Loading...
10/14/1982CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - OCTOBER 14, 1982 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 14, 1982, at 6:53 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 Myrna Erway, City Clerk ABSENT: None The meeting was opened with invocation by Pastor John DuNesme, Azure Hills Seventh Day Adventist Church, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance, led by Councilman Ri gl ey. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 14, 1982 CC-82-259 Motion by Councilman Nix, Second by Councilwoman Pfennighausen, ALL AYES, to approve the Minutes of September 23, 1982, as presented. CONSENT CALENDAR The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar: 3A - Check Register No. 101482; 3G - Confirmation of CRA Action for contract award of window installation at the Community Center. CC-82-260 Motion by Councilman Petta, Second by Councilman Nix, ALL AYES, to approve the following items on the Consent Calendar: 3B - RESOLUTION NO. 82-42 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS UNDER THE ROBERTI-Z-BERG URBAN OPEN -SPACE AND RECREATION PROGRAM FOR INSTALLATION OF SHELTER AND BICYCLE RACKS. 3C - $300,000 Loan to CRA for FY 1982-83; Pa e 1 10?14/82 3D - Final Parcel Map 6462, located s/o Barton Road and e/o Mt. Vernon on Center City Court; 3E - Accept Grant Deed of Easement from Dr. Gregory for Barton Road Widening and Authorize Recordation by City Clerk; 3F - Distribution of RFP's for Data Processing Services; 3H - RESOLUTION NO. 82-43 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, OPPOSING THE WATER RESOURCES INITIATIVE, PROPOSITION 13 ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT; 3I - Warrant No. 10461 for $865.00 to Colton Joint Unified School District. CHECK REGISTER NO. 101482 CC-82-261 Following clarification of Warrant No. 10548, Motion by Councilwoman Pfennighausen, Second by Councilman Rigley, ALL AYES, to approve Check Register No. 101482. CONTRACT AWARD - COMMUNITY CENTER WINDOW INSTALLATION CC-82-262 Motion by Councilman Rigley, Second by Councilwoman Pfennighausen, ALL AYES, to confirm the CRA action to award a contract in the amount of $4,891.66 to Norris Barnes for the installation of thermopane windows at the Community Center. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS Mayor Grant read and presented proclamations designating the following: (1) October as "Toastmasters Communications Month" to Mary Hahn, Area F-3 Governor; (2) October 15 as "White Cane Safety Day" to Councilman Petta of the Lions Club; (3) November as "Veterans Call to Unity Month;" (4) October 25-29 as "Safe Schools Week." PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Denis Kidd, 22874 Pico Street, requested postponement of his protest on the location of the motocross, since the Parks and Recreation Committee had requested a meeting with him in an effort to resolve the matter. Page 2 10/14/82 fl Page 3 10/14/82 John Lotspeich, 22680 Tanager Street, stated a discussion had been held with Mr. Kidd, Mr. Zampese, and Tim Engles regarding the motocross; feels it can be resolved at the Committee level. Dorman Campbell, a teacher at Terrace Hills Junior High School, stated the students had requested he represent them at this meeting to let Council know that the students want and need a place other than the streets to ride their bicycles in the community. The Mayor recommended that Mr. Campbell, the students, and Mr. Kidd meet with the Parks and Recreation Committee regarding this matter. PORTABLE LIGHTING - BASKETBALL COURTS Mike Dean, 12524 Reed Avenue, stated the City -sponsored recreational basketball league is operating jointly with Colton, with 100-150 youths participating. The teams practice in the City, play their games in Colton, and have requested a portable lighting system be installed at the Terrace Hills Junior High School outdoor basketball courts in order to practice. Stated Barbara Poling, Principal of Terrace Hills Junior High School, has requested a letter from the City Council indicating support of the proposal. The funds for the lighting will be paid by a fund-raising program by the participants. The City Manager recommended that this matter be coordinated with Mr. Jacobsen, Superintendent of the Colton Joint Unified School District. Council authorized the Community this matter with Mrs. Poling and City's support. ORDINANCE NO. (First Reading) Services Director to coordinate to provide a letter showing the AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, RELATING TO EXCAVATIONS IN CITY STREETS AND PUBLIC PLACES. Mayor Grant opened Public Hearing on the matter. Supporting Testimony: None. Opposing Testimony: Ray Sharp, Southern California Gas Company District Manager, stated he does not oppose the Ordinance, but feels it covers certain areas already addressed in the franchise. Pointed out areas of duplication, including the fact that the franchise states that the Gas Company will assume responsibility for cost and repair of any damage; therefore, opposes requirement to post bond, feeling the franchise tax paid to the City could serve as the bond. Has never received complaints regarding these