Loading...
10/11/1984CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COUNCIL MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING - OCTOBER 8,1984 An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace was called to order in City Hall Building No. 4, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on October 8, 1984, at 7:35 p.m. PRESENT: Hugh J. Grant, Mayor Jim Rigley, Mayor Pro Tempore Tony Petta, Councilman Roy W. Nix, Councilman Barbara Pfennighausen, Councilwoman Ilene Dughman, Deputy City Clerk ABSENT: Myrna Erway, City Clerk Mayor Grant stated the purpose of the meeting is to review and evaluate the City Manager's work performance. CLOSED SESSION - With concurrence of Council, the meeting adjourned to a ose ession at 7:35 p.m. RECONVENE - The adjourned regular meeting reconvened at 8:36 p.m., with all members present. Mayor Grant stated Council met in Closed Session to review the City Manager's evaluation, and that evaluation has been accomplished. Council will meet in the near future with the City Manager to discuss this evaluation. ADJOURN - The meeting adjourned at 8:36 p.m. The next regular meeting willTie held October 11, 1984, at 5:30 p.m., at the Terrace View Elementary School, 22731 Grand Terrace Road, Grand Terrace, California. Respectfully submitted, D4 2411=�= -/- eputy city C17 APPROVED: ayor Page 1 - 10/8/84 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - OCTOBER 11, 1984 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace was called to order at the Terrace View Elementary School, 22731 Grand Terrace Road, Grand Terrace, California, on October 11, 1984, at 5:56 p.m. PRESENT: Hugh J. Grant, Mayor Jim Rigley, Mayor Pro Tempore Tony Petta, Councilman Roy W. Nix, Councilman Barbara Pfennighausen, Councilwoman Seth Armstead, City Manager Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney Joe Kicak, City Engineer Ilene Dughman, Deputy City Clerk ABSENT: Myrna Erway, City Clerk The meeting was opened with invocation by Reverend Dale Goddard, Inland Christian Center, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance, led by Seth Armstead. ITEM ADDED TO AGENDA - 5.5 - Public Participation. CIVIC CENTER CONSTRUCTION Field Report No. 36 was furnished. John Mathews, 11733 Eton Drive, referencing the deletion of two pay telephones, questioned telephone availability to the public when the library is closed; stated he was advised the library would have limited hours. It was noted a telephone would be available in the community meeting room. Councilwoman Pfennighausen recommended that Council make the decision relative to Field Report Item No. 1, which pertains to curbing along the easterly edge of the easterly driveway; felt it should be publicly discussed. The City Manager advised any expenditure of funds would be brought to Council. PROCLAMATIONS Toastmasters Communications Month - October, 1984 - Mayor Grant read a Proclamation proclaiming the month ot October, 4, as "Toastmasters Communications Month" in the City of Grand Terrace; advised the Proclamation would be given to the Grand Terrace Toastmasters. Id Page 1 - 10/11/84 Traffic Safety Week - October 14-20, 1984 - Mayor Grant read a Proclamation proclaiming the week of 0c o er 14-20, 1984, as Traffic Safety Week in the City of Grand Terrace; advised it will be submitted to the Office of Traffic Safety. MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 27, 1984 The opposing testimony by Byron Matteson on page 8 was questioned, feeling it should indicate he opposed high density, rather than low. The Deputy City Clerk stated she questioned and verified the statement with the tape. CC-84-252 Following discussion, Motion by Councilwoman Pfennighausen, Second by Councilman Petta, ALL AYES, to approve the Minutes of September 27, 1984, amended as follows: (1) Page 1, second paragraph, item 1, Subject: Civic Center Construction, is to reflect that the Building radio antenna is to be relocated onto the Civic Center; (2) Page 5, second paragraph, loth line, Subject: Ordinance No. 81, is to read: ..through 22, 24, 25, 26A (the northwesterly approximate 40 acre portion of the..."; (3) Page 11 - Councilman Nix's report, the following phrase is to be deleted: "which was to find a more cost effective way to deal with the expensive school issues." MINUTES - OCTOBER 2, 1984 CC-84-253 Motion by Councilman Petta, Second by Mayor Grant, ALL AYES, to approve the Minutes of October 2, 1984, as presented. CONSENT CALENDAR Items A and B were removed from the Consent Calendar. CHECK REGISTER NO. 101184 Councilwoman Pfennighausen questioned and received clarification of the cost for park sprinkler replacement on Warrant No. 12562. CC-84-254 Motion by Councilwoman Pfennighausen, Second by Mayor Grant, ALL AYES, to approve Check Register No. 101184, as submitted. RELEASE OF GRADING BONDS - TRACTS 9772 & 9772-2 Councilwoman Pfennighausen questioned Tract locations and the purpose of the Grading Bonds; requested verification that the work has been accomplished as specified and assurance that all corrections have been made; concerned problems will occur similar to those behind Dos Rios. The City Engineer