Loading...
02/25/19880 BYRON R. MATTESON Mayor BARBARA PFENNIGHAUSEN Maya Pro Tom Council Members HUGH J. GRANT DENNIS L. EVANS SUSAN CRAWFORD THOMAS J. SCHWAB City Manager FEBRUARY 25, 1988 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE REGULAR MEETINGS 2ND and 4TH Thursdays -- 5:30 P.M. Council Chambers Grand Terrace Civic Center 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace, CA 92324-5295 CITY COUNCILMEMBERS Byron R. Matteson, Mayor Barbara Pfennighausen, Mayor Pro Tem Hugh J. Grant, Councilmember Dennis L. Evans, Councilmember Susan Shirley, Councilmember Thomas J. Schwab, City Manager City Office: 714/824.-6621 22795 BARTON ROAD • GRAND TERRACE, CA 92324-5295_. COUNTER COPY - PLEASE DO NOT REhOVE_ LIBRARY COUNTER!! CITY OF GRAND TERRACE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS GRAND TERRACE CIVIC CENTER 22795 Barton Road * Call to Order * Invocation - * Pledge of Allegiance * Roll Call February 25, 1988 5:30 P.M. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS COUNCIL ACTION CONVENE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1. Approval of Minutes 1/28/88 (a) 2/11/88 (b) Approve Approve 2. Approve Check Register No. CRA022588 Approve ADJOURN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CONVENE CITY COUNCIL 1. Items to Delete 2. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS A. PROCLAMATION - CANCER AWARENESS WEEK - Present APRIL 18-24, 1988. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine & non -controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. Any Council Member, Staff Member or Citizen may request removal of an item from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Approve A. Approve Check Register No. 022588 n 4 COUNCIL AGENDA 02//25/88- Page 2 of 2 B. Ratify 2/25/88 CRA Action C. Waive Full Reading of Ordinances and Resolutions on Agenda. D. Approve 1/28/88 Minutes (a) Approve 2/5/88 Minutes (b) E. Acceptance of Audited Annual Financial Report and Single Audit Report. 4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 5. ORAL REPORTS A. San Bernardino County Hazardous Waste Management Draft. B. Committee Reports 1. Historical & Cultural Committee a. Minutes of 2/1/88 C. Council Reports 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS - 6:30 P.M. A. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE ESTABLISHING A LOITERING ORDINANCE. 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion Regarding Minutes. B. Consider Offer for Brokerage Services on Potential Parkland Acquisition. ADJOURN THE NEXT REGULAR CRA/CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WILL BE HELD THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 1988 AT 5:30 P.M. -------------------------------------------------- AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS FOR THE 3/10/88 MEETING MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE BY NOON ON 3/2/88. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Approve Approve Approve Accept Continue to 3/10/88 COUNCIL ACTION CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGULAR MEETING - JANUARY 28, 1988 A regular meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency, City of Grand Terrace, was held in the Council Chambers, Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on January 28, 1988, at 5:30 p.m. PRESENT: Byron Matteson, Chairman Barbara Pfennighausen, Vice Chairman Hugh J. Grant, Agency Member Dennis L. Evans, Agency Member Susan Shirley, Agency Member Thomas J. Schwab, Executive Director Randy Anstine, Assistant City Manager Juanita Brown, Secretary Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney David Sawyer, Planning Director Joe Kicak, City Engineer ABSENT: NONE APPROVAL OF JANUARY 14, 1988 CRA MINUTES CRA-88-03 Motion by Vice Chairman Pfennighausen, second by Agency Member Shirley, ALL AYES, to approve January 14, 1988 CRA Minutes. APPROVAL OF CHECK REGISTER NO. CRA012888 CRA-88-04 Motion by Chairman Matteson, second by Agency Member Shirley, ALL AYES, to approve Check Register No. CRAO12888. CRA Meeting adjourned at 5:37 p.m. until the next regular meeting which will be held Thursday, February 11, 1988 at 5:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted Secretary APPROVED: Chairman CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGULAR MEETING - FEBRUARY 11, 1988 A regular meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency, City was held in the Council Chambers, Grand Terrace Civic Center, Road, Grand Terrace, California, on February 11, 1988, at 5:30 PRESENT: Byron Matteson, Chairman Barbara Pfennighausen, Vice Chairman �W Hugh J. Grant, Agency Member Dennis L. Evans, Agency Member Susan Shirley, Agency Member ABSENT: Thomas J. Schwab, Executive Director Randy Anstine, Assistant City Manager Juanita Brown, Secretary Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney David Sawyer, Planning Director Joe Kicak, City Engineer NONE of Grand Terrace, 22795 Barton p.m. APPROPRIATION FOR CONTRACTED SCHOOL IMPROVEMENTS City Manager Schwab stated the City is currently under an agreement with the Colton Unified School District to provide certain improvements to the district in exchange for the tax increment that we negotiated. He stated the City has completed all of the air conditioning projects that we were obligated to. He stated the last item that is to be completed is the upgrade of the sprinkler systems at the three schools. He stated the Colton Unified School District has properly advertised and put out to bid the project, indicating the low bidder on the project is Sorian Landscape, at a cost of $38,500.00 and staff is requesting that the agency appropriate that sum for the installation upgrade of the sprinkler system per our Agreement 81-21. CRA-88-05 Motion by Vice Chairman Pfennighausen, second by Councilmember Shirley, ALL AYES, to approve the appropriation for contracted school improvements. 4 CRA Meeting adjourned meeting which will be 5:30 p.m. CRA Minutes - 02/11/88 Page 2 at 5:33 p.m. until the next regular held Thursday, February 25, 1988 at Respectfully submitted Secretary APPROVED: Chairman COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY OF GRAf TERRACE C DATE: FEBRUARY 25, 1988 CHECK REGISTER NO: CRA NO.022588 CHECK OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF: FEBRUARY 25, 1988 NUMBER VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT P5526 SANWA BANK, CALIFORNIA 17981 SUSAN SHIRLEY 17986 DENNIS EVANS 17989 HUGH GRANT 18001 BYRON MATTESON 18007 BARBARA PFENNIGHAUSEN I LEASE PAYMENT ON CIVIC CENTER $152,169.43 STIPENDS FOR FEBRUARY, 1988 150.00 STIPENDS FOR FEBRUARY, 1988 150.00 STIPENDS FOR FEBRUARY, 1988 150.Co STIPENDS FOR FEBRUARY, 1.988 150.(0 STIPENDS FOR FEBRUARY, 1988 150.00 TOTAL: $152,919.43 I CERTIFY THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE AFORELISTED CHECKS FOR PAYMENT OF CRA LIABILITIES HAVE BEEN AUDITED BY ME AND ARE NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE EXPENDITURES FOR THE OPERATION OF CRA. THOMAS SCHWAB TREASURER Vrodanlation CANCER AWARENESS WEEK April 18-24, 1988 WHEREAS, Cancer is one of the most urgent medical challenges of our day; and WHEREAS, Cancer is predicted to strike in three out of four California families during a life- time; and WHEREAS, One hundred sixty thousand American lives can be saved this year through early detection of cancer; and WHEREAS, There is good news about cancer in the fact that there are three million Americans alive today who have been "cured" of cancer. NOW, THEREFORE, I Byron R. Matteson, Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace, on behalf of the entire City Council, do hereby proclaim April 18-24, 1988, as "Cancer Awareness Week," and the third week of April every year thereafter, "Cancer Awareness Week." Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace and of the City Council thereof. This 25th day of February, 1988. CITY OF GRAfkTERRACE r DATE: FEBRUARY 5- 1988 CHECK REGISTER NO: 022588 CHECK OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF: FEBRUARY 25, 1988 NUMBER VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT P5513 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. CASH PAYMENTS, 2/5/88 $ 470.95 P5514 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO. CASH PAYMENTS, 2/5/88 441.27 P5515 SHERIFF FLOYD TIDWELL LAW ENFORCEMENT AND CRIME PREVENTION OFFICER FOR FEB. 1988 55,021.(10 P5516 ALL PRO CONSTRUCTION CLEAN STORM DRAINS, VAN BUREN/MIRADO AND CANAL 1,965.00 P5517 STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE FOR JANUARY, 1988 1,230.73 P5518 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. CASH PAYMENTS, 2/8/88 182.58 P5519 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO. CASH PAYMENTS, 2/8/88 141.15 P5520 IVAN HOPKINS LEGAL SERVICES FOR DECEMBER, 1987 2,086.46 P5521 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. CASH PAYMENTS, 2/10/88 23.04 P5522 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO. CASH PAYMENTS, 2/10/88 125.97 P5523 MASTERCARD CRIME PREVENTION SEMINAR 248.00 P5524 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. CASH PAYMENTS 2/12/88 105.97 P5525 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO. CASH PAYMENTS 2/12/88 159.72 P5527 CALIFORNIA SKATE-G.T. DAY CARE SKATING 11.00 P5528 IVAN HOPKINS INITIATE EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS 500.00 P5529 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO. CASH PAYMENTS, 2/17/88 31.09 P5530 THOMAS SCHWAB CMTA MEETING, CSMFO MEETING, SCJPIA MEETING, AND LOCAL MILEAGE 163.95 17969 DIANE CHRISTIAN DESIGN COVER FOR RECREATION BROCHURE 30.00 17970 LINDA MCKINLEY EXCURSION REFUND 19.00 " 17971 UNION BANK WASTE WATER DISPOSAL REFUND 5.60 17972 W. MAX BINSWANGER WASTE WATER DISPOSAL REFUND 13.07 17973 ACCENT PRINT AND DESIGN REPRODUCE GENERL PLAN 305.28 17974 AMERICAN BUSINESS SYSTEMS ONE YEAR MAINTENANCE ON MAILING MACHINE 180.00 17975 BAYLESS STATIONERS OFFICE SUPPLIES 35.40 1 CITY OF GRPC TERRACE DATE: FEBRUARY 25, 1988 CHECK RESTER NO: 022588 CHECK OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF: FEBRUARY 25 1988 NUMBER VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 17976 BECKLEY CARDY RECREATION SUPPLIES $ 503.28 17977 JUANITA BROWN FINGERPRINT CHARGE, OATH OF NOTARY PUBLIC CHARGE, RECORDING FEE, AND LOCAL MILEAGE 26.-5 17978 CALIFORNIA SKATE-G.T. ROLLER SKATING 236.:'5 17979 CONSTANCE CHAPMAN CLEAN REST ROOMS AT PARK (4 DAYS) 80.C:0 17980 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRIC LIGHTS FOR BARTON/PALM TRIANGLE AND LIGHTS FOR CIVIC CENTER 294.64 17981 SUSAN SHIRLEY STIPENDS FOR FEBRUARY, 1988 150.00 17982 DFM ASSOCIATES ELECTION CODE 29.00 17983 DICKSON COMPANY STREET SWEEPING, JANUARY, 1988 2,910.97 17984 DURON BUSINESS FORMS ENVELOPES FOR SEWER BILLINGS 439.48 17985 EGGHEAD SOFTWARE WORDPERFECT SOFTWARE 237.44 17986 DENNIS EVANS STIPENDS FOR FEBRUARY, 1988 150.00 17987 FOOTHILL JOURNAL CITY NEWS, 2/4/88, 2/11/88 AND 2/18/88 750.00 17988 G.T. MAILERS MAIL PICK-UP FOR JANUARY, 1988 25.00 17989 HUGH GRANT STIPENDS FOR FEBRUARY, 1988 150.00 17990 JOHN HARPER LEGAL SERVICES FOR JANUARY, 1988 745.00 17991 HEALTH NET MEDICAL INSURANCE FOR MARCH, 1988 1,442.06 17992 HANAGON UNLIMITED CONCRETE SAND, RECREATION 111.30 17993 HYDREX PEST CONTROL PEST CONTROL, CIVIC CENTER, FEBRUARY, 1988 48.00 17994 SUSAN KAUFFMAN INSTRUCTOR, TODDLER EXPRESS AND LOW IMPACT AEROBICS 166.50 17995 KELLY'S SILK SCREEN T-SHIRTS FOR MAINTENANCE 184.02 17996 KELLER SOFTWARE COMPUTER PROGRAM 40.10 17997 KICAK AND ASSOCIATES ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR 1/11-2/7/88 9,418.65 17998 KELLIE GRIFFITH LEMON INSTRUCTOR, CREATIVE DANCE 93.75 17999 MASTER LEASE CORPORATION LEASE LARGE COPIER, MARCH, 1988 583.96 2 CITY OF GRAe TERRACE DATE: FE R A 25, 1988 CHECK RECTER NO: Q22188_ CHECK NUMBER VENDOR OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF: FEBRUARY 25 1988 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 18000 MCKENZIE COMPANY PARTS FOR OLYMPIA $ 14.64+ 18001 BYRON MATTESON STIPENDS FOR FEBRUARY, 1988 67.89 18002 MORGAN AND FRANZ LIFE INSURANCE FOR MARCH, 1988 97.75 18003 JEAN MYERS CROSSING GUARD, 2/1-2/11/88 114.48 18004 PACIFIC BELL DAY CARE, COMPUTER, AND PAY PHONES AT CIVIC CENTER 111.21 18005 PETRA ENTERPRISES ART SHOW FLYERS, HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL COMMITTEE 113.21 18006 PERRY'S STATIONARY OFFICE SUPPLIES 253.40 18007 BARBARA PFENNIGHAUSEN STIPENDS FOR FEBRUARY, 1988 67.89 18008 PETTY CASH DAY CARE 166.52 18009 CATHY PIERSON INSTRUCTOR, GYMNASTICS 420.80 18010 POSTMASTER-COLTON POSTAGE FOR MAILING MACHINE 1,800.00 18011 RECO REFRIGERATION MAINTENANCE/REPAIR AIR CONDITIONING UNIT, CIVIC CENTER 250.00 18012 RICK'S TRACTOR SERVICE WEED ABATEMENT, PICO PARK 350.00 18013 RIVERSIDE HIGHLAND WATER CO. CIVIC CENTER, FIRE STATION, MOUNT VERNON/ARLISS, BARTON/ PALM, PARK ON DEBERRY, AND PARK ON MERLE COURT 1,057.92 18014 SIGNAL MAINTENANCE CO. SIGNAL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR SIGNAL AT BARTON/MOUNT VERNON 329.30 18015 SMART AND FINAL SUPPLIES FOR DAY CARE 21.34 18016 SOFTLOGIC SOLUTIONS COMPUTER PROGRAM 70.94 18017 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. 2 POLES AT DEBERRY PARK, CIVIC CENTER, TWO SIGNALS,AND STREET LIGHTS 4,601.07 18019 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA JOINT POWERS INSURANCE PROPERTY INSURANCE 1/88-1/89 12,206.17 18020 JUDY STEVENSON INSTRUCTOR, ACRYLIC NAILS WORKSHOP 140.00 18021 STULTS ELECTRIC CO. INSTALL LIGHT FIXTURE AT BARTON/PALM 235.00 18022 SUN BADGE CO. CODE ENFORCEMENT BADGE 52.95 3 CITY OF GRf TERRACE DATE: FEBRUARY 25, 1988 CHECK REGISTER NO: 022588 CHECK NUMBER VENDOR OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF: FEBRUARY 25, 1988 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 18023 ED TAAN SCOREKEEPER FOR SOFTBALL $ 205.00 18024 TRI-COUNTY OFFICIALS UMPIRE FOR SOFTBALL 320.00 18025 VERTICAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS PROCESS PARKING CITATIONS 8/1-11/30/87 21.00 18026 VISA CHILD CARE CONFERENCE, EMPLOYEE RELATIONS SEMINAR, AND EDEN SYSTEMS USER MEETING 566.36 TOTAL: $ 107,020.93 I CERTIFY THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE AFORELISTED CHECKS FOR PAYMENT OF CITY LIABILITIES HAVE BEEN AUDITED BY ME AND ARE NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE EXPENDITURES FOR THE OPERATION OF THE CITY. THOMAS SCHWAB FINANCE DIRECTOR 4 ;r{.� `' CITY OF GRAND TERRACE DRAFT COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - JANUARY 28, 1988 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 28, 1988, at 5:30 p.m. PRESENT: Byron Matteson, Mayor Barbara Pfennighausen, Mayor Pro Tem 4 Hugh J. Grant, Councilmember Dennis L. Evans, Councilmember Susan Shirley, Councilmember ABSENT: Thomas J. Schwab, City Manager/Finance Director Randy Anstine, Assistant City Manager Juanita Brown, Deputy City Clerk Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney David Sawyer, Planning Director Joe Kicak, City Engineer NONE The meeting was opened with invocation by Pastor Steve Fox, Inland Christian Center, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen. APPROVAL OF MINUTES JANUARY 14, 1988 CC-88-06 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen, second by Councilmember Shirley, ALL AYES, to approve January 14, 1988 Minutes. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Matteson asked Council if there were any items to be deleted? The City Manager replied there were no items to delete. Mayor Matteson stated 5(B) on the Agenda should be Council Reports. Mayor Matteson asked Council if there were any items on the Consent Calendar to be removed for discussion. Councilmember Grant requested Item (A) -- Approve Check Register No. 011488; Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen requested Item (D) -- Approve January 14, 1988 Minutes. CC-88-07 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen, second by Councilmember Grant, ALL AYES, to approve the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Item B - Ratify January 14, 1988 CRA Action Item C - Waive Full Reading of Ordinances and Resolutions on Agenda Item E - Reduction of Filing Fee for AB2020/Recycling Project. 16m Item F - Authorize staff attendance at the School Age Child Care Conference to be held on February 19 - 20, 1988, in Hayward, CA. Mayor Matteson asked where was the recycling project to be relocated? Planning Director Sawyer replied that the proposal is that it will be located on the southwest corner of the parking lot behind the buildings in the far corner. Councilmember Grant asked if the Check Register should be 011488 or 012888. The response was 012888. CC-88-08 Motion by Councilmember Grant, second by Councilmember Evans, to approve Check Register No. 021188. Councilmember Evans questioned on Page 2 -- All Pro Construction, what was done that cost so much ($7,670.00). Assistant City Manager Anstine replied that was not a full description of the work that was constructed; this is the drain that is adjacent to the Forest City Dillon Project on Mt. Vernon where it runs into Canal Street. The water flows above the surface and they had to go in and totally rebuild that canal. Councilmember Evans asked if that was due to any work being done on Forest City Dillon's behalf? Assistant City Manager Anstine replied, "no." Councilmember Evans asked if we had officially entered into the contractual agreement to lease the site referred to as Pico Park? City Manager Schwab replied, the lease has not been signed yet. We will sign the lease after the check is approved tonight and present it with the check to Edison tomorrow when we have our first lease payment. DRAFT Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 2 Item 17872 Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen referred to Item 17872 - Park Custodian Constance Chapman. She questioned the amount of $20.00 per day, since one of the biggest complaints about the park is the condition of the restrooms. She asked how long was Ms. Chapman working each day. Assistant City Manager Anstine replied, about 2 1/2 hours a day, indicating she was the cheapest individual they could find. He stated they have consulted with several janitorial services and they wanted to charge up to $50.00 and $60.00 a day. Item 17880 Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen referred to Item 17880 - Foothill Foothill Journal - stating she was aware of paying the Journal Ad Foothill Journal for a half -page ad, but noticed the Public Hearing Notice Ad inside that ad and wanted to know if we were paying for an ad inside of an ad that we are already paying for. City Manager Schwab replied, we did not start the half -page ad until the January Issue, indicating the holiday ad, as well as that Public Hearing Notice, appeared in prior issues before we had that half page. Item A Councilmember Grant referred to Page 1 - Item P5480, and Check Register asked, "what is the Employees Relation Institute Seminar on No. 012888 February 24, 1988?" City Manager Schwab replied, it's the Annual League Employees Seminar about employee negotiation with your staff on labor relation matters, to be held in San Diego this year, and two Councilmembers have elected to attend. City Attorney Hopkins interjected or terminations. Councilmember Grant stated he had made the motion to approve Check Register No. 012888 and Councilmember Evans seconded it. Motion CC-88-08 carried ALL AYES. Item D Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen referred to January 14, 1988 January 14, 1988 Minutes, on Page 9, 5th paragraph; the word incohesive Minutes should be cohesive. On Page 17, 2nd paragraph, Councilmember Evans is speaking; for clarification, it should read "utilize the southern entrance to the freeway," instead of "utilize that entrance." Councilmember Grant asked how does Councilmember Evans feel about this. Councilmember Evans replied, "no problem." DRAFT Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 3 CC-88-09 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen, second by Mayor Matteson, ALL AYES, to approve the Minutes as corrected and amended. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Dick Rollins Mr. Rollins stated the Parks and Recreation Committee had 22700 DeBerry their first Citizen Patrol meeting at the new Sheriff's Headquarters on 3rd Street, San Bernardino. He stated they were addressed by Sheriff Tidwell and other staff members of the Sheriff's Department. He stated on behalf of himself and the other Citizen Patrol members he wanted to thank Council/City for providing the funds for their membership at that class since other communities had to pay their own way. Dick Yost Mr. Yost furnished Council with a copy of the Chamber of Chairman of the Commerce Newsletter commenting that there were quite a lot Chamber of of worth while items in this publication. He read a letter Commerce he received from the Highland Chamber of Commerce and gave an update on what is going on with their current and future activities. Gene McMeans Mr. McMeans pointed out that this was an extension of the Manager of conversation that was held two meetings ago regarding Riverside/ hazardous waste and disposal of same. He stated Mayor Pro Highland Water Tem Pfennighausen asked what happens to medicine when it is Company thrown out. He stated he talked to the County people and 12004 Glenwwod was informed that there is a program for household hazardous 44W Colton waste disposal of poison materials. He reported that the City of Redlands has a booklet, indicating there are collection centers, the closest being County Agriculture Commission Office, 777 E. Rialto Avenue in San Bernardino, and they are opened 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Councilmember Evans asked Mr. McMeans if he had any recommendations that Council or our community could look into or possibly initiate as far as recycling hazardous materials or materials that could be recycled? Mr. McMeans mentioned maybe possibly putting trash in one color trash can and recycling material in another color can. Gary Arnold Mr. Arnold made reference to the fact that the appointment 709 N. Bradford of a City Attorney and Assistant City Attorney was on the City of Agenda Packet, but not on the other Agenda. He commented on Placentia how in some cities Closed Sessions are misused and felt they should be taped and kept for three years. He gave the name to contact at the Judicial Council if anyone felt this was being misused. 1111-tIT 211 Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 4 City Manager Schwab stated the item that was removed was originally on the first Agenda. On the Revised Agenda the item regarding the appointment of the City Attorney was removed. He stated the personnel matter that is being discussed does not involve appointing a City Attorney. Joe Floyd Mr. Floyd stated that in Los Angles the City Attorney is 118 Shakespear voted in by a vote of the public, indicating the public Street should be aware of the people who are up for this job and Santa Ana who are putting in bids for this job. Mayor Matteson stated that at the present time, there is no position open for a City Attorney stating he did not know where Mr. Arnold and Mr. Floyd got their information. Mr. Floyd stated he was saying the next time the job comes open, the public should be able to decide. Mayor Matteson replied, the public has, they voted Council in office to make that decision for them. He thanked the people from out of town coming in and telling us how to run our City. ORAL REPORTS COMMITTEE REPORTS Crime Prevention Mayor Matteson stated Council had a copy of the Minutes of Committee January 11, 1988. Emergency Mayor Matteson stated Council had a copy of the Minutes of Operations November 16, 1987. Committee Historical and Mayor Matteson stated Council had a copy of the Minutes of Cultural January 4, 1988 Committee Barbara Conley Ms. Conley stated she did not have a report from the Parks 22285 Dove St. and Recreation Committee, but wanted to discuss Item 5A-3(b) Chairman of under the Historical and Cultural Committee, indicating the Parks and Committee had submitted an action item for City Council to Recreation approve their purchasing a banner for their use at all City Committee functions. She asked Council to set their decision on this Item 5A-3(b) item back a couple of weeks, so they could attend the next Bids for a Community Events Calendar meeting and bring their group permanent up-to-date on existing banners in the City, and also bring banner all the groups up-to-date on her and the Chamber's efforts on City banners. Mayor Matteson asked whether the Chamber would be interested in heading that up. DRAFT Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 5 Ms. Conley replied they had their first meeting in November 1987, and at that time stipulated to all the groups that they're hoping to get together and decide who does what and come up with the 1988 Calendar. Councilmember Grant stated we recognize the need to coordinate the efforts of the various committees in this community and he supports that as long as the integrity of each committee is taken into consideration and preserved. CC-88-10 Motion by Councilmember Grant, that the request of the Chairperson of the Historical and Cultural Activities Committee for authorization to purchase the items indicated in the Memorandum of January 17, 1988 be approved by this Council. Motion CC-88-10 died for lack of a second. City Manager Schwab stated he wanted to give some clarification because there seems to be some confusion, indicating the Chamber and the Parks and Recreation Committee are interested in putting a banner that would span the street width. Ms. Conley replied, "not necessarily." City Manager Schwab stated at least something to advertise events, indicating what they are going to do is get a banner that will be more like a flag, 2 112 X 4', sort of like what the Lion's Club puts up on their table before their meetings. CC-88-11 Motion by Councilmember Grant, that the request of the Chairperson of the Historical and Cultural Activities Committee for authorization to purchase the items indicated in the Memorandum of January 17, 1988 be approved by this Council. Motion CC-88-11 died for lack of a second. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she has no objection to the Historical and Cultural Activities Committee having a banner to display when they are having events. She requested this item be continued for two weeks and that a member of that committee be present to answer questions. Mayor Matteson stated the Chair will table that item until the next Council meeting and you might save money by everybody buying together. Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 6 COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Councilmember Shirley stated she had nothing to report. Shirley Councilmember Councilmember Grant reported he represented the City at the Grant Local Agency Formation Commission on January 20, 1988, at LAFC which time they are scheduled to consider the possibility of City -hood for Apple Valley. Councilmember Councilmember Evans asked the City Manager for clarification Evans about an item that was discussed at the last meeting Land Acquisition regarding park acquisition, indicating he wasn't sure what the City Manager is instructed to do in reference to getting the broker. He asked the City Manager, if you retain this broker, what specific guidelines or instructions are you going to provide to this individual as it relates to potential park acquisition land and what will the time -line be in reference to that item? City Manager Schwab replied Council's direction was unlimited in that they would allow staff to look at any parcel. He stated from staff level, he felt it is more efficient to narrow down the parcels, indicating staff will be looking at two acre or larger parcels identified on the map. He stated the general consensus was that there was a need for ball parks and felt there was a minimum level in which you could put a ball park on a site. He indicated staff will be directing the broker to the most promising sites that were listed on the map and get an idea on the value then bring it back to Council. He stated, depending on how long it would take the broker to make contact and to negotiate with the property owners, it would be approximately two months before staff could bring it back to Council. Councilmember Evans asked if he was telling him that when he contacts this broker, he was going to tell this broker that "I want you to go out and look at land, starting at two acres and up?" City Manager Schwab replied, "no," we have already done that, we have a parcel map that shows what staff feels is all the parcels within the City that had some potential to be developed into a meaningful park site and it is those properties that we are going to look at first and bring back to Council. Councilmember Evans what did he feel is relates to acre? Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 7 asked the City Manager in his opinion the meaningful park site as far as it DRAFT City Manager Schwab replied, staff is going to look at anything approximately two acres or larger, but felt staff will probably target a parcel at least five acres. He believes the Parks and Recreation Committee had indicated eight acres, but staff will leave that option open to Council. Councilmember Evans asked the City Manager if he was going to instruct or direct this broker as to what the amenities will be? He asked do we want to look at a potential site that would encompass a sport complex, if so, can they identify what it is they would like to see in that park site? City Manager Schwab replied staff is going to give the greatest emphasis to the larger parcels, the one that shows the most promise, but will not overlook any of the parcels that had originally been identified. He felt once we get to the point where we have an appraisal and idea of what kind of cost and what possible land we can afford to acquire, then Council can take issue as to what can be put on those parcels. He stated the broker is not going to be taking a look at any type of use. Mayor Matteson stated Council has already given the City Manager instruction to find out what land is available and when the plan comes back with the availability, then Council will decide what to put on it. kCouncilmember Evans asked the City Manager when could Council expect to get a final report on this? City Manager Schwab replied, it depends on how negotiations go with the property owners, indicating several of them live out of town and that makes contact somewhat difficult, but projected staff will probably have it back to Council within two months. PUBLIC HEARING Item 6(A) City Attorney Hopkins stated the City Council had directed Adopt Eminent that we institute and initiate proceedings for the Domain acquisition of certain properties on Mt. Vernon Avenue and Resolution of Barton Road in order to improve the signalization at that Necessity intersection. It was felt that rather than wait for the property to develop, it was necessary for public health and safety to acquire that property and get this signalization improved. He stated this Resolution is a necessity to initiate these proceedings. He stated as late as this evening he was having discussions with the owners and the people who indicated they are likely to acquire the property and it appeared we may still be able to resolve this matter Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 8 short of litigation, but we want to be certain that we are prepared to institute these proceedings in the event that those fall through. Councilmember Evans asked the City Attorney, for the benefit of the people in the audience and those at home, tell them that what we are looking at is a small area which will be utilized for upgrading the signalization at Barton Road and Mt. Vernon? City Attorney Hopkins replied we are asking Council to adopt this Resolution of taking approximately 600 sq. ft. at Ross's Liquor and Rex's Barber Shop, which would allow us to put the controllers for the signal lights at that location. He stated in addition, we are wanting to acquire a 10 ft. construction easement so that we can construct and put the improvements in at that location. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked the City Attorney if this was for a left -turn signal at that intersection? City Attorney replied that maybe the City Engineer could better describe what the improvements are that we intend to put in. City Engineer Kicak stated the proposed improvements are the installation of a three-way signal at the four corners, providing for one other phase that does not exist at that 4 intersection at the present time and that is the left-hand signal for every direction or pedestrian signal. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she believes trying to get this done has been in the budget for two years. Mayor Matteson opened up for pubic input, being there was none, he turned it back over to Council. CC-88-12 Motion by Mayor Matteson, second by Mayor Pro Tem Pfennig"usen, ALL AYES, to adopt this Resolution of necessity. Item 6(B) The Planning Director stated on August 17, 1987, the Extension of Planning Commission recommended approval of a one-year Tentative Parcel extension for Tentative Parcel Map 13050, which was to 13050 expire on September 12, 1987. He then continued to give a scenario of his staff report. He stated the Planning Department recommends that the City Council approve the following alternatives, which he then read. Mayor Matteson asked for clarification, that if we give them the extension, the developer will have to go back to the Planning Commission and come through the procedure again, right? DRAFT Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 9 Planning Director Sawyer replied, "that's correct." Mayor Matteson asked what was the advantage of giving them the extension if they have to come through it all again? Planning Director Sawyer replied that the reason they are going through it is that the changes are significant enough to where staff and the City Attorney feel it is appropriate for the Planning Commission to consider, indicating that way, before Council makes their decision on the revised map, they will have Planning Commission's input on such a revised 4 map. Mayor Matteson stated he still did not know what the benefit was. Planning Director Sawyer replied, as of right now, it's a matter of whether or not Council is going to extend the map as it is so that they can go forward and submit a final map and go ahead with their plans as they are drawn up right now with the smaller lot sizes. Mayor Matteson asked will the moratorium prevent them from doing that? Planning Director Sawyer replied, "no," the moratorium is to a point where we have said that anything in the pipeline could go forward. Therefore, they could go ahead with the 0460 final map, but they would not be able to go ahead with the Site and Architectural and obtain the building permits, indicating that would simply be a matter of coming back and relying on the final map that we have approved. Mayor Matteson asked what if the General Plan is revised? Planning Director replied, the question is whether or not we change the requirements after they have the final map and whether or not they would have to meet the new requirements of the General Plan and zoning and he felt that was a legal question that has to do with vested rights. Mayor Matteson asked would they? City Attorney Hopkins replied they would not be affected by that change. Mayor Matteson asked by any change we might make in the General Plan? City Attorney Hopkins replied they would not be affected by lot size changes, but would be affected by some changes in the General Plan, but not that particular element. DRAFT Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 10 Councilmember Shirley abstained due to potential conflict of interest. Mayor Matteson asked if anyone had questions as to the clarification of this recommendation by staff. He then opened it up to the public. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Ed St. Germain Mr. St. Germain stated he was against the recommendation and 12600 Warbler expressed his feelings about the agreement presented Avenue tonight. He talked about impaction to the schools, traffic to development and lot sizes. City Attorney Hopkins stated he wanted to clarify one issue so there is no confusion. He stated the agreement Mr. St. Germain was referring to is a proposed agreement that was submitted after the package went out by the developer and is not recommended for approval and Council does not have it in their package. Councilmember Evans asked if that agreement does reference what Mr. St. Germain said on the moratorium. City Attorney Hopkins replied, "no," the proposed agreement references his comments as to the new agreement with the ones that reference attorney fees. Barney Karger Mr. Karger stated he has never seen a traffic problem in 11668 Bernardo Grand Terrace. He stated the earthquake problem is on the Way other side of Blue Mountain in the Reche Canyon area and disagreed with the comments Mr. St. Germain made. Robert Sankster Mr. Sankster stated he represented T.J. Austyn and Gary Lawyer for Fudge who are the developers of the project being talked T.J. Austyn about. He stated this is an on -going project. He stated, as a matter of law, in his opinion, a map has a life of three years and that is beyond its normal expiration date because of various public improvement requirements. He stated he has had some discussions with Planning Director Sawyer and City Attorney Hopkins regarding this and the fact that the subdivision Map Act provides that the maps are good for two years, not one, as is provided in the original map condition for this project. He stated they have put that legal argument aside. He stated since last September they have been negotiating and discussing ways of achieving this project through good planning and have tried to approach this from a planning standpoint not a legal standpoint, indicating that's the context in which they come before Council tonight. He stated his client has one goal and that is to produce a quality development that is marketable in Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 11 this town; marketable in prices that are affordable to prospective buyers and will ensure a fair return investment for the developer. He stated in pursuing that goal, his client has followed all of the rules, regulations and ordinances of the City throughout the life of this project. He stated in efforts to resolve the concerns raised by Planning, his client has agreed to enter into a compromise to reduce the number of lots, increase the lot sizes and culdesac one of the streets. He stated this is at a considerable cost because it involves elimination of lots. He stated the owner's desire is to get on with this project, indicating they have met with staff and worked out an agreement that the City Attorney alluded to to amend the tentative map to implement these changes and he urged Council to approve the agreement. He stated there are no legal requirements for review of this agreement by the Planning Commission. He stated they have already had a full opportunity to review this project, indicating what is before Council is the narrow consideration of the extension of the map of the parameters they have laid down. It doesn't reopen up the entire project; it is not a zoning ordinance, which would require reference back to the Planning Commission if they hadn't considered; it is not a General Plan Amendment; it's not a development agreement, and as far as he could tell from readi.ng the codes, those are the only types of changes concerning this project that would legally require reference back to the Planning Commission for comment, but the Council holds the power to amend and deal with subdivision maps under the Government Code. He stated they are in something of a time bind and his clients have considerable holding costs based on cost of money, indicating having a statute of limitations problem because there is a statue in the Government Code that only gives him ninety days to initiate action. He stated he may be facing one from the September action of the Council, relating to the limited nature of the extension in relation to the moratorium. He says that not as a threat, he just wants to explain his obligations, indicating his client would rather embark upon the project and conclude these phases without litigation. He stated his client owns other land in town and will be with Grand Terrace for a long time and he wants and needs Council's consensus behind him in this project, and not to refer it back to Planning Commission. Councilmember Evans took objection to the reference to statute of limitations ninety -day time frame, stating the delays that have brought us here have been at your request, not ours, indicating we were acting in a timely fashion Council Minutes - 01/28/88 DR F T Page 12 after we had learned about the public hearings. He stated it has been his understanding that at Mr. Storm's request, they have either been pulled or delayed for whatever reason. He asked Mr. Sankster, in his opinion, were there any statutes in the Government Code that states that this body must grant that extension? Mr. Sankster replied he did not think there was any statutes that expressly state that. Councilmember Evans stated, so we are not required by law, in your opinion, to grant that extension. 4 Mr. Sankster replied he believes there are a number of reasons why Council is required to grant that extension, but he doesn't think there is a statute in the subdivision Map Act that mandates that particular requirement. Councilmember Evans asked the City Attorney if there was a section in the Government Code that legally mandates Council to grant the extension? City Attorney Hopkins replied the only one that would mandate to grant an extension would be the one he has made reference to and that's a section that indicates that if they have put in improvements, what he calls off -site, off the area of the tentative map, then they are entitled to an extension. Councilmember Evans asked Mr. Sankster to describe shall and may as it appears in legal terminology. Mr. Sankster replied, shall is mandatory, may is permissive. Councilmember Evans asked Mr. Sankster to tell him, in reference to Government Code Section 66452.6, an approved or conditionally approved tentative map shall expire twenty-four months after its approval or conditional approval. If he understands, Mr. Sankster just agreed that Council has no legal requirements to extend it and shall is mandatory, so this map shall expire twenty-four months from the approval. However, its states an additional period of time as maybe prescribed by local ordinance, not to exceed an additional twelve months, you can be granted an additional twelve months. He states it goes on and talks about if you have done $100,000 or more to construct, improve or finance the construction of public improvements outside the boundaries of the tentative map. He then asked what has T.J. Austyn done outside the tentative map area that exceeds $100,000.00? DRAFT Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 13 Mr. Sankster replied, he will defer the technical aspect of that question to Mr. Storm, but he would like to focus on the text of the statute Councilmember Evans was reading. He stated the statute does indeed provide for the initial period of twenty-four months and then it says that the period shall be extended for an additional three years after the normal expiration date if the requirements of the tentative map require the expenditure of sums in the amount of $100,000.00 or more for public improvements. He stated it does not require those to be in place at this time as the question suggested, it relates to the requirements of the map and it is the position of T.J. Austyn that the requirements for this particular development, for public 46r improvements and for fees which are encompassed within that section to do indeed exceed $100,000.00, but as to what those are specifically, he would ask Mr. Storm to address that. With regard to the statute of limitations issue, he did not mean to suggest that the Council had in any way delayed this, we have been negotiating for sometime, we have been waiting for a consultant's report that the City had hired, so there was a couple of months delay for that and he still has not seen that. He wasn't sure if that was in, but they haven't dragged their feet either. He was not suggesting any fault lies on either side he was just telling him that there are those time periods. Bill Storm Mr. Storm stated that Mr. St. Germain brought up a lot of T.J. Austyn arguments that they all talked about three or four years ago when they first started doing this project. We have had a number of public hearings, had neighborhood meetings and went through all of these things many times before and he wasn't going to try to get into any arguments or try to defend some of the things that Mr. St. Germain brought up because they have gone through those things many times in the past. He stated when he first brought the project before Council, he had some ideas of doing smaller houses, smaller lots, lower prices, but Council convinced him they wanted something more along the lines of what Griffin was doing; larger lots, larger homes, more expensive and they finally agreed to do that. He stated during the course of the process, it turned out that the water company needed a 24-inch watermain run across their property, and they agreed to that as part of the condition of approval. It costs $90,000.00 and he believes, as of today, about $25,000.00 has been spent on it. He stated they have probably spent about $7,000 to $8,000 on just the improvement plans. He stated he heard the Griffin Homes Project was building a V-ditch behind Griffin's parcel that comes down to a location just above Observation Drive, indicating the ditch will carry water into a future retention basin that they are required to build. He stated they agreed to build that basin after their map had been approved, which they weren't Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 14 DRAFT required to build since it was outside their property, but in order to get the second half of their final map approved by the City Engineer, it was fairly clear that they needed to agree to build it. They agreed to build the basin, and Griffin agreed to build the V-ditch; they went ahead and designed it and he believes it cost about $4,000 or $5,000 to design the plans for the basin. He then listed all of the things they have reconsidered and done to get this extension approved listing their investments made so far with the expectation of being able to build. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked the City Attorney for clarification as to their interpretation of $100,000.00 in expenditures, indicating he said that all it had to be was expenditures that the project would have incurred as a result of that project. In other words, they wouldn't already have had to put in the improvements or invested the money, just that Council conditioned that project that way by our requirements. City Attorney Hopkins replied the requirements are for $100,000.00 or more of improvements, etc., off -site from the tentative map then they are entitled to an extension. Mayor Matteson asked didn't it say expenditures, not proposed expenditures, indicating there is a difference. Planning Director Sawyer read that section of the Code. Mayor Matteson stated according to that if he has the requirement to spend $100,000.00, it's almost an automatic extension. City Attorney Hopkins replied it's not almost, it is, if that requirement exists. Mayor Matteson asked do we have that requirement? City Attorney Hopkins replied, "he did not know." Mayor Matteson asked Mr. Storm if he had a requirement to spend $100,000.00 on off -site expenses? Mr. Storm replied, he wasn't sure what the definition of off -site expenses was, indicating that may be the problem. He stated if Council would consider the portion of the fees, that would easily be over $100,000.00. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked Mr. Storm what improvements outside of your tract map would you say Council has required you to do? DRAFT Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 15 Mr. Storm replied there are some 24-inch watehmain improvements that a portion of goes outside their tract map; some sewer and waterline improvements on Pico that's on the easterly side of Observation Drive, some full -width street requirements and a retention basin. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated the extension of Observation Drive was removed, indicating that's not ever going to be done, is that correct? Mr. Storm replied the extension was removed, but he was talking about the portion above Phases 1 thru 4 as it comes off of Griffin's property, indicating they made the 4br connection from Griffin property and brought it down to Van Buren. He stated much of that property was beyond their tract map, so the street improvements within that area were beyond their tract map. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked the City Engineer if he is familiar with the citation of the watermains outside the tract map and what were the sewer and watermain requirements? City -Engineer Kicak stated Pico Street portion of the sewer referenced by Mr. Storm has been constructed, it was constructed by the Sisters of St. Benedict and they are the ones that are asking for the reimbursement. He stated Observation Drive that Mr. Storm referenced is an improvement they did along the frontage of the parcel that the City purchased from Griffin Development about four or five years ago, indicating the improvements along the frontage of that parcel clearly fell outside the tract boundary of their tract. He believes the 24-inch waterline that runs through there, is strictly a matter between the water company and the developer. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she believes Council has a lot of things to consider and resolve here tonight and indicated she believed T.J. Austyn's attorney was interpreting things one way and Council another way. She stated if indeed these citations should affect us negatively, she was certain there would be others waiting too that have had tract maps in projects that had gotten quite a bit farther along than this one. She stated she hoped that Council/staff could continue to work with T.J. Austyn to benefit all involved. Ed St. Germain Mr. St. Germain asked the City Attorney if he had the agreement that the City Council did not have copies of? City Attorney responded, "yes." Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 16 DRAFT Mr. St. Germain asked if there was anything in the agreement about $100,000.00 of off -site improvements? City Attorney Hopkins responded, "yes." Mr. St. Germain asked City Attorney Hopkins what did it say? City Attorney Hopkins replied, the development project requires the subdivider to construct, improve or finance the construction of public improvements outside the boundaries of the map costing $100,000.00 or more. Mr. St. Germain stated that agreement has been signed by a OW representative of T.J. Austyn, has it not. City Attorney Hopkins replied, actually by Mr. Fudge, the developer who purchased Phases 5, 6 and 7. Councilmember Evans asked Mr. Storm if you did not do these improvements which are outside your area, you then would not have a project, so you were actually putting them in in order to do your project? Mr. Storm replied the sewer situation on Pico was that if we were to develop first, we would put in the sewer and get a partial reimbursement from the church, but if the church developed their property first, then we would get a reimbursement. Therefore, we owe them a reimbursement. Councilmember Evans asked the City Attorney what was his interpretation of public improvements as defined in the Government Code where it talks about flood control or storm drain, sewer, water and lighting facilities. He asked the City Attorney if the improvements that T.J. Austyn has done, meets that interpretation or did he feel that the interpretation of public improvements was something in a broader scope than the immediate geographic area of their project? City Attorney Hopkins replied the answer could be a broader scope than the immediate area, although, he believed it is generally in that immediate area that's outside of their tract. Planning Director Sawyer stated there have been some questions regarding the definition of public improvements, indicating the Section of the Code states, the public improvements as used in this subdivision includes; traffic controls, streets, roads, highways, freeways, bridges, overcrossings, street interchanges, flood control or storm drains, sewers and water and lighting facilities. Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 17 Robert Sankster Mr. Sankster stated the legislature in enacting this real or mandatory extension provision provided that the off -site improvement requirements apply to all of the off -site improvements, not just the off -site improvements for the particular phase, because those have to go in before you can start the project. He stated for the record, on October 22, 1987, T.J. Austyn did submit a list of off -site improvements to the City and incorporated also those which were required of Fieldcrest. He stated they do substantially exceed $100,000.00, indicating he wanted to make the point that it does relate to the entire development, not just to the phase. 40 Sandy Windbigler Ms. Windbigler stated she represented the businesses in Grand Terrace and stated the businesses want traffic, residents, revenue, and a chance to succeed in Grand Terrace. She stated if the City continues to push out development, Grand Terrace will become a ghost town as far as the business community. Barney Karger Mr. Karger stated he wanted to make his position clear, indicating he would like to see larger lots on the T.J. Austyn property. He stated when T.J. Austyn first came up, he came before the Council and the Planning Commission asking for larger lots saying that is what should be done, but the Council and the Planning Commission did not agree. Mayor Matteson thanked Mr. Karger and then turned it back to Council. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she thought it was interesting that it was pointed out that the earthquake danger occurs on the Reche Canyon side of Blue Mountain, indicating having made a study of earthquakes and felt it was a little shortsighted to think that one side of Blue Mountain shakes while the other side stands still and is concerned about the potential of earthquake damage. She also stated there is no flood control project between the uphill projects and the downhill receivers nor is there one planned for the near future. She stated a catch basin is not a solution, but a flood control system is. She mentioned two possible solutions in case of potential earthquake damage if it does occur and for the potential downstream flooding problems. She pointed out two things Council did not deal with two years ago: (1) That we should work with the developers and look at the things that could happen; (2) Plan into the project the things that would keep those adverse conditions from existing. Mayor Matteson comments on the satisfied that Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 18 asked City Engineer Kicak what was his flooding in that area and asked if he was it has been resolved? City Engineer Kicak "replied, the facilities that are being proposed by both developers are in no way going to retain the amount of water that is going to flow through the channel, which is now being constructed. He stated with respect to the storm drain system that was discussed earlier, he agreed with Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen that years ago we estimated it to be $5,000,000.00 and felt presently it is considerably more than that. He stated the bottom line is flooding will occur and they have identified those areas where flooding potential is the greatest and as the area uphill develops, we will have additional run-off and eventually someone will have to deal with that problem. 4 Mayor Matteson asked where will that flooding take place? City Engineer Kicak replied, we know where the flooding is taking place today, generally westerly of Mt. Vernon on Pico, westerly side of Mt. Vernon, north of Pico, northerly side of Pico, westerly of Mt. Vernon and also westerly side of Mt. Vernon there is an area there that does have flooding problems. He stated on the westerly side of Michigan, there is a very definite problem there with facilities that are inadequate . Mayor Matteson asked the City Engineer if he was saying this development will aggravate the already existing problems? City Engineer Kicak replied any additional development will. Mayor Matteson asked Council what was their desire, being there was no response, he stated the applicant has requested an extension and unless we get a motion, a second and a vote, it will be denied, being there still was no response, he stated the request is denied. Recessed at 8:05 p.m. Reconvened at 8:16 p.m. Gene McMeans Mr. McMeans stated that the Riverside/Highland Water Company Manager of is supplying water to the Grand Terrace area and they do it Riverside/ in three elevation zones, indicating this eliminates the Highland Water need for regulation stations, in addition, booster stations, Company which keeps the energy, cost and maintenance down. Zone 1 is at 1,200 feet. At the present time, Zone 1 has a capacity of 2,000,000 gallons, the other reservoirs being Palm and Paradise and a 1,000,000 gallon earthen reservoir above the Austyn Project that was just discussed. He stated the requirements in Zone 1 in 1987, on an engineering basis, they need to look at the needs for water, storage of water for emergencies, also fire protection and domestic users. He added, there is a significant savings in the winter time of 10 to 17 percent of energy. Our domestic energy bill is DRAFT Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 19 $177,000. He -stated the average peak days are in June and July and sometimes in August. The services that are being added in 1988 are 511 additional units, because of new development. In Zone 1 there will be a 4.8 percent increase in the services in that area. He stated the total storage capacity that would be needed for best operation in 1989 is 3.46-million gallons; we presently only have 2-million gallons. Mayor Matteson asked what was the pumping capacity per day? Mr. McMeans replied, they are at a 6.2 million gallon per day; we attempt to pump in the less expensive areas, as it costs anywhere from $18.18 to $54.20 an acre foot to pump. He stated as they need to pump additionally, because of the demand peak period, they need to run less economic wells and they prefer not to do that. If they had the storage to catch up with the more economical wells, they would do it. They have been looking at this since early 1986. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked how long would it take to use up all of the water in storage if there was a power failure or a system failure? Mr. McMeans replied at peak demand about half the water goes into irrigation of your lawn and in the event of a catastrophe failure you could have watermain damage. He stated they have the system designed now where they can isolate most cases. It could drain within 24 hours or less. OAW Mayor Matteson interjected that we have three different sources and the probability of them going down at the same time is very remote. Mr. McMeans stated there are two power sources and three water sources and they have made arrangements for other backups in order to have the necessary temporary power to get back on line. Mayor Matteson asked then your proposal is for a 3-million gallon tank? Mr. McMeans replied they are proposing taking out the earthen reservoir above Austyn, which will eliminate the concern and maintenance problem, which will give us a 4-million gallon capacity. Councilmember Evans asked Mr. McMeans to indicate the area that this will service. Council Minutes - 01/28/88 A T Page 20 Mr. McMeans stated Zone 1 services approximately between Oriole and the lower west side and as you come further north, it cuts across about Holly Street, indicating Grand Terrace is in three zones and that particular zone is serving about 54 percent. He stated the other thing that makes this of importance as we begin to look at 1989 is the construction time, indicating they have ordered the tank for delivery, which should be sometime between March and June. He listed several reasons for that, stating they are looking at total construction, minus any plan checks or anything else, is about 34 weeks. Councilmember Evans asked where on the aerial are you proposing to put the tank? Mr. McMeans pointed out on the aerial the different sites they have been looking at where the site would be. He stated the most economical property belongs to Barney Karger. He then gave the pros and cons of why they were asking to be exempted from the current residential construction moratorium. Mayor Matteson asked him why he didn't keep it on the same property as the existing one? Mr. McMeans replied, because they need 150 feet in diameter to construct a 3-million gallon tank. Councilmember Evans stated it seems the problem is that you 40 cannot proceed with actual site location of the tank because of the potential subdivision that Mr. Karger may come in with. If he is going to be required to put bigger or smaller lots, it may dictate as to where you would put the tank, is that correct? Mr. McMeans responded, "yes." Councilmember Evans stated Mr. McMeans was caught between a rock and a hard spot because the Planning Director cannot give him direction because of the moratorium and the clock continues to runs and we incur two things, (1) you are incurring additional cost with the increased cost of steel, and indicated you have already placed on reservation what you feel will be necessary, which if not done in a timely fashion will ultimately come back and reflect on the entire community in cost; (2) the need to provide water service in a timely fashion and if you want to say another four or five months, that pushes us back even that much further. He stated if he understands, Mr. McMeans wants us to be able to say tonight we are going to waive this requirement on the moratorium, the subdivision map can be submitted and you can go to the Planning Commission, is that what you are asking? Do"RAFT Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 21 Mr. McMeans replied, that would be the ideal situation, yes sir. Mayor Matteson stated he did not know how that was possible. We are going to let someone come in with a plan and we don't even know what we are going to approve ourselves, it's impossible. If this were an emergency situation, it would be different, but this is not an emergency. You want to upgrade our facility and we appreciate that, but he couldn't see how Council could do that when they don't know what's on the General Plan. City Manager Schwab stated that staff was trying to work out 16 a compromise, not to provide any formal exemption, but to allow the developer and the water company to come to the Council with a tentative tract map, not for approval of that map, but for approval to go to the Planning Commission and to go through their process. He stated this will allow them to come back with something more concrete than what you see there to propose to the City Council, indicating City Council could deny it at that point or allow it to go through the full Planning Commission process. He said that Riverside/Highland had asked for help and that was the best staff could come up with to help them out. Mayor Matteson stated just to save them some time he felt their trying to get an 8,000 sq. ft. lot is kind of wasting their time. 4, Barney Karger Mr. Karger stated he gave a plan to the Planning Director and if he remembers correctly, it was 10,200 sq. ft. minimum lot size ranging up to 18,000, so we are well above anybody around there. Mayor Matteson asked if any Councilmember had questions or needed clarification? He told Mr. Karger he did not know how Council could give him any guarantees, indicating they had just turned down another development down the street from him because of flooding problems. He stated until the General Plan is worked out, the other things have to be taken into consideration. Councilmember Shirley stated she will have to abstain from this discussion due to a potential conflict of interest. Councilmember Grant stated he has been in support of the moratorium and will continue to be, indicating he feels this represents a very reasonable exception to an otherwise excellent effort on the part of this Council, but we are all owners of this water company. He stated he did not believe this was going to jeopardize what ultimately we are going to have in the revised General Plan. Council Minutes - 01/28/88 DRAFT Page 22 CC-88-13 Motion by Councilmember Grant, second by Councilmember Evans, that Council permit the development that has been proposed, a tentative tract map and for Council to request for a moratorium waiver. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen thanked Mr. McMeans and the water company for what they are trying to do for the community for today and tomorrow and thanked Mr. Karger for what he is trying to put together. Motion CC-88-13 carried with Mayor Matteson voting NOE and Councilmember Shirley abstaining. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she had three things to bring before the Council and citizens, indicating the same problem that seems to occur and re -occur in regards to the skating rink. A lady called the Sheriff's Department reporting 6 cars drag -racing on Commerce Way and Michigan, assuming that they were going east on DeBerry, north on Mt. Vernon, west on Barton Road and back again. She stated when the lady called she was told that there were no patrol cars in Grand Terrace that could respond. She noticed in the Riverside paper where teenagers are gathering on the parking lot of the old Gemco Store where three people were shot. She stated kids can gather any place and do anything, indicating not understanding why citizens of this community or any community need to be victims of kids that don't have anything better to do than sit around and make victims of the citizens of the community. She stated we need to take control of our young people, indicating that the drag racing incident could have resulted in death. Mayor Matteson stated they were checking into a loitering law, indicating he would like to get a report on that and find out what we have on that and what we can do to get that passed as a resolution to correct this situation. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen told Mayor Matteson that drag racing on public streets has nothing to do with loitering. Mayor Matteson replied that's where it starts. Councilmember Grant stated he has been over to that skating rink and seen that kind of garbage that's going on, indicating he believes the answer is law enforcement, and he is a firm believer in that and will keep this in mind when the budget cycle comes up again and believes this is a very serious problem. Councilmember Evans stated he was informed that the City Manager was provided with some statistics showing that since we have increased law enforcement in the City, response time by our units has been cut in half. He stated there is one Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 23 D R -T thing we are going to have to face, there is not a whole lot of law enforcement officers in this City and there are certain items that are going to take priority, not saying drag racing is not a serious problem, but would like to think that an officer would be responding to homes being broken into before responding to drag racing. He stated he was bringing up this point because of limited law enforcement personnel and felt that citizens are going to have to get involved in what's going on in this community; that we should have a strong Crime Prevention Program that targets our youth; crime prevention as it relates to our home and the elderly and that is the support to the police officer that is coming out to try and maintain order. Mayor Matteson stated we paid for one to be there. NEW BUSINESS Item 8(A) Planning Director Sawyer stated the Site and Architectural SA-87-14 Keeney Review Board had considered Mr. Keeney's application for S&A RV Park and Approval of the combined RV parking and retail shopping Commerce Center facility and at their meeting they approved the architectural elements of the proposal, but the site plan portion of the proposal dealing with ingress and egress onto Barton Road was referred to the City Council for consideration. He gave a scenario of his staff report regarding the applicant's proposal. Robert Keeney Mr. Keeney stated he has discussed this with several retailers and banks and the banks are unwilling to finance a project with only one entrance. He believes Caltrans has put the City Engineer in a Catch-22, stating that the City Engineer has always indicated that he was in favor of this proposed project; the ingress only on the easterly portion and the egress on the westerly side. He stated if you close off the easterly driveway, it would be like coming into the back of a shopping center and is not feasible. He stated as a point of reference, he had a traffic study done that the City Council wanted and they said this is a very viable alternative, the one that we are proposing. Mayor Matteson stated anybody heading east on Barton Road that doesn't come off the freeway cannot turn into that Texico Station. Mr. Keeney replied, they will have the same situation with their project. Mayor Matteson stated, "right," which is not a good situation. Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 24 Mr. Keeney stated that's not true, there will be a turn -lane pocket they can turn into, it will be almost an identical situation to the northbound off ramp, except we will be between 50 ft. to 60 ft. from that off ramp, instead of 4 ft. with a stop sign. People coming south will have to stop before turning right and when you are going north, it's yield the right-of-way. He stated it's a similar situation, but only better and indicated to his knowledge, there has never been an accident on the northbound off ramp. Mayor Matteson asked the City Engineer what was his personal opinion on the easterly drive. for City Engineer Kicak stated he expressed concern to Mr. Keeney even before Caltrans' comments, but felt it could be lived with. He stated his concern, as he expressed it to the Planning Commission at their meeting, which was the potential liability on part of the City in view of the fact that Caltrans has recommended against it and the City Council and/or Planning Commission approves it, as to what the City's liability is with Caltrans being on record stating that there is a potential problem, he doesn't know. He stated he and Mr. Keeney had discussed some alternatives on how to get the traffic into that driveway, which might mean the traffic turning westerly on Barton Road, to provide an additional area on the north side of Barton Road to get the traffic in there. He stated there are alternatives that could mitigate some of the problems that are seen by 40 Caltrans. His concern is how do we mitigate a potential liability if an accident should occur with Caltrans on record with respect to potential problems at that location. Mayor Matteson asked how could Council go against Caltrans' recommendation when everybody else is recommending against it because of safety? Mr Keeney stated it is not a safety issue and Caltrans stated in their letter that it was none of their business since it was out of their jurisdiction, but since you asked, we're not in favor of it. He stated Caltrans isn't in favor of any ingress or egress, they would rather see nothing happen. Councilmember Grant asked Mr. Keeney if he were to move it, the westerly and easterly buildings further to the west, all of a sudden you are not coming into the back of the buildings, you are now coming into the front of them if you move them to the west. He felt Council couldn't pass this knowing that there is an alternative. Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 25 Mr. Keeney replied there is no alternative. Councilmember Grant asked him why can't he turn all of that around so that the front of those establishments are now facing towards the west. Mr. Keeney replied, then they don't have any freeway exposure and that is the beauty of this property, stating this is an entrance only; (indicating on the map) move the entrance a little farther to the west, but we are exiting there and it's the exiting at this point that is the problem, not the ingress. He stated all of the exiting will be out of this side (indicating on the map). He stated the RV vehicles and the commercial traffic will be ingress only. He stated in talking to Caltrans, the attitude is they have no reason to change their mind. Councilmember Grant stated, not withstanding that type of attitude on their part, he is saying logic means that the further to the west you go, the less probability there is of those kinds of accidents. Mr. Keeney replied, the exiting will be the problem, not the ingress. Councilmember Grant stated, so the only objection that you have is that there wouldn't be any freeway exposure. Mr. Keeney stated no, that's not true, if we were to pull this building over here, we're moving the exiting. Councilmember Grant stated "no," if you were to turn your whole scheme around and have the front facing the west, then you are saying that would defeat the freeway exposure, so basically, that is the only problem with turning it around. Councilmember Shirley stated, what I think Councilmember Grant and I are suggesting is that the large building on the west side goes on the east side facing in and the small building on the east side goes on the west side facing that way, and architecturally design the back of the building that's facing the freeway to make it pleasing. Councilmember Grant concurred. Mr. Keeney agreed. Councilmember Shirley study would override anyway? Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 26 asked the City Attorney if the traffic Caltrans or would it mitigate it in City Attorney Hopkins replied the problem is, if an accident occurred there and the plaintiff's attorney found Caltrans' letter in the file, there could be liability. Councilmember Grant stated only if that is constructed the way that it is, presently. City Attorney Hopkins stated that's right and since it is out of Caltrans' jurisdiction, we wouldn't submit it to them. Mr. Keeney stated it has been redesigned, indicating originally when it was first submitted to Caltrans, there was an exit and an entrance at both places and then it was changed so there was an entrance here only. Councilmember Shirley asked if Caltrans had seen that plan. Mr. Keeney responded, "yes they have, but their letter indicates it differently than what they said verbally." Mayor Matteson stated the letter from Caltrans said easterly driveway, it didn't say whether it was egress or ingress. Councilmember Shirley asked would it be feasible for Mr. Keeney to flip flop those two buildings? Mr. Keeney replied, he didn't understand what that would do. Councilmember Shirley replied, you would have redesigned the 40 project, you would have moved the easterly driveway to the west 10 feet. Councilmember Grant stated, leave the buildings exactly where they are, don't move the buildings, just turn them around and have them face the west, you'll have the ingress and egress to the west and you've defeated the problem created by Caltrans. Mr. Keeney stated he would like to have his project designed by the people who think they know what they are doing, pointing out that he did not know what he was doing as far a marketing, traffic and retail goes. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated her concern with that would be that Mr. Keeney has had the project designed so as to keep the incoming traffic into the park area from conflicting with the traffic in the retail area. Councilmember Shirley stated that wasn't what she was suggesting. Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 27 C�R 4FT Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she was alluding to what Councilmember Grant was talking about, indicating if she takes the big building and moves it where the little building is and vice versa, she could readjust the driveway probably 10 or 15 feet to the west, but there is a building with no landscaping sitting out there. Mayor Matteson asked why can't landscaping be there? Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen replied, you can only put so much in so many square feet. 4r Mr. Keeney believed that if there is a liability problem, it wouild go back to CG Engineering, since they prepared the traffic report. Mayor Matteson said the problem is the "deep pockets law," if we are 1 percent liable and they are 99 percent, we are still liable for 100 percent. Councilmember Grant stated his problem is that the "deep pockets law" is very real and we have a responsibility to try to prevent it. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen suggested, as an alternative, striping the parking spaces so that the people would be backing out of a configuration that would make it almost impossible for them to turn around and exit at that point. Councilmember Grant stated the people would be directed around the building and coming out, thus keeping the integrity of that ingress point only. Mayor Matteson told Mr. Keeney it is not going to apply the way it is, you will have to go back to the drawing board and try to figure up another way and then come back to Council. Mr. Keeney asked what if they did what Mayor Pro Tem Qfennighausen suggested, stating we would lose a few parking spaces, to make sure that's ingress only. Mayor Matteson asked, to move it down next to the building? Mr. Keeney replied, no, what we would do is just angle all of the parking spots, so that when you pull in here, you will have to do a crazy U-turn to get back out; it would be natural to continue right on around. Mayor Matteson stated that doesn't solve the problem, the problem is the egress is still there. Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 28 DRAFT Mr. Keeney indicated one other suggestion would be to move this down (indicating on map) much farther and bring the ingress in like this. However, we're losing parking spaces again, but we could do that. Mayor Matteson asked Mr. Keeney how many feet would that take up. Mr. Keeney responded, 20 feet. Mayor Matteson asked the Planning Director if 20 feet would make the difference. 4 Planning Director Sawyer replied, 20 feet would be a substantial difference. Mayor Matteson asked the City Engineer what did he think about moving it down another 20 feet? City Engineer Kicak replied that at the present time, he believes it is 46 feet between the stop sign and where that driveway is proposed, somewhere between 46 and 50 feet. He suggested to Mr. Keeney to sit down with the Planning Director and work out 3 or 4 different alternatives, then go back and talk to Caltrans and present those alternatives to them. Possibly you could get one that Caltrans would agree with. Mayor Matteson suggested to Mr. Keeney to get Caltrans' recommendation and bring it back to Council. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Lois Pierce Ms. Pierce commented on the fact that as bad as traffic can 21845 Grand be at 5:00 p.m. when Stater Bros. lets out, stating the west Terrace Road side and not the east side is controlled as you approach the bridge. Mr. Keeney asked what was the final act on this whole discussion. Mayor Matteson replied, Council will wait until Mr. Keeney came back to Council, indicating Mr. Keeney could consider this as a denial, stating Council needs him to come back with some other approval or recommendations from Caltrans. Item 7(A) City Manager Schwab stated that at the meeting of Snack Bar December 17, 1987, Council directed staff to.... DRAFT Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 29 Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated that the snack bar is something that Council has discussed and discussed and did not think it was a matter that couldn't be handled just as well at the next meeting. CC-88-14 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen, second by Councilman Grant, ALL AYES, that Item 7(A) -- Recommendation for the completion of the snack bar be continued to the next meeting because of other more critical items to take care of. She stated that Barbara Conley had left and felt that her input on this matter was probably critical. 4, Item 7(B) Assistant City Manager Anstine reported that on January 18, Award Contract 1988, the City Clerk's Department, in conjunction with the for Architectural City Engineer's Department, opened the bids for the Barrier Removal Architectural Barrier Removal Project. He stated Council has before them a summary of the results of that bid opening as stated by staff. Gosney Construction Company of Bloomington, CA appears to be the apparent lower bidder. He stated all items requested by the contractors were submitted at the time of the bid and staff is recommending that if Council desires to go ahead with the program, to award the contract to to Gosney Construction, and in addition to that, appropriate an additional $14,725.00, which would be required to complete the project. Mayor Matteson asked how come we are so far off on that estimate? Councilmember Grant asked what happed when we were figuring out this budget, were we out of line with reality, or what? Assistant City Manager Anstine replied, anytime anything goes to public bid, you can anticipate a 25 to 30 percent increase in construction cost. He stated staff has received a lot of requests from citizens to come out and investigate damages to the sidewalks, to the adjacent curbs and gutters, stating these areas that are included within the proposed contract are areas that have been deemed to be a public hazard and unfortunately the bids came in at the price they did. CC-88-15 Motion by Mayor Matteson, second by Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen, to award the bid to the Gosney Construction and to appropriate the $14,725.00 necessary. Motion CC-88-15 carried ALL AYES. Item 8(B) Councilmember Grant stated Council has the obligation to at Senior Citizens least examine the many facets of possible services to this increasing segment of our local citizens. This includes self-help programs, a permanent senior citizens meeting V" Council Minutes - 01/28/88r T Page 30 center, transportation, meals, hospitals, medical and shopping. He stated he believes Council has the obligation to instruct Staff to research the full status of services to the senior citizens in Grand Terrace. He stated in December, the President of the Grand Terrace Seniors Club, Mrs. Jackie Perkins, corresponded with the City Manager regarding facilities for seniors. He stated members of this community additionally have spoken to him regarding this issue. CC-88-16 Motion by Councilmember Grant, second by Councilmember Evans, that this Council instruct City Management to initiate research into the needs of the senior citizens of Grand Terrace including, but not limited to transportation, a permanent meeting and activities facility and other social services and to report back to this Council as soon as possible concerning the feasibility of providing such services as/or determined as needed by said City Management in close coordination and cooperation with the members of the Grand Terrace Seniors Club. Councilmember Evans stated he could not agree more that the current facility they are utilizing is totally inadequate and they would like not to use it, listing the things that could be done with the center. He stated it goes hand in hand with what he have been talking about in reference to our park acquisition problem and that is we need to take a look at a good recreational center that would incorporate meeting halls and a senior citizens meeting room, and a room that could be set aside for possibly for our Tot program, as well as the other recreational needs. Councilmember Grant stated this is a request for staff to research the serious problem which has many facets important to our senior citizens. Whether a facility is feasible or not, we don't know, that's why we are asking staff, and if they determine that the structure would be feasible, then staff has the responsibility to determine where in this City it should be. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated one of the points that Councilmember Grant brought up was transportation, availability of these facilities to people that might not drive. She stated she was a charter member of that club and attended their meetings and was aware of their complaints and desires. She stated she thought if we could establish a park setting around this Civic Center, we could solve a lot of the problems and felt transportation wise, we have a bus line that goes in front of here. If we had a senior citizens facility near the Civic Center, people could ride the bus from the other end of town up here and take advantage of it. She stated directly to the west of us onto Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 31 Palm Avenue is a vacant piece of property that belongs to Mr. Petta, on the front of that piece of property facing Barton Road and adjacent to the Civic Center is also a piece of Petta property. She stated to the east of the Civic Center is property that belongs to the City and to Mr. De Benedet and the Zampese Family, and believes it would be the absolute situation to pursue seeking the assistant of these two families and creating a park -like atmosphere and a recreational facility near this Civic Center and ask that they either donate the land or make it available to the City. ,, Councilmember Grant stated he is amazed that she and he had finally agreed on something and felt this is an excellent idea. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen suggested approaching these people regarding this. Councilmember Grant stated he can't speak as to whether they are going to donate, reduce or anything, but felt that this area for such facilities would be an excellent idea. Mayor Matteson asked who wants to go and ask if they will donate it? Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen suggested to send the broker. Councilmember Grant agreed that this is an excellent location and would enhance both east and west of the Civic Center. Motion CC-88-16 carried ALL AYES. Councilmember Grant stated that at Preston and Barton Road, the duration of a light remaining green for individuals walking across Barton Road is so brief that he received information from several people that they literally cannot make it across the street. He stated one of these days we are going to have an accident because people simply can't cross Barton Road at that point. He indicated he just wanted to make that clear and have it as part of the minutes. CLOSED SESSION Council went into closed session at 10:30 p.m. Mayor Matteson reported the closed session was to discuss personnel matters. No decision was made. D $ RA JT&T Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 32 11 CA Adjourned City Council meeting at 11:00 p.m. to an Adjourned City Council meeting on February 5, 1988 at 6:30 p.m. for a workshop regarding the General Plan. Council Minutes - 01/28/88 Page 33 Respectfully submitted: Deputy City Clerk APPROVED: Mayor DRAFT CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COUNCIL MINUTES "'- ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING - FEBRUARY 05, 1988 An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace was called to order in the Council Chambers, Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on February 05, 1988, at 6:30 p.m. PRESENT: Byron Matteson, Mayor Barbara Pfennighausen, Mayor Pro Tem 4` Hugh Grant, Councilmember Dennis L. Evans, Councilmember Susan Shirley, Councilmember Juanita Brown, Deputy City Clerk David Sawyer, Planning Director Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney ABSENT: Thomas J. Schwab, City Manager Randy Anstine, Assistant City Manager Joe Kicak, City Engineer The meeting was opened with invocation by Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilmember Evans. Mayor Matteson