matters. Joe Falkner, Area Manager for Southern California Edison Company, stated is not in opposition to the Ordinance; however, since Southern California Edison also has a franchise agreement with the City which states they will repair any damage, are responsible for the cost, and will relocate any facilities within the franchise area, opposed to requiring a bond for the franchise utility companies. Has received no complaints from City Staff regarding problems, and feels any problems have been resolved in a reasonable amount of time. Ray Gunther, representing Pacific Telephone, stated his Company is not in opposition to the Ordinance other than the section which requires a cash deposit or bond. The Company has not experienced problems that have not been able to be resolved. Other cities he represents in Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties do not require posting bonds or deposits, and would be very costly to do so. Requested exemption from the deposit. David Jones, representing Group W Cable TV, stated they are not a utility company, but are franchised by the City; stated his firm would be neutral. Mayor Grant closed Public Hearing on the matter. Mayor Grant expressed support of adopting the second reading of the Ordinance requiring a deposit from all companies, to be held 24 months, stating the Ordinance is designed to protect the streets in the community. Councilman Nix questioned whether a deposit would expedite repairs or be a bigger paper burden, since a reasonable time period would be required to allow the permittees to make repairs, even with a bond. Questioned adding paper work unless it serves a useful purpose. The City Engineer stated several meetings have been held with utility companies, and they have indicated that if the proper person is called at the utility company, they will be certain any problems are taken care of without a need for a deposit. The City Attorney read the title of the Ordinance. CC-82-263A Motion by Councilman Petta, Second by Councilwoman Pfennighausen, to approve first reading of the Ordinance exempting the franchise utility companies from the $500 deposit requirement. Councilman Petta clarified that should problems arise as a result of the franchise companies, the Ordinance could be amended to include them. Councilman Rigley felt it would be inequitable to exempt the three utility companies without also including Riverside Highland Water Company in the exemption. Page 4 10/14/82 F1 The City Attorney stated that he felt the Ordinance serves a purpose and has been uncontested, except the $500 deposit. Stated other firms other than the utility companies make street cuts within the City, and if all utility companies were exempted entirely, it would still regulate and control cutting of the City streets by other firms. The City Manager stated the purpose of the Ordinance is not to be punitive, but to ensure that the City streets are brought back into proper order, will be inspected by the City Engineer and lets the City know when people are making cuts in the streets. CC-82-263B Motion by Councilman Rigley, Second by Councilman Nix, to amend Motion No. CC-82-263A to amend the Ordinance to exempt all public service companies from the $500 deposit. Mayor Grant voiced opposition to exempting anyone from paying the fee, feeling no justification had been shown for the double standard. Amendment No. CC-82-263B carried 3-2, with Mayor Grant and Councilman Petta voting NOE. The Amended Motion No. CC-82-263A carried 4-1, with Mayor Grant voting NOE. ORDINANCE NO. 63 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, PROHIBITING PARKING FOR THE PURPOSE OF STREET SWEEPING. The City Attorney read the title of the Ordinance. The Administrative Assistant stated a meeting was held with Judge Kennedy of San Bernardino County Municipal Court, which revealed that the vehicle code had been amended in 1981 to allow signs to be placed only at the entrances of controlled areas, rather than every 300 feet. Judges have indicated they could give no opinion on this Ordinance until contested in Court. The City Attorney confirmed that purchase of the signs can be accomplished by sole source. Mayor Grant opened Public Hearing on the matter. Supporting Testimony: None. Opposing Testimony: Chester Easter, 21963 Tanager Street, opposed the present sweeping, stating most cities have streets swept 12:00-6:00 a.m. Requested considering changing to a more appropriate time. An individual living on 22312 Franklin questioned the cost to place signs. Page 5 10/14/82 Mayor Grant closed Public Hearing on the matter. In discussion, Council concurred with the present hours of street sweeping, feeling there are less vehicles on the residential streets during those hours. Felt the Ordinance is necessary due to complaints received, and feels if City funds are going to be spent for sweeping, steps should be taken to ensure that the streets are clear of vehicles. CC-82-264 Motion by Councilman Nix, Second by Councilman Rigley, ALL AYES, to adopt Ordinance No. 63 by title only. RESOLUTION NO. 82-44 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING FEES PAYABLE FOR ACQUISITION OF SEWER CAPACITY. The City Engineer stated that an interim resolution increasing the fees had been adopted at the previous meeting. Staff had been directed to submit data regarding the total revenues generated, the population, based on the current General Plan, and the maximum possible density total flow which may be generated. Staff is still compiling this data, which will be presented to Council within the next two meetings. Recommended adoption of the Resolution with the stipulation that no funds would be transmitted to Colton until all issues have been resolved satisfactorily. Mayor Grant questioned if the management of the City of Colton is aware of the stated recommendation. The City Manager confirmed they are aware, and that this matter will be discussed with the Colton City Manager following this meeting. Mayor Grant opened Public Hearing on the matter. There being no testimony either for or against the matter, the Mayor closed Public Hearing. The Mayor indicated support of the Resolution, with the clarifica- tion received from the City Manager that the City of Colton is aware of this proposal. Councilman Nix stated he feels this proposed action will provide incentive to resolve the accounting situation regarding plant expansion. Councilman Petta questioned why the funds could not be held in the City's account indefinitely until needed for plant expansion. It was clarified that the Court Agreement states that the City is to transmit funds to the City of Colton. CC-82-265 Motion by Councilman Rigley, Second by Councilman Nix, ALL AYES, to adopt Resolution No. 82-44 with the stipulation that the funds are not to be transmitted to the City of Colton until all matters have been satisfactorily resolved. 0 Pa e 6 10�14/82 r i L-- COMMISSION & COMMITTEE REPORTS PLANNING COMMISSION LANDSCAPING OF TRIANGLE AT BARTON RD. AND PALM AVE. The Planning Director submitted a schematic plan for the landscaping of the triangle at Barton Rd. and Palm Ave.; stated the Planning Commission had approved this plan on October 4, and recommended approval. It was questioned and confirmed that water and electricity will be provided to that area. Establishment of a City monument sign is planned. CC-82-266 Motion by Councilwoman Pfennighausen, Second by Councilman Petta, ALL AYES, to approve the schematic plan for landscaping the triangle at Barton Rd. and Palm Ave. and to direct Staff to provide Council with plans, specifications, and cost estimates. Pae7 10�14/82 PARKS & RECREATION COMMITTEE Dick Rollins, Chairman, reported the following: (1) Stated the next meeting is October 18, at which time they plan to meet with Mr. Kidd and the Water Company regarding the motocross; (2) Requested that Staff investigate the possibility of installing a public telephone at the park site, feeling it is needed for emergency purposes; (3) Stated the park is getting excellent use with very few problems and disturbances since the park has been closed at night; (4) Encouraged participation in the "Train Don't Strain" Run to be held on October 31, sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce. CRIME PREVENTION COMMITTEE Chairperson Judy Rinderhagen reported the following: (1) Stated the Committee met on October 11; (2) Will be asking the PTA groups to help with the Block Parent Program, due to lack of manpower; (3) Two large bank programs are planned - the first will be October 17 at Valley Bank, with another scheduled for November. This will concern all financial institutions in the area; (4) The Committee has questions regarding the fire alarm and burglary alarm systems; and (5) Will be submitting a report on the General Electric Lighting Seminar recently attended. Recess was called at 8:57 p.m. and reconvened at 9:12 p.m., with all members present. EMPLOYEE SALARY & FRINGE BENEFIT ADJUSTMENTS The City Manager advised that an analysis survey had been conducted of surrounding cities and other contract cities, reflecting that all but one of employee position are below parity, and that the employees' salaries are 11% below those of the contract cities and 21% below the average salaries for the local surrounding cities. Referenced Staff Report dated October 6, Subject: Salary and Fringe Benefit Adjustment. Stated he feels it is important to keep the salaries on a competitive level with the surrounding job market, since hiring and training new personnel is very costly. Stated the City has a small staff which has not increased in size for two years, in which all Staff members perform multiple duties, including City and CRA business. Stated Staff is requesting a 13.5% salary increase, a 5% fringe benefit increase, and two floating holidays per year. Councilman Rigley stated he believes the salary ranges have been established, and should be examined periodically for increases/decreases. Voiced opposition to conducting surveys every year and giving across-the-board increases. Believes employees should get cost -of -living increase, but not based on annual surveys. Felt a fair cost -of -living increase would be 8%. If particular positions are underpaid, should be handled separately by the City Manager and presented for consideration. Questioned the increases given last year; felt Council should have been provided with that information; felt CRA functions do not necessitate additional work. Councilman Nix felt the salary ranges should remain competitive and should be reviewed at some reasonable frequency. Cost -of -living statistics reflect 5.1% or 5.5%, rather than 8%. Voiced concern over the misrepresentation of the proposed fringe benefits, feeling that increase is 18%, rather than 5%. Felt a realistic cost of living factor is approximately 5%. Opposed to the governmental system of step increases. Would prefer to consider cost -of -living increases and having the individual positions evaluated on performance for consideration of merit increases. Recommended, with Councilman Rigley concurring, a 7-7.5% adjustment for cost -of - living, with the fringe benefit to be considered separately. Felt the present 28% for fringe benefits is below the national average. Councilman Petta stated there is a difference in the intensity of the work of individuals. Many cities allow employees to work at a relaxed pace. Stated our employees do a variety of jobs willingly and gladly, at an intense pace, due to the workload. Recommended 10% salary increase and 4% fringe benefit increase. Councilwoman Pfennighausen stated she feels the City is extremely fortunate to have the quality of employees who produce no matter how heavy the workload. Voiced opposition to survey comparisons. Observed that in a city of this size, and with limited staff, there is a limitation on employees to progress into better jobs. Felt Staff does a good job, and the pay should be raised to some standard at this time. Mayor Grant concurred with Staff's work output and the lack of opportunity for upward mobility. Supported conducting surveys. Stated even though this is a small city, the same proportion of work exists, with less personnel. Voiced preference for evaluating Page 8 10/14/82 positions individually, versus considering across-the-board increases. CC-82-267 Motion by Councilman Rigley, Second by Councilman Nix, to adopt Resolution No. 82-45 for an an across-the-board cost -of -living increase of 7.5%, effective October 1. Mayor Grant, with Councilman Petta concurring, recommended an effective date of October 1 for a 13.5% increase; but if increase is to be 7.5%, recommended a July 1 effective date. Feels consideration should have been given position by position. CC-82-267B Motion by Councilman Petta, Second by Mayor Grant, to amend Motion No. CC-82-267A that the 7.5% cost -of -living increase become effective July 1. Councilman Nix voiced concurrence, since Council was aware a salary increase would be requested; recommended in the future that action be taken at the time the budget is being considered, rather than making the salaries retroactive. The amendment Motion No. CC-82-267B carried 4-1, with Councilman Rigley voting NOE. Motion No. CC-82-267A, as amended, carried ALL AYES. Fringe Benefits f Councilman Nix stated that since the fringe benefit is based on the base salary, feels the fringe now reflects a 7.5% increase. Felt appropriate to adjust the fringe higher than the salary, due to insurance costs. Recommended adding 2% to the fringe, from 28% to 30%. Councilman Petta disagreed with the rationale, and debated the terminology of the issue of the percentage of increase. CC-82-268 Motion by Councilman Rigley, Second by Councilman Nix, to adopt Resolution No. 82-46 to increase the fringe benefit by 2.5%, which would make a total fringe benefit program of 30.5%, retroactive to July 1. Motion by Councilman Petta to amend Motion No. 268 to increase the fringe benefit to 5%. The Motion was ruled out of order, since it would totally change the intent of the original Motion. Mayor Grant and Councilman Petta stated they would not support the Motion as presented. Councilman Nix stated 5% is unreasonable, feeling it is a compounding increase. Motion No. CC-82-268 carried 3-2, with AYE votes by Councilmembers Rigley, Nix, and Pfennighausen and NOE votes by Mayor Grant and Councilman Petta. Page 9 10/14/82 NEIGHBORHOOD BOX UNITS The Planning Director stated that the Planning Commission discussed this concept for some length of time and reluctantly approved. Pacesetter Homes approved the concept and understands that Griffin Homes has also approved. Council voiced opposition to this concept, feeling more efficient service is needed, rather than decreasing service, and felt it would not be appropriate to consider unless the postal rates would decrease significantly. Voiced opposition to delivery of junk mail; stated the City already has direct door delivery and curbside delivery, and this would make three types of mail service within a small city; felt mail is a private matter, and homeowners deserve the right of mail delivery direct to the home. Mr. Jim Gay, Superintendent of the Colton Post Office, stated these units have been proposed for new developments within cities. Stated direct delivery costs $84 per year per house, and this would cut the costs by 50%. would help the postal department give more efficient service and would keep rates from increasing. Police departments support the concept, since it reduces thievery and these units would come under the jurisdiction of the postal inspector, whereas individual mail boxes do not. These units are more attractive than curbside mailboxes, and would present a more pleasing and uniform appearance. The Post Office furnishes and maintains them, and parcels can be delivered to them. Mr. Don Kennedy, Area Representative, San Bernardino Post Office, distributed pictures of the units; stated no reduction in postal rates would be realized, but would keep rates from increasing. Stated easements are required to install the units. Council questioned what consideration would be given to shut-ins and the handicapped; how this would affect new commercial construction; how the mail would be handled when individuals go on vacation, should the mailboxes become too full of mail; why mail delivery had been refused to Valley Bank, and why an individual who had changed his mailbox from curbside to the house had been refused delivery, even though the surrounding neighbors are receiving delivery to their houses. Mr. Gay stated the shut-ins and handicapped must already have assistance, so feels the change would have no affect; should individual mailboxes become too full, the postman would tie the mail in a bundle and return it to the post office; stated the Valley Bank Manager has not contacted him directly, and should do so to resolve the matter; and stated the rules and regulations are made in Washington, and he has no authority to change them. Motion by Councilman Rigley, Second by Councilman Nix, to disapprove the policy that in new developments the maps reflect the new postal delivery system and to approve writing a letter to the Colton Post Office approving placing neighborhood delivery and collection box Page 10 10/14/82 units between lots 18 and 19 and between lots 32 and 33, Tract 9919, and lots 10 and 11, Tract 9772-1. Council requested clarification regarding disapproving the policy in new developments that the maps reflect the new postal delivery system. The Planning Director stated the Postal Department has requested the addition of a condition on map approvals that the NBU's be installed, and to approve their placement in the Pacesetter Homes subidivision, since they have already agreed to the installation. Mayor Grant voiced opposition to approving the neighborhood box units for the Pacesetter Development, which would mean that any individuals who move into that development would be required to use them; felt citizens should be protected, not the developer. The Motion was withdrawn, with concurrence of Councilmen Rigley and Nix. CC-82-269 Motion by Councilman Rigley, Second by Councilman Nix, ALL AYES, to disapprove the policy that, in new developments, the maps reflect the new postal delivery system. CC-82-270 Motion by Councilman Rigley, Second by Councilwoman Pfennighausen, to authorize a letter to be written to the Colton Post Office approving placing neighborhood delivery and collection box units between lots 18 and 19 and lots 32 and 33, Tract 9919; and lots 10 and 11, Tract 9772-1. The Motion carried 3-2, with Mayor Grant and Councilman Petta voting NOE. ORDINANCE NO. (First Reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, REZONING AREA SOUTHERLY OF BARTON ROAD, WEST OF MICHIGAN, NORTH OF PICO, AND EASTERLY OF THE I-215 FREEWAY FROM C2 TO C2(CPD) (ZC NO. 82-04) The City Manager read the title of the Ordinance. The Planning Director stated that discussions with the City Attorney revealed the language in this matter should reflect development in any increment, rather than 30-acre increments. Stated the Planning Commission, after public hearings, recommended approval of the CPD overlay. Referenced the Staff Report dated October 6, 1982, Subject: Zone Change 82-04 - CPD Overlay, which reflects the advantages; recommended Council make a Motion to direct the Planning Commission to consider amending the Zone Ordinance to reflect the deletion of the 30-acre increment criteria, which would then be returned to Council for final action. CC-82-271 Motion by Councilwoman Pfennighausen, Second by Councilman Rigley, to direct the Planning Commission to consider an amendment to the CPD overlay to delete the 30-acre minimum requirement. Page 11 10/14/82 It was clarified that this will be an amendment to the Zone Ordinance, and does not affect the zone change. Councilman Petta declared a potential conflict of interest on this matter and stated he would not participate in discussion or voting on this matter. Motion CC-82-271 carried 4-0, with Councilman Petta abstaining. CC-82-272 Motion by Councilman Rigley, Second by Mayor Grant, to approve the first reading of the Ordinance for Zone Change 82-04, CPD overlay, by title only, with second reading and public hearing to be set for October 28, 1982. The Motion carried 4-0, with Councilman Petta abstaining. Recess was called at 11:20 p.m. and reconvened at 11:26 p.m., with all members present. ORDINANCE NO. (First Reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 57, CHAPTER 9, SECTIONS 9.010, 9.020, 9.040, 9.060, AND 9.070 (AMENDMENT 82-01). The City Manager read the title of the Ordinance. The Planning Director stated this amendment is at the direction of the City Council to change the name from Town Center to Commercial Planned Development. CC-82-273 Motion by Councilman Nix, Second by Councilwoman Pfennighausen, ALL AYES, to approve the first reading of the Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 57, Amendment No. 82-01, with second reading and public hearing to be set for October 28, by title only. ORDINANCE NO. (First Reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, REGULATING THE DISCHARGE OF GUNS, AND DECLARING GUNS IN THE POSSESSION OF MINORS A NUISANCE. The City Manager read the title of the Ordinance. CC-82-274 Motion by Councilman Rigley, Second by Councilwoman Pfennighausen, ALL AYES, to approve the first reading by title only of the Ordinance prohibiting the discharge of fire arms, with the second reading and public hearing to be set for October 28, 1982. ORDINANCE NO. (First Reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, REGULATING THE USE OF ALARM SYSTEMS AND DEVICES. The City Manager read the title of the Ordinance. 0 Page 12 10/14/82 The Administrative Assistant stated that this Ordinance is a result of a complaint which came into the City, and was designed to apply to both household and business alarms. CC-82-275 Motion by Councilman Nix, Second by Mayor Grant, ALL AYES, to approve the first reading of the Ordinance regulating the use of alarm systems by devices by title only, with second reading and public hearing to be set for October 28, 1982. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Councilman Nix stated he feels we have an outstanding Staff and requested e City Manager convey this to Staff. Councilman Petta voiced opposition to the Postal Department's refusal o e ever mail to an individual's door, since this individual had a legitimate reason to have the mail box moved from curbside; had mail stolen, is retired - frequently away from home, and the postman presently delivers to surrounding neighbors' doors. Efficient mail service has deteriorated. Felt maybe it is time that a private contractor came in and put efficiency into the system. Wants government and postal departments to be run like a business. Councilwoman Pfenni hausen questioned if the survey questionnaire on the s opping mail is being formulated. The City Manager stated it will be presented for approval prior to the December 1 utility billing. It was clarified that the questionnaire wi l l be a two-sided page, :•�'' ► 1:i ' ; • consisting of a question formulated by the City Attorney and !1 statements, to be presented by proponents on both sides of the issue. 3 ; Councilwoman Pfennighausen stated Mr. Evans was given information by Staff that his group would be responsible for mailing out their own statement. She was requested to ask Mr. Evans which Staff member gave him this information. Councilman Petta recommended considering the possibility of preparing and sending newsletters to the citizens to keep them informed of proper facts on all City matters. Clarification and background information was provided to Councilman Rigley regarding the shopping mall issue, since he was absent from the previous meetings, and discussion was held on sending a survey questionnaire, with Council concurring that the proper information has not been fully presented to the community, and the importance of presenting the proper facts so that the community would be properly informed prior to completion of the questionnaire. Mayor Grant stated he will recommend an alterntive proposal in the event a stalemate continues on this matter. Page 13 10/14/82 Councilman Nix voiced disagreement with the conclusion that a proposed freeway interchange must be considered for the DeBerry area, rather than Iowa and LaCadena, due to the fact that the Southern California Edison property is not presently for sale. Mayor Grant reported the following: (1) Referenced a September 9 memo on ffie sidewalk cleanliness at Johnstown Properties - requested this matter be followed through; (2) Attended SANBAG and Omnitrans meetings September 6. Will request Councilman Nix to attend the next SANBAG and Omnitrans meetings as his alternate; (3) The City Selection Committee meets on November 10 at 11:20 a.m., at which time a method of selecting nominees will be addressed. Will need an alternate to attend; (4) Attended a Citrus Belt Division, League of California Cities meeting. Tom Clark spoke briefly about redevelopment and will discuss again at the League of California Cities meeting in San Diego; (5) Attended LAFC meeting. Island annexation was discussed, specifically the fact that the State Board of Appeals upheld Ventura action to annex unincorporated areas that were not completely surrounded islands, which would make a significant difference to many cities; (6) Four Councilmembers will be attending the League of California cities conference in San Diego October 17-20. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 12:02 p.m. The next regular meeting will be held October 28, 1982, at 5:30 p.m., with a CRA Public Workshop Session scheduled for 4:00 p.m. 0 Respectfully submitted, City p:erk APPROVED: ayo Page 14 10/14/82