stated his Staff did not perform the actual survey - they have Pad Certification Letters from a registered civil engineer giving final elevation of the pads, which is normal industry practice; he considers less than six inches variance from the approved grading plan to be substantial conformance. Would pursue additional verification by his or another engineering firm; however, felt Council would not want to expend the additional funds. Page 2 - 10/11/84 Councilman Nix felt the record should assure that problems have not resulted from inaccurate certifications. Mr. Kicak stated the City has not received false certification in the past; it is the contractor's engineer who provides the Pad Certification, and false certification would jeopardize his license; advised that the contractor's engineer for this project would not certify pads where elevations were compromised from the approved plan in order to prevent problems, since they did not conform to the original approved plan. CC-84-255 Motion by Councilman Petta, Second by Councilman Nix, ALL AYES, to authorize the release of Bond No. 105774, in the amount of $150,000, securing the completion of grading of Tracts 9772 and 9772-2. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION John Mathews, 11733 Eton Drive, recommended consideration be given to a ward system for Council elections; felt it would provide a more evenly distributed representation and could eliminate disinfranchising of the voters who cast all their votes. For example: Under the present system, a voter can unethically, willfully vote for only one of the two or three candidates allowed, which actually casts two or three votes for that one candidate. City Attorney Hopkins advised a general law city may, by election, choose to elect Council Members by wards. The City Attorney was directed to furnish Council with advantages and disadvantages. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT - The September 11, 1984 Minutes were furnished ounce I. PARKS & RECREATION COMMITTEE The Minutes of September 17, 1984 and October 1, 1984 were furnished Council. Ken Rinderhagen, Committee Member, advised the lower soccer fields were recently flooded by extensive water runoff from adjacent orange groves; Stated the Committee feels it is the responsibility of the owners of the adjacent orange groves to correct the drainage problem; suggested the owner install a permanent dike within the grove, with the water to be turned off when full. The Committee, as outlined in its Committee Report furnished Council, dated October 1, 1984, voted to recommend the City not expend park funds for a proposed project to correct the drainage problem. Councilman Petta recommended Staff approach the property owners to resolve the matter. Councilwoman Pfennighausen felt the situation has to be corrected; commended the individuals in control of the field for the manner in which they handled the situation. Ernie Zampese, 22799 Barton Road, felt the City is at fault for not providing adequate drainage; noted water has been running through that area for years. Page 3 - 10/11/84 Councilman Nix noted prior discussion on this issue; felt the situation will change when the land is developed; recommended Staff determine who has the responsibility and provide a Staff Report. HISTORICAL & CULTURAL ACTIVITIES COMMITTEE The Minutes of September 18, 1984 were provided. Barbara Mathews, Chairperson, reported on the following: (1) Plans for a parade and Country Fair to be held November 3; (2) A Committee Report, furnished Council, dated September 25, 1984, requesting Council authorize subscriptions for the Sun, the Press Enterprise, and the Colton Courier to be delivered to the Secretary's home, at a cost of $168 per year, for collecting articles for the City scrapbook, which will be made available in the new library; (3) Council approval to convene the last meeting in November at 6:15 p.m. in order to have an anniversary potluck dinner to precede the meeting at 5:30 p.m.; (4) Formation of a "Friends of the Library" committee, to be a liaison to the County; the next meeting is scheduled for 7:30 p.m., November 13, at the Terrace View Elementary School auditorium. Councilwoman Pfennighausen questioned the need for three more subscriptions and the possibility of furnishing the Committee with a set of newspapers already subscribed for by the City. Mrs. Mathews advised the Secretary already subscribes to those newspapers; because she is doing this for the City, felt the City should pay for those subscriptions. The City Attorney felt there would be no legal problem. City Manager Armstead stated he would resolve the problem. CRIME PREVENTION COMMITTEE The Minutes of July 16, 1984 and a Committee Report advising and requesting public notification of a change of meeting time to the first and third Monday of each month in the City Hall Building 3 Conference Room were provided. EMERGENCY OPERATIONS COMMITTEE The Minutes of August 30, 1984 were provided. The Community Services Director stated Staff attended a recent meeting with the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department involving the County -wide emergency operations; cities were given the County guidelines regarding establishment of an emergency operations plan, which were furnished the Committee; the Committee is currently working on a City plan. CITY ENGINEER REPORT City Engineer Kicak stated the zone change ordinance regarding Areas 1, 2, and 26B, scheduled for first reading at this meeting, will be on the Agenda for the next meeting. Page 4 - 10/11/84 COUNCIL REPORTS Councilwoman Pfennighausen reported the following: (1) Staff and Council were recently commended for conduct and quality of work compared with other cities; (2) Mrs. Jessie Douglas and her brothers, Lindsay and Edward Lynch, thanked the Council Members for their patience and assistance in resolving their zoning problem; (3) Questioned and was advised of the location of the California Aqueduct pipe in relation to houses in the Griffin project; questioned whether the developer is required to disclose to potential buyers its location in relation to the property. The City Engineer advised its location would be disclosed in the Real Estate Report. Councilman Rigley stated he was shown a plat map which disclosed that information when he viewed those homes. (4) Councilwoman Pfennighausen stated she was advised of a City crew clearing trash from private property in the area of City Center Court and Mt. Vernon; questioned whether the service is available to all property owners. The City Manager noted Council had requested that area be cleaned; employees were directed to clean property on both sides of Mt. Vernon in the Stater Bros. area - was unaware they cleaned private property as well; will counsel personnel to see it does not reoccur; businesses in the Stater Bros. shopping area were also requested to keep dumpsters closed to prevent trash from flying over that area. Councilman Petta recommended Staff investigate the source in order to resolve the problem. Toni Smith, Musso's Delicatessen, 22421 Barton Road, stated there are major problems behind the shopping center - some shocking; cited the area is used for toilet facilities, open sex, bow and arrow range, drug activities, sleeping area for bums; recently a lady gave birth. After having live puppies dumped in their bin, had a lock soldered on, which was cut off; businesses close their bins, but citizens who use them for their own trash do not; people rummage for recyclable items. Ms. Smith stated businesses are concerned; felt the problem is also the City's, and the area should be better patrolled. Mary Schmitgal, 11752 Preston Street, felt City needs more police protection. Ernie Zampese, 22799 Barton Road, objected to the trash coming onto his property from the Stater Bros. complex; felt it is not his responsibility to remove; resented statements relative to the City not picking up trash on private property. Mayor Grant reported the following: (1) Convinced SANBAG the City is entitled to FY84-85 Transportation Development Act funds, resulting in approval of a sidewalk project and two handicap ramps on south Barton Road, in the amount of $22,500; (2) The "Weighted Votes" issue, which invariably disinfrancises 15 San Bernardino County cities, was reapproved for another year by the Omnitrans Board; he and Councilman DeMirjyn of Redlands opposed it. Page 5 - 10/11/84 Recess was called at 7:17 p.m. and reconvened at 7:38 p.m., with all mem e—rs present. ORDINANCE NO. - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAND TERRACE, IFORNIA, APPROVING ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENTS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE OF APRIL 26, 1984. (Second Readina) AREA 10 City Attorney Hopkins read the title of the Ordinance. City Engineer Kicak outlined Areas 10, 11 and 12; stated they are designated as Medium Density Residential on the General Plan, which is defined as R-3 in the zoning ordinance, and up to nine units per acre are permitted through an Architectural Review Committee; the current General Plan allows a maximum of 20 units per acre and requires a Specific Plan, regardless of density, for any project of 16 or more units; it is more restrictive than the previous General Plan, which did not specify maximum density; noted 27 units per acre were allowed in the Terrace Mesa Development. The zoning for Areas 10, 11, and 12 as R-3 will not take density control away from the City; reviewed the processes required for densities over nine unites per acre, as outlined in the Staff Report dated October 4, 1984, Subject: Zone Change Ordinance Areas 10, 11 & 12. Recommended conducting a public hearing, approving second reading of the proposed ordinance by title only, waiving the full reading, and adopting the zone change ordinance by title only. Barney Karger, 11668 Bernardo Way, noting the General Plan Update established density, questioned the City Attorney whether a developer could sue the City and City Council Members if zoning from RR to R-3 is denied; further questioned whether a developer has ever collected in such cases. The City Attorney stated someone can always sue someone else; indicated there probably have been cases of developers collecting. Mayor Grant advised he opposed the first reading of the proposed ordinance, which carried 3-2; concerned problems relating to traffic, school impaction, and crime could result; unless the public hearing input changed his mind, would oppose second reading. Stated the Council has not obligated the City at this point relative to the zone change. Councilman Rigley stated he was adamantly opposed to high density apartments in the middle of the City, and voted against R-3 zoning for the area between Mt. Vernon and Canal Street, because he feels the General Plan designation should be amended for that area. Voiced objection to a flier circulated by Byron Matteson, a City Council candidate, which contained erroneous information about action taken by Council regarding that area, and made false insinuations about him and the City Engineer. Stated Council took no action on the Planning Commission recommendation to zone that area R-3-11, R-3-12, etc., because R-3 zoning must be adopted in order to be in comformance with the adopted General Plan; to do otherwise could result in litigation Page 6' - 10/11/84 against the City; noted that approval of R-3 zoning is not automatic approval of high -density apartments, since any development plan would require separate processing, public hearing, and Planning Commission approval, and any density exceeding nine units per acre would require a conditional use permit. Councilwoman Pfennighausen noted Council unanimously adopted the General Plan Update on April, 1984, in which Councilman Rigley's statements were addressed, as well as State mandated restraints requiring housing be available to various economic levels. Questioned how any Members could understand and support the General Plan Update in April and vote against the zone change in October. Councilman Nix indicated concurrence. Mayor Grant opened the meeting to Public Hearing. Supporting Testimony Barney Karger, 11668 Bernardo Way, felt the Council has no choice but to zone Area 10 as R-3; noted the long process for a developer; felt low income housing in this Area would not be financially advisable; opposes and has no intention to build low income housing in this Area. Felt quality would be controlled by the Planning Commission; therefore, density should not be an issue. Sanford Collins, Planning Commission Chairman, speaking neither for nor against, felt Council has no obligation to change the zoning, noting Mr. Karger had a project in that area for 37 single family units, which is permissable in R-1 zoning; the developer could request an R-2 or an R-1 designation; questioned why these mistakes are not addressed by Council and Staff. Vince Michaels, USA Properties, felt bringing the zoning into conformance with the General Plan needs to be addressed; noted fees charged developers would be applied to enlarging school capacity; advised they commissioned CG Engineering relative to the traffic concern. Dave Barakian, CG Engineering, 2627 South Waterman, San Bernardino, summarized a traffic study prepared by his firm for the area between Canal Street and Mt. Vernon, which is based on accepted traffic engineering standards and principles. Concluded that, although traffic will increase with the development, there will still be a range of free flow. Bob Keeney, 12139 Mt. Vernon, stated the government defines that annual income below $28,000 qualifies individuals for low income housing; felt no one is planning to create a slum. Opposing Testimony Byron Matteson, 12175 Michigan, offered an apology to Councilman Rigley if he offended him; opposed two real estate agents on the Page 7 - 10/11/84 Council; stated the Planning Commission did recommend limitation of units per acre and the City Engineer did not recommend limitations; opposed the zone changes; concerned crime and traffic problems would result; he did urge citizens to be present at this meeting; concern was expressed it would be useless to bring concerns to Council; felt Council is obligated to follow the wishes of the Community; appreciated Mayor Grant and Councilman Rigley opposing the zone changes. Patricia Allen, 11947 Pascal, voiced concerned about traffic and school problems; felt consideration should be given to school impaction in event Proposition 36 passes, which would eliminate developer fees. Steve Kiaz, 11809 Holly, disagreed with statements relative to free flow of traffic; questioned whether consideration was given to the traffic hazard that now exists at Brentwood and Mt. Vernon; felt a traffic light would be required; reminded Council of campaign statements; felt developers will profit and leave the City with traffic, crime, and school problems. Homer Howell, 11821 Mt. Vernon, was not opposed to nine units per acre; opposed to USA Properties' proposed 20 units per acre; questioned how far the red curbing on Mt. Vernon south of Brentwood would be extended if traffic is doubled. Felt the issue is settled; questioned the motive. Sam Zwansig, 22835 Brentwood, questioned amending the General Plan. Richard Gonzales, 11910 Pascal, presented a petition signed by 54 residents opposing the proposed zone change in Area 10, 11, and 12. Stated drainage problems already exist on Canal Street; questioned whether side streets would be added and, if so, who would finance them; questioned ability to acquire access across the Canal and whether consideration has been given to the Edison poles, which would have to be moved. Edna Best, Mt. Vernon and Brentwood, noted they have a red curb in front of their home due to the existing traffic hazard; felt a serious problem exists now where traffic enters Mt. Vernon from Grand Terrace Road and from Canal Street. Wilma Groghan, 11965 Mt. Vernon, disagreed that there is free flowing traffic on Mt. Vernon, citing difficulty in driveway access; noted they don't have an alley for rear access. Tom Glasser, 22032 Tanager, voiced concern for increased crime with the increased density; aware of Council's attempt to raise revenue to provide services and capital improvements; however, felt quality of life for existing residents in that area would diminish. Page 8 - 10/11/84 Vickie Castillo, 11880 Arliss Drive, opposed the density; would not vote for any Council Member in future elections who supports the zone change. Frances Carter, 11938 Arliss Drive, opposed any kind of large development without a further school impaction study and knowing whether developer fees would be available; felt a Council Member should be flexible enough to change his or her vote on an issue and not stick to a decision made six months ago; wanted her children to acquire the education that would afford living in a prosperous community. Frank Ferre, 23174 Westwood Drive, serves on the School Board but not speaking for the Board, requested consideration be given to the Jarvis 4 Initiative impact on schools. John H. Smith, 11809 Mt. Vernon, voiced concern for traffic problems and felt consideration that school bonds would be required resulting from school impaction. Gene LaRochelle, 11948 Vivienda Court, opposed the density; concerned for traffic and school impaction problems. Mayor Grant closed Public Hearing. Recess was called at 9:15 p.m. and reconvened at 9:25 p.m. with all members present. Mayor Grant stated he would vote in opposition to the proposed ordinance. Councilman Petta felt Council is sensitive and responsive to the citizens; stated he supported first reading after listening to public input, feeling he was sensitive and responsive; has heard a lot of public input since and is aware there is great concern; therefore, would not support the Ordinance. Councilman Rigley stated he supported the General Plan Update feeling one of the Areas already had an approved permit to build condominiums with a density of 12 units per acre; felt it would be the same in the other two areas; Council is aware it does not have to approve this ordinance - the developers can apply for a zone change. Would not support the Ordinance. In response to Councilwoman Pfennighausen's question as to whether Council Members could be individually liable for damages if a zone change request was denied which would conform with the General Plan designation, the City Attorney advised Council regarding the possibility of litigation and possible damages or other remedies available. Councilwoman Pfennighausen stated she would not vote on this issue based upon being re-elected in two years; concerned about the concerns Page 9 - 10/11/84 of the whole community and what affect this action could have in the future. Felt it difficult not to be sensitive to everybody's rights, including the developers. Concerned that citizens can't afford to purchase homes in the City and for the State's mandate that homes be affordable to people in all economic standings. Was not certain at that point how she would vote. Councilman Nix noted the General Plan can be amended from time to time. Felt, because many meetings were held, the public heard, and Staff was directed to proceed with the zone change process, approval of the first reading was in order to initiate this public hearing; resented implications relative to personal involvement; felt many misstatements have been made. Development is a reality in the City - Council has control on how; property owners and economy control when. Felt issues have become emotional; noted action being taken, independent of this issue, relative to school impaction; the traffic problem on Mt. Vernon has to be solved regardless of development; noted Council had requested a traffic study of the entire City. CC-84-256 Motion by Councilman Rigley, Second by Mayor Grant, to disapprove the proposed Ordinance regarding a zone change amendment for Area 10. Councilman Nix felt the issue will require individual consideration; therefore, would support the Motion; felt it unfortunate the issues became political; felt there have been misstatements and emotionalism. Motion No. CC-84-256 carried, ALL AYES. ORDINANCE NO. - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND IFORNIA, APPROVING ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENTS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE OF APRIL 26, 1984. (Second Reading) AREA 11 City Attorney Hopkins read the title of the Ordinance. Planning Director Kicak outlined the Area 11. Mayor Grant opened Public Hearing; recommended only