstructed; (3) All substantial issues addressed by appeal are existing problems, some of which will be corrected by the project (noted a new water line to be installed to resolve the current water problem); (4) Project has been reviewed by the Fire Marshall and will alleviate current potential fire hazard of the grassy field next to the mobile home park; (5) Although school impaction will be created, felt it would be minimal compared to students generated from a 40-lot tract; (6) 44 conditions have been included in the proposal to mitigate previously discussed problems; if mitigation measures do not meet the City Engineer's approval, the project will not proceed. Mayor Grant closed Public Hearing. Councilwoman Pfennighausen, realizing previous positions taken on projects such as this could have cost her Council seat, continues to feel bound to uphold the laws of the City including the Zoning Code and the General Plan. Did not see tremendous problems with project; however, voiced concern with the following: (1) Limited ingress and egress into the project; (2) Impact on park and recreational facilities; felt City should require developers to provide for such on or near the project sites. Additionally, felt the City cannot impose inverse condemnation (moratorium) by placing an individual's property on hold indefinitely and openendedly without specificity. (The following detailed conversation added per Councilman Evans' request at 11/20/86 Council meeting) At Councilwoman Pfennighausen's request, City Attorney Hopkins outlined the following process leading up to the City's adoption of the Housing and Land Use Element within the General Plan: The State of California sets forth the requirements for planning and zoning and one of the requirements is that each City must adopt a General Plan including adoption of certain mandatory elements, one of those being the Housing Element, which must be Council Minutes - 11/06/86 Page 9 approved by the State of California. It is not just something that is i left to the whim of the City Council, rather it must be submitted to L the State for approval. If an approved General Plan is not adopted, there are many sanctions brought against the City that would be detrimental to both the City government and the citizens. We, of course, could not allow that to occur and, in addition, the citizens would not have wanted it due to the various sanctions that would be brought against the City; therefore, a Housing Element must be submitted. The State as well as the Government requires affordable housing and multi -family housing, which is being objected to this evening, be made available. The State further requires that a certain percentage of multi -family dwellings be included within the Housing Element as well as high density. Due to our initial proposals of low density, the State rejected our first several inputs, requiring higher density than provided for in our General Plan. Finally, through compromise, the State lowered their density requirements and accepted lower density (maximum of 20 units per acre) in those areas that would support it; preparation of Specific Plans and Conditional Use Permits to show there would be no detrimental affect of the property with density as proposed, up to a maximum of 20, was also required and included in the General Plan. Noted the State also gives bonuses, allowing an additional 20% if building meets criteria with regard to affordable housing, etc.; however, the bonuses may not be included with our density requirements. The project on appeal has no bonuses so the additional density would not be applicable in that particular case. Subsequent to the State's final density approval, a series of approximately 21 Public Hearings were held with regard to the General Plan; notices were mailed and advertisements published, as required by law, to inform the public of such. Much input and testimony was received from residents and the City considered most of what the people had to say, because we changed the zoning, density requirements, and other things in response to comments made by the citizens. It's unfortunate that everyone didn't attend the hearings; but, generally that's the procedure we went through. Councilwoman Pfennighausen made the following response: Having been one of two Councilmembers here tonight who sat as a Councilmember during that whole process, noted a lot of thought and fight was involved in an attempt to compromise the State of California into a position that the City could accept and it was compromise that we did. As part of the State, in spite of the fact that some of us would like to believe that we aren't, we are subject to its laws. We could revise our General Plan; however, the chances that we will be able to do away with that density level are practically nill. What's the solution? I am not in favor of this project and, therefore, will vote to uphold your appeal, not because it's apartments, but because I don't think it's been well -thought through, based on what I have read and heard. I have lived in a single-family residence and currently live in an apartment and there are as many quality people around me in apartments as were in single-family residences; that has nothing to do with the quality of people. Responsibility of citizens make them quality people and home ownership does not make quality people. Council Minutes - 11/06/86 Page 10 Ex -supervisor Dennis Hansberger stood in this community one night when we were trying to stop a kind of housing called 235 Title I, in which the government would subsidize the building of single-family homes (not apartments) in a given area, which would be given practically free to low income people. The government's rationale was their hope for a 10% upgrade in the residences of those people. Dennis Hansberger said that you are better off to transition single-family residences through multi -family residential complexes with maintained grounds, than to subsidize single-family residential areas. Everybody has a right to live someplace and this community has to meet its commitment as set forth by the State of California. My children could not afford to live in this area in a house they had to buy - most of you couldn't live in the house you live in if you had to buy it today. That's today's world and I'm sorry that it's that way. There's nobody sitting here that loves this City any more than I do. I was coming to Council meetings and staying at them a long time before I sat at this table. But, I love the law and I'm not willing to take another man's rights away from him so I can have it my way, because one of these days someone will come and take mine away too. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson clarified the Motion on the floor excludes the project in question. Motion No. CC-86-259 carried, ALL AYES, by all members present. CC-86-260 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, Second by Mayor Grant, ALL AYES, by all members present, to uphold the property owners' appeal of the Planning Commission decision and deny approval of CUP 86-8, Terrace Lawson Apartment Project, on the the basis that it is detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Mayor Grant clarified no further action would be taken on the proposed project relative to the next Agenda Item for a public hearing and consideration for the approval of Tentative Tract Map 13283/Specific Plan 86-5 due to denial of the Conditional Use Permit. Recessed at 9:00 p.m.; reconvened at 9:18 p.m., with all members present excepting Councilman Petta. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT - Minutes (unapproved) of the October 20, meeting were provided. Planning Director Kicak related upcoming Planning Commission workshop study session on corridor themes, as requested by Council. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE REPORT - Minutes of the October 6, 1986 meeting were provided. Dick o ins reported on the Tour de Terrace Bicycle Event to be held Sunday, November 9. HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ACTIVITIES COMMITTEE REPORT - Community Services Director Anstine related upcoming Annual untry Fair, Grand Terrace Community Center, Saturday, November 8, 1986. Mayor Grant encouraged community participation. Council Minutes - 11/06/86 Page 11 POLICE CHIEF REPORT - City Manager Armstead reported the following: TIT7ncreased patrolling above Palm and on Vivienda in an attempt to reduce crime in those areas; (2) Will provide Council with Quarterly Crime Status Report submitted this date as well as material on Shelters for the Homeless. CITY ENGINEER REPORT - Crosswalk - Canal/Barton Road - After reviewing conditions at that particular location, City Engineer Kicak related staff recommendation that the above improvement be completed in conjunction with the improvements of Barton Road Widening. (Reference October 28, 1986 Staff Report, Subject: Crosswalk at Canal and Barton). Community Services Director Anstine presented slides of the area in question reflecting no improvements where the crosswalk is being proposed. City Engineer Kicak noted, For the Record, that the proposal, as submitted by staff, is acceptable and could be completed in conjunction with the Barton Road project. Councilwoman Pfennighausen questioned estimated completion date for the Barton Road widening project; saw no reason not to paint a temporary crosswalk in the interim; requested Mr. Kicak inform residents requesting the crosswalk the reasons for delay, since the rationale of the staff report eluded her. Mr. Kicak was unable to project completion since plans are still in review stage by Southern California Edison. Mayor Grant supported the crosswalk, feeling it at least gives visual indication of crossing in that area to both pedestrians and drivers; additionally felt flashing lights should be installed. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson voiced support for Staff's recommendation - opposed the temporary crosswalk feeling it would be hazardous at night unless flashing lights were present. Councilwoman Pfennighausen noted the majority of the people use that crossing during the day; questioned whether the temporary crosswalk without warning lights would increase liability. City Attorney Hopkins noted he was not a risk management authority; however, felt liability would not increase as long as precautionary measures are reasonably taken. Concurring with City Engineer Kicak's initial recommendation, Motion by Councilman Evans, Second by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, that the improvement be completed in conjunction with the improvements of the Barton Road widening project. Councilman Evans had no problems with installing a temporary crosswalk; however, felt $500 an exhorbitant cost and questioned why two lines could not be painted by Staff. Community Services Director Anstine advised Staff was not equipped and felt that estimated cost was not out of line; however, Staff would install if Council desires. The Motion failed 2-2, with Mayor Grant and Councilwoman Pfennighausen voting NOE and Councilman Petta absent. Council Minutes - 11/06/86 Page 12 CC-86-261 Motion by Councilwoman Pfennighausen, Second by Councilman Evans, that temporary white lines be painted on Barton Road at Canal Street and maintained in good condition until the Barton Road construction project is completed and lights are relocated, carried, 3-1, with Mayor Pro Tem Matteson voting NOE and Councilman Petta absent. CITY MANAGER REPORT - City Manager Armstead noted final results of the November 3rd Election may be released on November 17, 1986. COUNCIL REPORTS Councilman Evans reported the following: (1) Annual County Fair - Questioned- -guidelines established by the Histo'rical and Cultural Activities Committee relative to restricting selling of baked goods to only the Girlscouts; (2) Referencing what he felt to be false and inaccurate partisan material brought into the recent non -partisan election, questioned motive. Admonished citizens to examine voting records of each Councilmember and then determine whether past positions are consistent with their campaign promises. Due to the time element of upcoming fair, Mayor Grant and Mayor Pro Tem Matteson felt staff should imediately contact the Chairperson of the Historical and Cultural Activities Committee in an attempt to rectify situation, feeling everyone should be given equal opportunity to participate in the Fair. Feeling it Council's responsibility opposed to staff's, Motion by CC-86-262 Councilwoman Pfennighausen, Second by Mayor Grant, ALL AYES, by all members present, that the Mayor notify the Chairperson of the Historical and Cultural Activities Committee that Council sees no rationale to restricting selling of cookies and candies and, therefore, it should be allowed. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson felt recent application for Alcoholic Beverage License should be investigated and, if warranted, recommendations made to the Alcohol and Beverage Control Board. Mayor Grant reported the following: (1) Attendance of the Omnitrans and SANBAG meetings of November 5, 1986; (2) Noted additional Chamber of Commerce budget information had been received. REVIEW OF ORDINANCE NO. 98 DEALING WITH SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES City Manager Armstead related Reverend Lucille Hays' complaint at the last meeting regarding enforcement of City's Smoking Ordinance regulations. Councilman Evans suggested disseminating educational material relative to the Ordinance through the Chamber of Commerce in an attempt to get businesses' voluntary compliance; felt if an Ordinance is adopted, it should be enforced. City Attorney Hopkins related staff planned to do something of that nature either via the Chamber Newsletter or by letter from either the Chamber or the City offering Council Minutes - 11/06/86 Page 13 staff's assistance in implementation of an enforcement program. Council concurred to encourage Chamber of Commerce's assistance to inform various businesses of the Ordinance requirements and solicit their cooperation. CC-86-263 Relative to the smoking area adjacent to Council Chambers, Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, Second by Mayor Grant, ALL AYES, by all present, to post a "No Smoking" sign in the refreshment area outside the Council Chambers. Adjourned at 10:15 p.m. The regularly scheduled meeting for November has been cancelled. The next regular meeting will be held Thursday, November 20, 1986, at 6:15 p.m., preceded by an Annual Potluck Dinner at 5:00 p.m., commemorating the City's 8th Birthday. Respectfully submitted, APPROVED: