01/22/1987CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
COUNCIL MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - JANUARY 22, 1987
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace was called to
order in the Council Chambers, Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road,
Grand Terrace, California, on January 22, 1987, at 5:37 p.m.
PRESENT: Hugh J. Grant, Mayor
Byron R. Matteson, Mayor Pro Tempore
Dennis L. Evans, Councilman
Susan Crawford, Councilwoman
Seth Armstead, City Manager
Thomas J. Schwab, Finance Director
Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney
Alicia Chavez, Acting City Clerk
ABSENT: Joe Kicak, Planning Director/City Engineer
The meeting was opened with invocation by Pastor Frank Cawthon, First Baptist
Church of Grand Terrace, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance, led by Councilman
Evans.
ITEMS DELETED FROM THE AGENDA,- 6A, Award of of Contract for Planning
Services; an Item Closed Session.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
Mayor Grant read and presented a Resolution of Acknowledgement to
Mrs. Ruby Andengaard, who retired as Finance Director from the City
of Colton and for her 27 years of outstanding service.
CONSENT CALENDAR
The following items were removed for discussion:
3D - Minutes of 12/4/86; and
3E - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND
TERRACE, CA, AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF THE FY 1986-87
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT CLAIM.
CC-87-04 Motion by Councilman Evans, second by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, ALL
AYES, to approve the following Consent Calendar items:
A. Approve Check Register No. 012287;
B. Ratify 1/22/87 CRA Action;
C. Waive Full Reading of all Resolutions & Ordinances on Agenda;
D. Approval of Council Minutes 12/18/86
F. Authorize Finance Director's attendance to the 1987 California
Society of Municipal Finance Officers Annual Seminar in Fresno,
February 11 - 14, 1987.
APPROVAL OF 12/4/86 MINUTES
Mayor Pro Tem Matteson referenced page 3, paragraph 5: "the importance
to compare certain issues as to number of hours that the in-house
planner would devote" intent was not for in-house planner, but was
for the contract planner.
CC-87-05 Following clarification, Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, second by
Councilwoman Crawford, ALL AYES, to approve the Minutes of December 4,
1986, as amended: "the importance to compare certain issues as to
number of hours that the contract planner would devote to the
planning process and whether or not his facilities would be
located in this building opposed to having elsewhere."
FY 1986-87 TDA CLAIM
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE,
CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF THE FY 1986-87
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT CLAIM.
Councilman Evans questioned whether the resolution was to accept funds
or did it also have attached the projects to which the money will be
applied?
Finance Director Schwab clarified that there is no specific project
to which the money has been tied. The TDA funds are a form of gas tax
and had been budgeted in this year's budget for various road projects
within the gas tax. This is the mechanical process to draw down our
funds.
CC-87-06 Following clarification by Finance Director Schwab, Motion by
Councilman Evans, second by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, ALL AYES, to
approve Resolution No. 87-01, authorizing the submittal of the
FY 1986-87 Transportation Development Act Claim.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Barbara Pfennighausen, 22491 DeBerry, stated she has three questions
that she would like the City Attorney to clarify. (1) At the bottom
of the hill there has been an increasingly heavy density of housing
being developed; questioned the City Attorney whether the construction
of those apartments in that density in that area would satisfy the
mandate that Grand Terrace has to provide affordable housing?
Council Minutes - 1/22/87
Page 2
�1
City Attorney Hopkins stated that he is unable to answer yes or no
because this is up to the State agency and not him; felt would
probably assist in that but, does not feel will totally satisfy.
Ms. Pfennighausen questioned whether during the process prior to the
adoption of our General Plan during the negotiation period with the
State of California, was affordable housing available in the
surrounding communities cited as the reason for us not having to put
in apartments?
City Attorney Hopkins responded that the State never indicated we did
not have to put in affordable housing in the community and doubted if
they would put themselves out on that limb.
Ms. Pfennighausen's second question was: if in the General Plan
update R-3 zoning or the R-3 land use is removed in the areas
previously known as 10, 11 and 12, will it have to be located else-
where in the City?
City Attorney Hopkins responded that under the current law the
State would probably not give their concurrence of the total removal
of multiple -residential family housing within Grand Terrace. If Grand
Terrace were to decide and determine that it should be located some
other place within the community, feels that the State could
probably be convinced of that, but it would be difficult to get the
state's concurrence if we just totally eliminated. Further stated
that there is a piece of legislation which was recently written that a
proposal is currently before the State legislature that would remove
the housing element from the General Plan; if that housing element
were removed it would seem that the State would provide some other
protection because without that there are many communities that woud
just not put in affordable housing.
Ms. Pfennighausen questioned whether that legislation had been
enacted. City Attorney Hopkins responded, No. Ms. Pfennighausen
asked for an explanation of the purpose of a specific plan required by
developers on development that exceeds sixteen units.
City Attorney Hopkins responded that in the General Plan we can
address lower residential or lower density residential problems that
might occur; anything below nine units per acre doesn't require a
Conditional Use Permit. Anything above nine units per acre would
require a Conditional Use Permit and any project in excess of sixteen
units requires a specific plan. The reasoning behind that is the need
to see the plans for a proposed specific development before one can
address the specific problems that might be incurred. For instance,
the Britton project, with ninety-six units and the fact we couldn't
really say what the problems would be until we actually saw the
proposed development; we didn't know what density it would be; we
(- didn't know the type of housing and so forth. There are many problems
you cannot address until you have the actual proposal. That's the
Council Minutes - 1/22/87
Page 3
purpose of the specific plan and why it's named a specific plan so
that you can address the specifics of that particular proposal.
Ms. Pfennighausen stated then it is incumbent that the developer
address the elements in the General Plan as to how the problems will
be mitigated by the developer?
City Attorney Hopkins replied yes.
Councilman Evans addressed the City Attorney with the fact that in the
past he had answered "no they cannot" when asked "can the apartments
at the bottom of the hill be considered in a regional sense for multi-
family as applied in our City?" Now you're saying something different.
City Attorney Hopkins responded that he could not answer that question
with a yes or no; it's up to the State to determine what can be
considered; there are no guidelines in writing on what they will
consider. Further stated he could only give his opinion that he
didn't think they will allow the City to use that as the total
consideration; however, they might use them to mitigate some of the
concerns, which is what I've answered to Mrs. Pfennighausen, but I
can't say yes or no.
Councilman Evans questioned whether the City Attorney was now saying
that now that those projects have been built they might consider
looking at our City in a different prospective.
City Attorney Hopkins responded yes, but didn't feel that they would
totally void the requirement for multiple -family residential; they
might say that will take away some of the present need, but if we have
overbuilt in this area for multiple -family residential for apartments,
condominiums and such, you could make an argument to the State that
you cannot get a developer to come in and build apartments when they
can't be rented or to build condominiums when they can't be sold. If
that can be effectively shown, I would think that the State would
mitigate those requirements. I don't know if that situation exists or
not. That condition did not exist at the time the General Plan was
adopted.
Councilman Evans stated that the other night information was brought
to the people that the apartments down at the bottom of the hill and
maybe as far as a ten -mile radius could be used to be considered in a
possible zone change; the area that has become known as areas 10, 11
and 12, has been a very controversial area in the last two years.
That area is currently zoned for multi -family and it had two projects
approved. What liability would the City face if we now say "you can't
build there with the remaining lands if we rezone it back to R-1?"
City Attorney Hopkins answered that if
City has zoned property for a given use
consistant with our zoning, consistant
Council Minutes - 1/22/87
Page 4
adeveloper can show that the
and they have proposed a use
with our General Plan,
11
consistant with the laws of the City and, if they did show that the
City, however, in view of those consistencies has still declined to
permit development that would have been permitted by those laws within
that area, then I think they have a cause of action against us for
inverse condemnation. We probably will have apartments in that area
and would be misleading to let the citizens think that we can put a
stop to building apartments in areas 10, 11 and 12 by rezoning.
Councilman Evans questioned City Attorney Hopkins whether the Planning
Commission or the Council can deny a project that has written into
their specific plan all the mitigating measures that comply with the
General Plan? We encourage development of twenty units to the acre of
multi -family; if a developer were to bring that before Council at
twenty units to the acre and they meet all the conditions, mitigate
all the problems, can we deny that project? Further questioned if the
developer complies with our General Plan, and the developer at that
time agreed to the 15.75, would we have to have written
documentation to deny that project based on a lower density?
City Attorney Hopkins responded yes; the State law indicates if you
reduce the density that is allowed, you have to make written findings
upon which that reduction of density is based.
Councilman Evans questioned further regarding whether the City ever
produced written documentation for any of the projects that were
brought before any of the bodies to have a lower density other than
the arguments of just the vocal people?
City Attorney Hopkins stated he would prefer not to answer.
Mr. Tony Petta, 11875 Eton Drive, Grand Terrace, stated the State says
that each general area must have affordable apartments for individuals
that cannot afford the maximum going price to have a place to live.
The State does not say that you must have affordable apartments in
this location, if affordable apartments are within a reasonable radius
and, down the hill from this City is a reasonable radius. The State of
California is not going to mandate that the City of Grand Terrace
build more affordable apartments up here since there are hundreds of
vacant apartments jusz down the hill. The General Plan states that
a developer can build apartments in the City up to twenty units, but
it does not mandate that the City accept up to twenty units for a
developer. It does say that a developer can submit up to nine units
and if he meets all of the requirements, then it's a go. However, if
a developer submits a project for more than nine units, then he has to
go before the Planning Commission for a Conditional Use Permit. The
Planning Commission can look at the specific project and if it
determines that this project is over nine units per acre adversely
affects the health, welfare and safety of our people in the
neighborhood, the Commission can reject that project outright; also
can approve the project if the findings are that it does not adversely
affect the health, welfare, and safety of our people. The Council
Council Minutes - 1/22/87
Page 5
modified the Mt. Vernon Villas project to the satisfaction of the
neighborhood, so it would not adversely affect the health, welfare,
safety of our people. The State does not mandate that we accept this
developers project.
Gary Arnold, 111 Pomona, Fullerton, Political National Educator, which is
a monthly newspaper. Stated he was here to discuss the City Attorneys
and Council's responsibility to the public trust; mentioned conflict
of interest and bid procedures. Referenced City Attorney Ivan
Hopkins and whether he is operating independently. Suggested it was
Council's responsibility to look over the City Attorney's contract, to
protect the citizens and City from future law suits and to insist on
biddings so that you do get the best situation for your citizens.
City Attorney Hopkins questioned Mr. Arnold as to whether he was
saying that he had partners and had mislead the Council.
Mr. Arnold answered no; that he came here to let the Council know that
other cities have problems with Councils not being properly informed
by changes in their City Attorney's corporate structure.
City Attorney Hopkins again asked whether Mr. Arnold was indicating
that he had not been honest with Council on his association.
Mr. Arnold again responded with a no.
Sharon Korgan, Community Service Officer, gave an update on the Crime
Prevention Grant objectives listed, what they require and what the
status is at this point. 0
First objective on the Grant was to recruit ten new volunteers; at
present we have seven new volunteers. At his point we need three; I
have satisfied this part of the Grant because five volunteers are
waiting to sign up for the projects that we have going on now.
The second part of the Grant is the Neighborhood Watch Program and it
required twenty-five new groups of Neighborhood Watch Programs and
thirty block captains; to date there are ten new groups and ten block
captains; need fifteen Neighborhood Watch Groups and twenty block
captains. A new volunteer, Tim Lotspeich, wants to start a drug
program with the youth. He brought in two Neighborhood Watch
Programs; will schedule a third one within the next two weeks. Plans
to give us fifteen new Neighborhood Watch groups.
Objective number three is the Senior Citizen Program that requires ten
presentations to four -hundred people. To date four presentations have
been made to 149 people, which leaves us needing six programs and 251
people; Is on their program every month; just by being there will
satisfy the Grant. Anything we do over and above that in programs
would make us exceed the Grant.
Council Minutes - 1/22/87
Page 6
Mayor Pro Tem Matteson asked for total of block captains and how many
are from the old groups?
Ms. korgan answered there are fifty listed but they are not all
active. One of the members has taken the responsibility to motivate
those block captains so that we have regular follow-up meetings. We
will work with Bethlehem House and the first project is on February
14; will have a taping of aprogram entitled "Troubled Family" with
five panelists. The panelists consist of a formerly battered woman, a
former batterer, a deputy who has dealt with domestic violence;
Sister Clair from the shelter itself, and a counselor who's dealt with
domestic violence. The purpose of this program is to get the people
down here to listen to the panel speak and then have a question/answer
period. This program will be taped that day and will be on the air
from 1:00 - 3:30 p.m. on Group W T.V.'s closed circuit. For the other
part; March 26 and 27, again cosponsored by Bethlehem House, we're
going to be doing a two-day seminar (two eight -hour days) with ten to
twelve speakers. Will have a couple of general sessions and then
workshops.
The "B" part of this objective is the follow-up to what we
did last time with our domestic violence brochure and follow-up calls
with people involved in domestic violence. The sexual assault part
requires four presentations to 150 people. I've done one presentation
at a PTA meeting to 100 people, so need three more programs.
The "C" part is date rape; two programs with 500 students on the
junior high level, and will be called a Personal Safety Program.
We're going into the school, spend a whole day and have five
assemblies a day with 100 students per assembly talking team teaching
with Mr. Otis from Terrace Hills Junior High School and one of the
students on personal safety with a part of that on the acquanintance
rape.
The fifth objective is Crime Busters which we wrote into the
Grant this year because we felt it was such a good program.
Requirement is to involve the two elementary schools here with forty
members. We started this last April and have had one meeting with
about fifteen children. Terrace Hills Junior High Student Counsel and
the Student Body President contacted me several months ago and wanted
to participate in some of the projects we had going on in crime
prevention. This is a result of the poster/essay contest.
Objective number six is the School Attendance Review Board. It
requires me to attend once -a -month meetings and become involved in
that program dealing with kids that are at their last point - not
attending school and dealing with their parents. I've attended all
the meetings starting in September and will satisfy the Grant by
attending the meetings. This falls under the diversion program for
delinquent kids; fortunately, our students seem to be pretty good in
the Colton School District, but had two or three that have dealt with
this problem.
Council Minutes - 1/22/87
Page 7
Objective number seven is School Programs; requires six presentations
on personal safety to 1,500 students. To date have done nine
presentations to 1,800 students, we have exceeded the goal and still
scheduling programs. A portion of this includes the poster/essay
contest and we had 285 entries. (Objectives eight and nine do not
apply to this Grant)
Objective number ten was doing rural crime and one of the neighborhood
watchers, which was on a street that came from some of our more rural
areas; talked to them about the I.D. system we have and the marking of
their equipment and handed out brochures; satisfied this objective
with one neighborhood watch program with twenty people in attendance.
Objective eleven, Business Alert, through the Chamber Luncheon made
announcements about business alert, provided them with information,
and had an actual program on check and credit card fraud, so will far
surpass what is required. That concludes the update on the objectives
of the Grant that I'm dealing with; the other activities include
working on bicycle registraton, and a Safety Fair on April 25. A part
of the Safety Fair we will be doing bicycle registration and a
bicycle rodeo at the school; going through the obstacle courses,
teaching them safety tips and checking their bikes. The Safety Fair
portion will consist of service organizations, Sheriff's Department, Fire
Department, Health Department, and the Red Cross. They will also have
vendors such as alarm and lock companies. Also plan to have a karate
demonstration by kids and food booths.
Mayor Pro Tem Matteson stated he had two questions; first, how many
total vounteers do you have working for you? 0
Ms. Korgan answered that there are two that are consistent, there are
seven Crime Prevention Committee members and about ten or fifteen
volunteers that work on specific projects in which they have interest.
I fully expect by June to have about twenty or thirty that would be
consistently active.
Mayor Pro Tem Matteson stated that one the biggest problems most
communities have is drugs and would like to see emphasis put on a
community drug program; feels that should be a number one priority.
Ms. Korgan responded she is governed by the Grant; that nothing is
written in the Grant that actually addresses drugs; the school has a
drug resource person that does drug programs in the schools.
Mayor Grant thanked Ms. Korgan for her very detailed outline of what
all has been and being accomplished in the Grant and felt this is
something we all could have benefitted from in the past and we
delighted she did it this time.
Ed O'Neal, 22608 Minona Drive, commended Sharon Korgan on update of
projects and grant. Referenced the peer pressure in schools and the
Council Minutes - 1/22/87
Page 8
I
11
fact that something is being done with the school and interacting with
others throughout this area. Commended California Department of
Forestry on putting out his garage fire; referenced the
professionalism of Station No. 23 and the support that is available to
the City,; felt City should recognize their excellent work.
Mayor Grant responded that the OF Program in this City has been
excellent; referenced his own experience with serious flooding in his
house about a year ago and the fact they came out and pumped out the
water; has nothing but admiration for this department and the back-up.
Dick Rollins, 22700 DeBerry Street, stated the need for additional
shopping areas in this City; stressed that this Council, City Staff,
Planning Commission and the Chamber need to work this year to do
everything possible to get developers in here to develop land on the
west side of this town. Where we could have a nice shopping center
with a restaurant, a coffee shop and perhaps a hardware store which we
really need. Asked whether Council adopted a negative declaration on
the Environmental Impact Report associated with the General Plan, and
what does the negative declaration imply?
City Attorney Hopkins responded that he couldn't recall whether or not
we had done an Environmental Impact Report on the General Plan. The
California Environmental Quality Act requires that we do an
environmental analysis and make some determination and produce an
environmental document which we did do, but I don't recall whether we
did a negative delcaration or whether we did a full Environmental
Impact Report. The negative declaration says there is no negative
effect to the environment so that you make any negative declaration
that the project would not be detrimental to the environmental after
studying and reviewing all the information available. At one point in
time, the law required that Environmental Impact Reports be prepared
on all General Plan adoptions, and we so did however, subsequent to
to that the law had determined that Environmental Impact Reports are
not required in all General Plan approvals and so negative declarations
are frequently done on them.
Gene McMeans, 12004 Glenwood, Colton, in regards to discussion of
California Department of Forestry, felt the City and citizens should
be aware of another service they offer which is First Aid Classes.
They offer an effective two-day class for approximately seven dollars
which covers the literature and the information you get. Stated they
do an excellent job in this community.
Recessed at 6:48 p.m.; reconvened at 7:04 p.m., with all members present.
Council Minutes - 1/22/87
Page 9
ORAL REPORTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
City Attorney Hopkins stated one issue on the Planning Commission
Agenda was the sign for the Community/Senior Center. Had discussion
on the Planning Director position and what was transpiring. Also
discussed the ITT School which is proposed for California Skate.
Understand they have a lease for the Traveler's Building and discussed
whether or not that's an allowable use and the Planning Commission
asked us to bring that back to them; have discussed that with the
gentleman from ITT and he indicated that he would submit an
application to Mr. Kicak, so will be submitted to the Planning
Commission at their next meeting.
Councilman Evans stated that last year a number of people reviewed
Title 18 and that Mr. Kicak would bring document to the Planning
Commission in the second meeting in Janaury; to my knowledge it didn't
come before the Planning Commission; would like to know the status and
if we're going to see it brought to that body?
City Attorney Hopkins responded that it wasn't brought before the
Planning Commission yet; did not know why, but did talk to Mr. Kicak on
it since I had discussed it with the proponents that are recommended
by the staff for the for planning contract division. If the Council
appoints them, that would be an item on the agenda removed until a
later time; it was indicated that we may look to them to complete that
document, the Title 18 revision. I discussed that with Mr. Kicak and
he indicated he wanted to come up with a draft that they could review,
as well as have input on the old and new; felt that he had a
commitment to complete the draft, that he has it almost completed.
Councilman Evans stated that we need to set a definite date because
the review process is a lengthly process and it's going to be
pertinent to have that document approved so that it would be available
for use.
City Attorney Hopkins responded that he felt it would be completed
within thirty days.
Councilman Evans felt it should be available at the next meeting of
the Planning Commission.
Attorney Hopkins responded that he would convey those wishes.
City Manager Armstead interjected that the General Plan had gone out
to the community and have received only eight as of this date out of
the 3,300 that were mailed. Plan to recommend a planning director on
the twelvth of February and then we can get on with hearings on the
General Plan and recommend we should go to the second planning
Commission meeting in February.
Council Minutes - 1/22/87
Page 10 0
Attorney Hopkins added that there is no proposed amendment to the
General Plan yet and that's one of the reasons for the low response;
would assume if nobody had anything to address that we -'re just seeking
preliminary input before •it's even studied.
PARKS & RECREATION COMMITTEE
Dick Rollins stated minutes of January are in the Council packets;
that Committee.has not been able to get a crew out to finish grouting
the walls on the snack bar; have discussed the fact that might have to
get a contractor to finish the snack bar. We have some money from the
City and the Lion's Club that could be used to complete this project.
The School District is anxious for completion and the Pico Street
parksite is in a catch 22 situation.
Mayor Pro Tem Matteson stated he met with Barney Karger. and was aware
of the problems with the snack bar; felt that Barney Karger had done
an outstanding job and we all owe him some gratitude; felt some of the
requirements for the snack bar were riduculous.
Mr. Rollins answered that the Department of Environmental Health
Services had decided we didn't have to put in a dressing room, but
still stipulating the need for a certain kind of sink: We had a couple
of refrigerators donated, but they would not accept the home -type
refrigerator, they must be commercial refrigerators that would
maintain a temperature of 45-degrees as the door is opened and closed.
This project has become costly.
Mr. Petta commented that the Lion's Club has expressed interest in
wanting to participate in financial aid on the completion of the snack
bar and has already contributed $500. If needed, the Lion's Club would
be willing to continue with the contributions. Possibly the City could
make a commitment whereby the City and the Lion's Club could split the
costs and complete the project for use this summer.
City Manager Armstead stated a need to first find out what the actual
cost is and then address the possibility of splitting the cost.
Mayor Grant stated that Barney Karger could give an accurate estimate;
perhaps at the next meeting we can address this with a specific figure
in mind.
Councilman Evans stated his sentiments
staff needs to find out how the much co
and then determine whether we should go
Mr. Rollins -stated some funds had been
actual dollar figure. Felt Mr. Karger
February with one of the Councilpersons
some costs to complete the project.
Council Minutes - 1/22/87
Page 11
are the same as just given; felt
st will be to complete the project
out for bid to complete the project.
set aside, but did not know the
should attend first meeting in
along with Mr. Anstine to get
Mr. Rollins stated that 40% of the project has been completed. The
biggest problem is the sewer line which we need to trench all the way
from the snack bar to the street and hook up a sewer line. We need to
bring in electricity from the street which means that Edison is going
to have to put up another pole and possibly two poles; use of the
electricity from the existing light poles and flood lights would
overload that system. For water the school district can hook up to
the water supply that is at the baseball diamond, but supply may not
be adequate. This could require additional costs.
Councilman Evans questioned the Finance Director as to whether this
would be a project that could be funded out of the Park Development
Fees?
Finance Director Schwab stated it would be eligible under Park
Development; Council already appropriated in this year's current
budget $5,000 for engineering and construction of the snack bar. The
engineering of the snack bar was donated by Kicak and Associates and
much of the materials, the concrete and some of the block had been
donated and we currently have in the budget appropriated over $4,000
for the construction. Have up to $4,000 available if the decision is
to go ahead and contract, the money is already available.
Mr. Rollins stated he wanted to remind Council that it was his
understanding originally that the Lion's Club did plan to donate
$5,000 so that would help tremendously.
Councilman Evans questioned Mayor Grant if the lease agreement for the
Edison parksite was entered into? What is the status right now?
Mr. Schwab answered that originally when they went out for the
proposals to design a park facility the decision was made that it
would be unavailable to go for state funding with a lease period of
only five years, since the state requires substantial control of the
property before they would assist the City in a grant. They feel that
five years is not sufficient control of the property to allow a grant.
If we lost control of the property in five years, then the structures
that the grant money would build would ultimately be destroyed.
Edison did extend the lease to Marygold Farms for one year so the
City has an option in January, 1988 to take the lease. Marygold Farms
did take on a one-year crop which would allow us the option in
1988, and basically what the City's doing at this point is requesting
two things from the Edison Company. One, is to have Edison give us
a 25-year lease period which would then give us substantial control
and allow us to go before the state and request grant funds for the
project. The other, is the question of whether we could use the water
that exists currently on that site, which is a well owned by Edison.
The discussion that came up was that perhaps with a ten -acre park the
amount of water that we would have to use just to maintain the turf
might make the project non -feasible; so we have one year to try to put
together a project and also to gain substantial control and use of the
Council Minutes - 1/22/87
Page 12
water. At this point there is no signed lease for the City; we have
the option for 1988.
Councilman Evans asked what Edison's position is regarding proposed
facilities to be built.
Mr. Schwab answered that Edison was concerned that the facilities that
were going to be constructed were going to be permanent in nature and
they had some objections to some of the structures that we wanted to
build; they initially had the idea that it was going to be a somewhat
unimproved park with backstops and no permanent structures so they
objected to the plan to develop a full-scale park on their site.
Basically, we're going to look at doing an unimproved park. Just put
in backstops and fencing, but no permanent facilities such as
restrooms or parking. We have notified the landscape architects that
responded to our RFP that at this time we cannot develop that facility
and thank them for their input. We have a year to decide what we will
do.
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
REQUEST OF ONE-TIME APPROVAL TO NAME A STREET IN HONOR OF A
GRAND TERRACE -CITIZEN
Barbara Bayus, President, Chamber of Commerce, stated the Chamber had
requested to have on the agenda a one-time approval to name a street
k after a citizen in Grand Terrace. We've been in communication with
the Historical &Cultural Activities Committee which is the body that
has the jurisdiction of street names. The name was sold at an auction
by the Chamber with permission from the Council for us to coordinate
with the Historical Committee on this and we have a letter from the
Committee aproving this on a one-time basis because of the uniqueness
of this particular situation. The Committee is in agreement to name a
Grand Terrace street "Mike Todd Lane." The letter is signed by Viola
Gratson, the chairperson for the Historical & Cultural Activities
Committee.
Mayor Grant thanked Ms. Bayus and agreed that the Council would
enthusiastically authorize the naming of this street Mike Todd Lane;
stated appreciation and cooperation between the Chamber and the
Committee. As a matter for future policy, we have all accepted that
street names should be of a historical nature.
CC-87-07 Motion by Councilwoman Crawford, second by Mayor Grant, ALL AYES, for
a one-time approval to name a street in honor of a Grand Terrace
citizen and that street is to be named "Mike Todd Lane."
Ms. Bayus stated that the other item from the Chamber is to update
Council on the Chamber's calendar. The regular Board Meeting has been
changed to Monday, February 2, as opposed to Wednesday. The reason
for this is there's a Chamber Institute that will be held in Monterey
Council Minutes - 1/22/87
Page 13
and part of staff and Chamber will be attending. Ms. Bayus invited
the public to attend the ceremonies to dedicate the restored Vivienda
Bridge on Saturday, February 7. On February 11 the Mixer, sponsored
by the Chamber, will be at Pure Design which is a business which has
recently moved to Grand Terrace out of the Colton area. They are
having their grand opening and mixer on Wednesday evening, February
11, at 5:30 - 7:30 p.m. The regular Chamber Luncheon will be on
Friday, February 20, in the City's Community Room at Noon. Debbi's
Travel will be giving a slide program on a cruise that the Chamber is
sponsoring. We wanted to invite the citizens of Grand Terrace and
Councilmembers to participate in the cruise.
Mayor Grant complimented Ms. Bayus on her Committee Report and
suggested the need for some kind of response from each Committee even
if nothing more than to say they didn't do anything; we keep putting
this on the agenda and then have no input.
Mayor Grant stated that we applauded the Fire Department tonight and
feels our Sheriff's Department and Sheriff Tidwell's organization is
as equally fantastic as our Fire Department, and they have proven it
on their investigative techniques. From a layman's point of view,
feels it's second to none on the solving of two major offensives that
have occurred in this town.
Lt. Reynosa thanked the Mayor and will extend that to Captain
Bradford.
Councilman Evans stated he recognized that Mr. Kicak is not present,
but asked if Mr. Kicak could recontact Caltrans to run a study again
to see what their status is on widening the Barton Road freeway
interchange.
City Manager Armstead answered yes. Mayor Grant asked that contact be
made with Wes McDaniel of SANBAG and County Transportation Commission,
since they work very closely with the representative from Caltrans.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
City Attorney Hopkins briefed Council on the Rialto Tire Burning suit
and that he had delivered a copy to the City and a copy to the
Councilmembers circulation file of the complaints and petitions that
were filed in this particular matter. Read in today's newspaper the
Judge declined to issue a temporary restraining order and set hearings
on these two items. There is a meeting tomorrow morning on this and
will be better informed then. The paper accurately quoted and
established the time and date of the hearing in which these matters
will be considered. It was set aside so that the defendants had an
opportunity to review the matters that were alleged which is the fair
way for the court system to give both sides an opportunity to respond.
The requests were ex-parte, meaning one party, rather than both n
Council Minutes - 1/22/87
Page 14
parties and Judge Kruge indicated that he felt the defendants should
have the opportunity to review the material and to respond to it.
Mayor Pro Tem Matteson asked the City Attorney what he thought the
results of the suit would be, since the fault is with the City of
Rialto rather than Garb Oil who acted in good faith.
Attorney Hopkins responded that they would have to do an environmental
impact report before the permit could be issued.
Mayor Pro Tem Matteson questioned the time lapse between the time of
commencement and the suit being filed. A similar operation going in
up North filed a suit and lost because of such a time lapse. Will we
have this problem?
City Attorney Hopkins responded that the permits were issued in 1985,
the negative declaration was issued in 1985, and we have a problem with
that since the statute of limitations has run out. Permits have not
been issued yet, but the permit for the South Coast Air Management
District may have been issued. The findings have never been made and
put in writing and, thus, the conditions never issued, but at best or
worst to us it was issued December 22.
Mayor Pro Tem Matteson asked whether a stopping point could be the
fact that they did not have permission to move that pipeline that has
the right of way through that property. Attorney Hopkins responded
that might be part of the whole issue.
COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilwoman Crawford reported that she attended the League of
California Cities Conference; learned a lot at the conference and the
length of Council meetings. Councilwoman Crawford extended her
apologies to both of the candidates that whe will not be able to
attend the swearing in ceremony due to a meeting she is attending out
of town.
Mayor Pro Tem Matteson stated that a gentleman from the Arco station
had been before Council and the Planning Commission and had placed blame
on the Commission for holding up permits and development of that
project. Since then, the owner has not dedicated the right-of-way to
the City. Felt should be brought up since the Planning Commission had
taken heat and now doesn't seem justified. Also, the bus stop shelter
program that was approved by Council for Grand Terrace will add to our
our City. Colton has their's up and they look great.
Mayor Grant stated for the record represented the City at the LAFCO
meeting yesterday morning.
Council Minutes - 1/22/87
Page 15
Adjourned at 7:59 p.m. to an Adjourned Regular meeting to be held on
ueT sda`y, February 3, 1987 at 7:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
�rl,
APPROVED:
Mayor
Council Minutes - 1/22/87
Page 16