testimony be given that would apply specifically to this Area, not covered in Area 10. Supporting Testimony Al Trevino, 1015 Madison Place, Laguna Beach, stated he owns property in this Area which is adjacent to a parcel currently zoned R-3, which he also owns; would like to develop them into one project under R-3 zoning, which he felt would allow better landscaping. Felt there is a housing problem for young people caused by the social change in the last 10 years. David Barakian, 2627 Waterman Avenue, San Bernardino, reviewed various problems and proposed solutions relative to questions asked of him during recess. Nick Khalon, USA Properties, felt Council should not have closed minds because of the election; felt all problems can be resolved. Page 10 - 10/11/84 Opposing Testimony Byron Matteson, 12175 Michigan, stated Area 11 is the largest and their gr-e-Wal-elf concern. Homer Howell, 11821 Mt. Vernon, felt economics and ability to purchase a ome is not the issue. Andy Bromo, Kingston Street, opposed the density; concerned about slums. MarTey Martin, 11939 Pascal, opposes the zone change in Areas 10, 11, an or same reasons given in Area 10 testimonies. Mayor Grant closed Public Hearing. Mayor Grant and Councilman Rigley voiced opposition for same reasons as Area 10. Councilman Petta felt individual zone change requests would be best for the community; felt citizens would be understanding if shown the development would not be detrimental; felt it is his responsibility to listen to the citizens. Councilwoman Pfennighausen voiced concern for affordable rental housing in the City; felt moods will change when developers request individual zone changes after the election. Councilman Nix disagreed that issues for all three Areas are the same; felt Area 12 is definitely a different issue. CC-84-257 Motion by Councilman Rigley, Second by Mayor Grant, ALL AYES, to disapprove the Ordinance relative to the zone change amendment for Area 11. ORDINANCE NO. - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, IFORNIA, APPROVING ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENTS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE OF APRIL 26, 1984. (Second Reading) Area 12 The City Attorney read the title of the Ordinance. Planning Director Kicak outlined Area 12; advised it is presently zoned AP, and the proposed zoning is R-3 to conform with the General Plan Update. Mayor Grant opened Public Hearing. Supporting Testimony Bob Keeney, 12139 Mt. Vernon, stated his approved project has a condition the Area be zoned R-3; objected to including his project with the Areas 10 and 11, feeling the situations are different - developers in Areas 10 and 11 are requesting an increase in density - his request would be down -zoning from AP to R-3, since AP would allow approximately 400 parking spots on the 6.9 acres opposed to his 320; his project would have access onto Barton Road, which would accommodate one-half the traffic, and has an existing access onto Mt. Vernon. Has been two years in the process with nothing resolved. Page 11 - 10/11/84 Opposing Testimony Charley Martin, 11939 Pascal, was not opposed to rentals in that area, opposed to 20 units per acre. Dr. Jack R. Booker, 11785 Mt. Vernon Avenue, not speaking for or against at this time, requested Council seriously consider Area 12 in relationship to Mt. Vernon Avenue. Concerned about traffic and the eight driveways on the east side of Mt. Vernon, particulary those opposite the ingress/egress of Area 12 at the crest of the hill; noted Mt. Vernon hasn't been expanded to its optimum width. The USA Developer's Specific Plan, which he read, addressed Canal Street, not Mt. Vernon. Felt a personal study of Mt. Vernon is necessary in order to provide accurate figures. Rebuttal to Opposing Testimony Bob Keeney felt his project would have less impact than the current zoning. Rebuttal to Supporting Testimony Homer Howell, 11821 Mt. Vernon, favored the steady traffic flow resulting from the current zoning for Area 10, rather than concentrated traffic which would result from R-3 zoning. Mayor Grant closed Public Hearing. Councilman Rigley left the Council Chambers at 11:00 p.m. and returned at 11:03 p.m. Mayor Grant stated he understands Mr. Keeney's concerns; however, still has traffic concerns. Councilman Nix stated he will take a different position relative to Area 12, feeling the situation is different, since it is closer to the center of the City and is currently zoned AP with high density development. Commended Dr. Booker for his analysis; however, felt the statement that the access is at the crest of the hill was in error. Mayor Grant opened the meeting to public participation. Bob Keeney, responding to a question regarding the Barton Road access, stated it is a private street completely enclosed within the project, with a condition requiring dividers to delineate the parking lot from that street - the City did not want it dedicated; indicated he would upgrade to City standards for dedication if desired; felt the width is adequate for two lanes with no parking. Dr. Booker stated that unless that road was widened to make it a public thoroughfare, opposed the R-3 zoning. Mayor Grant closed the meeting to public participation. Page 12 - 10/11/84 Motion by Councilman Nix, Second by Councilwoman Pfennighausen, to approve the Ordinance amending the zone change for Area 12 by title only, waiving full reading in its entirety, with the requirement that the access road width to Barton Road be to the maximum legal limit of the easement to City street standards. Councilman Rigley felt, if this Motion carries, Council will have disapproved the zone change for two other Areas and approved another, all planned for 20 units per acre; approving this Ordinance would give one developer a free zone change, which was denied the others; felt Council has no foundation to make the exception and problems will result; wanted the record to show, if the zone change is approved, he felt Council betrayed the confidence of the people who left the meeting. Mayor Grant indicated concurrence. Councilman Rigley felt density and crime should also be addressed, since they were the concerns addressed in Areas 10 and 11. Councilwoman Pfennighausen felt the ingress/egress from Barton Road presents a totally different situation, since it does not impact Mt. Vernon and Canal. Councilman Nix noted the other two specific proposals for 20 units per acre have not been turned down - Council has stated those two Areas will be considered on an individual basis; felt the issues are not the same and it should be clarified this project has two accesses onto two different thoroughfares. Mayor Grant felt whatever impacts Barton Road impacts Mt. Vernon. City Attorney Hopkin read the Ordinance in its entirety. Councilman Petta stated he would not support the Ordinance, although he favors this project, because of his concern that it would imply favoritism and the setting of double standards. The Motion failed, 2-3, with Mayor Grant and Councilmen Rigley and Petta voting NOE. PALM AVENUE REALIGNMENT - EASTERLY OF BARTON ROAD CC-84-258 Motion by Councilman Nix, Second by Councilwoman Pfennighausen, ALL AYES, to defer this item to the next meeting. SIGN CODE AMENDMENT Community Services Director Anstine advised the Staff Report, Subject: Amendment to the City Sign Code, outlines recommendations resulting from meetings of an adhoc committee formed with representatives of the Chamber, the City, and the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission, at its October 1 meeting, restated its endorsement of those recommendations, which were provided for Council consideration. Page 13 - 10/11/84 Mayor Grant opened the meeting for public participation. David Terbest, 22365 Barton Road, representing the Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, felt problems of communication exist between the City, the Chamber, and the hearing process within the City's organization. Questioned why the results of the Sign Ordinance Adhoc Committee never made it back to the City Council or the Chamber Board of Directors. The Chamber is requesting a stay on all sign violation citations for 90 days; requested not to have this matter returned to the Planning Commission, but to have public hearings before the City Council, with businesses to participate. The Chamber has serious concerns regarding the Planning Commission and requests Council consider providing them with an educational program feeling their conduct at the last meeting was very unprofessional,and invoked the rath of the business community. Mr. Terbest, relative to the Chamber Newsletter, stated the Chamber feels candidate statements should be published in the Newsletter; requested Council support in allowing them to be printed in a non -political and informational manner. Toni Smith, 22421 Barton Road, stated she totally endorses what the Chamber is doing; felt some of the sign code requirements are not in the best interests of the business community; other business are also concerned; requested Council review the sign regulations and listen to the input of businesses. Larry Halstead, 22675 Barton Road, stated he served on the Adhoc Committee; the sign ordinance was reviewed very thoroughly; the recommendations in the Staff Report is only a summary prepared by Bob Yeates; questioned what happened to the complete information and what brought about the reaction at the last Planning Commission meeting. Gene Carlstrum, 22456 Barton Road, a businessman, advised he received a notice that his sign was in violation; understood the older signs that are maintained and not detrimental to the community would be allowed to remain; felt those signs should be required to conform only if the business is upgraded. Mayor Grant closed the meeting to public participation. Mayor Grant questioned whether the Staff Report recommendations are those of the Chamber or the Planning Commission. Noted there was controvery regarding the adoption of the sign ordinance initially; felt some changes are justified; agreed with what the Chamber is advocating. Councilman Petta removed himself from participation in this matter due to a possible conflict of interest. Councilman Nix stated he attended the last Planning Commission meeting, at which the Planning Commission questioned why this matter was returned to them, stating they informed Staff of their position Page 14 - 10/11/84 four months ago; objected to the length of time taken to present a report on this critical issue. Felt the letter sent by Staff to the businesses regarding sign violations created hostility; objected to the Planning Commission Chairman's conduct at that meeting, which irritated the business community, and should not be ignored. Felt the Chamber's recommendation is outstanding. The City Attorney, responding to whether the five-year deadline can be extended, stated it would require a Planning Commission public hearing prior to Council amending the Ordinance. Council can instruct Staff not to issue any citations for existing signs for a specific period of time pending the outcome. CC-84-259 Motion by Councilman Rigley, Second by Councilman Nix, that Staff hold in abeyance any citations until an amended zoning ordinance can be enforced. Following discussion, the Motion was amended, with concurrence of its Second, that the period of time for abeyance be 90 days. It was clarified that the Motion relates to nonconforming signs. Motion No. CC-84-259 carried, 4-0, with Councilman Petta abstaining. FINAL APPROVAL OF TRACTS 9773, 9773-1 & 9773-2 City Engineer Kicak outlined the location of Tracts 9773, 9773-1, and 9773-2; advised the three Tracts contain a total of 68 lots; all of the conditions of approval have been complied with through submittal of bonds and agreements; advised the Bonds and amounts are as listed in the Staff Report dated October 11, 1984, Subject: Final Approval of Tracts 9773, 9773-1 and 9773-2, which was furnished to Council. Staff recommends that Council accept all of the Bonds for the improvements, approve and authorize the Mayor to sign the agreements for all the improvements, and approve Final Tract Maps 9773-1, 9773-2, and 9773. Councilwoman Pfennighausen questioned the revisions to pad elevations and road grades in Tract 9773 referenced in the Planning Commission September 10, 1984 Minutes. City Engineer Kicak advised the 12% gradings established by the Department of Forestry were exceeded by 1/2% and some of the pads exceeded the elevations on the Tentative Tract Map; the Department of Forestry was consulted and had no objections to the variances; the revisions were then taken to the Planning Commission for approval. Bill Snell, Ultra Engineering, Colton, stated the lots adjacent to the existing Tract are within a foot of the Tentative Map grades; the reason for major changes in pad elevations was because of the steepness. CC-84-260 Motion by Councilwoman Pfennighausen, Second by Councilman Petta, ALL AYES, to accept the following improvement Bonds, approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the Street & Storm Drain, Sanitary Sewer, Landscaping, and Water System agreements, and approve the Final Tract Maps for Tracts 9773, 9773-1, and 9773-2: Page 15 - 10/11/84 Grading Permit Bonds, Tracts 9773, 9773-1 & 9773-2 No. 908242S $150,000.00 Tract 9773-1 Bonds Street/Storm Drain - Performance Bond No. 908246A 135,000.00 Street/Storm Drain - Labor & Material Bond No. 908246S 67,500.00 Sewer - Performance Bond No. 908245S 25,000.00 Sewer - Labor & Material Bond No. 908245S 12,500.00 Landscape - Performance Bond No. 908244S 27,000.00 Landscape - Labor & Material Bond No. 908244S 13,500.00 Water - Performance Bond No. 908247S 62,000.00 Water - Labor & Material Bond No. 908247S 31,000.00 Tract 9773-2 Bonds Street/Storm Drain - Performance Bond No. 908283S $111,000.00 Street/Storm Drain - Labor & Material Bond No. 908283S 55,500.00 Sewer - Performance Bond No. 908284S 13,000.00 Sewer - Labor & Material Bond No. 908284S 6,500.00 Landscape - Performance Bond No. 908282S 62,000.00 Landscape - Labor & Material Bond No. 908282S 31,000.00 Water - Performance Bond No. 908465S 22,000.00 Water - Labor & Material Bond No. 908465S 11,000.00 Tract 9773 Bonds Street/Storm Drain - Performance Bond No. 908250S $ 88,000.00 Street/Storm Drain - Labor & Material Bond No. 908250S 44,000.00 Sewer - Performance Bond No. 908248S 20,000.00 Sewer - Labor & Material Bond No. 908249S 10,000.00 Landscape - Performance Bond No. 908249S 52,000.00 Landscape - Labor & Material Bond No. 908249S 26,000.00 Water - Performance Bond No. 908466S 23,000.00 Water - Labor & Material Bond No. 908466S 11,500.00 Monument Bonds Tract 9773-1 $ 4,800.00 Tract 9773-2 No. 098360S 4,000.00 Tract 9773 4,000.00 CITY ATTORNEY REPORT The City Attorney advised an employee of Maveric Construction, who was injured on the Civic Center construction site, filed a claim against the City, which could result in litigation; he is precluded from filing a claim against the contractor because of the Workmen's Compensation laws. Maveric Construction has filed for additional payment relative to the earth -moving operations. Page 16 - 10/11/84 El� ADJOURN - the regular meeting adjourned at 12:25 a.m. to an adjourned regular meeting to be held October 18, 1984, at 7:30 p.m., in City Hall Building No. 4, 22795 Barton Road, pertaining to a personnel evaluation of the City Manager. Respectfully submitted, APPROVED: ayor 1BY1111/84