informed everyone the meeting tonight was an information -type workshop regarding the General Plan, indicating getting input from the Planning Department on the proposed zoning in the General Plan and will be getting information on what the proposals are from the consultant. He stated this is not a public hearing and Council will not be discussing the pros and cons, stating that will be done at the public hearings. Planning.Director Sawyer stated tonight is a workshop on the General Plan Draft, Master Environmental Assessment and EIR Document, which now has become a public review document for a 30-day period until approximately March 4, 1988. Mayor Matteson stated that when the public hearings start, he wants to make sure the public is well informed about those meetings, to have ample coverage in the newspaper, as well as notices going out as to when the public hearings will be held. Planning Director Sawyer stated the general time -line for public hearings will be March 21, 1988 for the Planning Commission meeting, then a City Council meeting directly after that. He stated it will have to be decided whether or not we will have a special meeting or wait until the next available Council meeting which will be April 14, 1988. He then introduced Mr. Ross Geller and Mr. Jerry Haas, of Willdan Associates. Mr. Haas worked on the traffic and circulation elements of the document. Ross Geller Mr. Geller gave an outline of what the General Plan Update Willdan contained, indicating the study he prepared of the Land Use 60 Associates Map is a general distribution of land uses being proposed. General Plan He went over some of the things that have already been acted Update on and dealt with when they dealt with the western portion of the City. (1) He wanted to go over the land use plans, what his thoughts were during the land use plan, and talked about the major areas of changes on the plan. (2) He stated as a follow through to the General Plan, he wanted to discuss how we are going to take care of the traffic and move the people based on the plan, indicating Mr. Jerry Haas will do his presentation on the circulation - the master plan of streets and highways. (3) Discuss park issues. Mr. Geller indicated the most innovated part of the General Plan is that they have created a new General Plan designation, giving an outline of his concept of a business park, the needs and uses and what is the best tax increment. He indicated on the Land Use Map a number of aspects to the proposal. He showed slides of the types of business park uses. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked, in reference to single-family residential that exists in that area at the present time, would this concept interface with them without disturbing their life style? Mr. Geller stated you mean retrofitting the industrial into a residential area. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated the business park flowing into the single-family residential that exists there at the present time, because there is a great deal of that. Mr. Geller stated he could take this back to his thought process that he shared with Council in terms of how do we, particularly on the large 38-acre piece on Michigan and the street closest to Michigan there. He stated the types of users he was talking about are 5, 6, 7 and up acre parcels at the time. For certain portions of that area there wouldn't be any problem, but at other times the agency will have to get involved for friendly negotiations. Adjourned Regular Council Minutes - 02/05/88 Page 2 Mr. Geller stated they deal with this change all the time when land use is changed, at what point does this phase out and what point does this phase in or that nothing is happening and it kind of just sits there forever and ever. He stated if you are going to pull off a change like this, to implement a plan that needs to be supportive at the Council and Agency level and there needs to be some interaction and activities by the agency. He stated there is residential there now and the other option is to leave it and let everything just go to the wayside until no one wants to live there anymore and then come up with a new land use, indicating if you are going to phase it, there needs to be some activity from the public side to see that it comes together. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated that, in essence, he was telling her that there is no compatibility factor between the the two uses, indicating if the business park is what we choose to put there, single-family residential will not be compatible with it and will have to be done away with. Mr. Geller replied he wasn't going to suggest that if somebody had a single-family house and somebody comes in and builds a 300,000 sq. ft. research and development office facility there isn't going to be a conflict, he was saying in terms of the phasing of it, the phasing has to be sensitive to the fact that there is residential there. He stated you can deal with it before hand or not approve projects, as proposed, until there is some type of long term interface done. Planning Director Sawyer stated that is why we are having this meeting this evening and the public hearings are going to be so 4mportant because we are taking a look at the General Plan which is our long-range document. We don't want to have to go through this again for another ten years or so, and we need to recognize that we are making a decision that that area has developed somewhat hodge-podge between what's been there and there is residential in there now. We are looking at it as a business park or whatever we end up saying it's going to be and that the residents that are in there are not what we want to see there in the future. If that's the decision that we make, and then recognize that when the proposals are brought in for development, that we will be looking at those on an individual basis. How they do affect their surrounding properties. We can put mitigation measures on them so that they have as little impact as possible on those residences that are still going to be there for the short-term, but also recognizing in the long-term that we made our conscious decision and it's going to be something other than residential, if that is what the conscious decision is. Adjourned Regular Council Minutes - 02/05/88 Page 3 Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen asked how will a park interface with a business park? Mr. Geller stated if you go through the recreational section of the General Plan, you will see that a great deal of time has been spent on focusing on what we want to do, what type of facilities that we are looking for, but stop short of actually applying it to any one site. He stated there are a number of available sites in the City. He gave his thoughts about the kind of business park he was talking about and felt that a park could be developed adjacent to or within the areas designated as a business park. He indicated he could show where parks are in industrial areas or adjacent to industrial areas. He addressed their analysis of Pico Park giving their pros and cons. He talked about Commerce Way and the Southern California Edison properties, indicating not seeing any time conflict in terms of using Pico Park as an interim. He stated the timing is an important element. He discussed the property that has been down designated in the second phase of the development proposed off of Mt. Vernon, approximately 20 acres. He gave an outline of how they came up with their proposal in terms of park standards and their ultimate goal of 4 acres per thousand people. He stated we need a minimum of 58 acres and that's what the goals and policies of the plan are, indicating right now he believes we have 36 acres, 3.6 acres of parkland. He stated that the State Department of Recreation recognizes schools, play fields and open areas as parkland. Mr. Jerry Haas Mr. Haas explained what they looked at and how they Willdan proceeded with the situation for Grand Terrace in trying to Associates come up with a plan that will serve the needs of the residents ,of this community. They took a hard look a the interchange proposals as far as future transportation capabilities for the area; future buildup anticipated along Barton Road, especially from 215 to Mt. Vernon; trying to look at a practical situation for getting in and out of the community;,had discussions with the City of Colton and your City Engineer to try to come up with something that could be done with Mt. Vernon going down the hill to the other interchange with 215. He stated the construction of that area to a full secondary highway classification would be very difficult. He stated it would take many dollars to get that done and believed it would be more of a solution for Grand Terrace than Colton, and indicated it would be very difficult to get a cooperative agreement with the two entities to get that constructed. He said he also talked to the City of Colton's Public Works Department about that specific issue and they didn't come to a final agreement. He stated they investigated the community for the desires and needs for bicycle facilities, then gave his feeling Adjourned Regular Council Minutes - 02/05/88 Page 4 about a bicycle plan for this area. He stated the next situation we have as a transportation traffic planning issue is to take a look at the street system and various modes of transportation. He stated their proposal for Barton Road being a major entrance into Grand Terrace and what it will entail. He then addressed the pros and cons with Commerce Way and addressed the interfacing between the residential and the south end. He stated they took the existing plans and evaluated the volumes indicated. They ran into some problems around Barton Road and 215. He indicated taking the past and future projections, find out where the traffic would go, put them on the streets and then do a level of service. He then explained what a level of service was. He indicated in the plan is a diagram which will show a very good solution from a planning and operational stand point of how that interchange could be modified to handle the traffic. Mayor Matteson questioned what was the result of the study on the Newport off ramp? Mr. Haas replied the interchange probably could be constructed at a very high cost, stating the substation that's located on the northwest quadrant would have to be modified, indicating there is a terrific fill in the area that will have to be cut down. He stated there are also some modifications that would have been made to the Barton Road interchange. He stated he did not contact Caltrans with this, it might have necessitated doing away with the one Barton Road off ramp, southbound from 215 to even make Observation Way work adequately. He stated once you run into the high cost and the loss of your best entrance off of 215 into the City, it seemed like a good idea at the time, but it doesn't really pan out too well. Mayor Matteson asked if he had looked at the Iowa off ramp as a ...., indicating he did not believe he was asked to look at that one. Mr. Haas replied he was not asked to look at it, but he looked at it from a standpoint of the alternatives in the other plan and how to improve that situation. He stated from their analysis of cost, at this point in time, he believed their cost was very reasonable. He stated the problem with that improvement is that he doesn't see the area developing economically enough in that area to afford the expense of a ten to twenty -million dollar interchange project, indicating that's possible, but a very difficult one to build with the railroad tracks being there. Adjourned Regular Council Minutes - 02/05/88 Page 5 Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she believed that sometime in the future, Riverside County or the City of Riverside will do that, indicating they might as well take the brunt of that. She believes as the pace of Highgrove changes, then the City of Riverside is going to expand to the county line and when they do that they are probably going to re -engineer Iowa. Mr. Haas replied that is probably a good possibility, stating additional development in another area could very easily warrant a major change there. He stated with what's being proposed for the City of Grand Terrace that would be a 4, very costly enterprise to come up with. Councilmember Grant questioned if he looked at DeBerry or Van Buren as it relates to the freeway, as he did to Iowa, LaCadena, as well as Newport? Mr. Haas replied for some reason he cannot relate to DeBerry or Van Buren. Councilmember Grant stated the reason it came to his attention is that Mr. Hauss mentioned the problem with the railroad tracks as it relates to Iowa; LaCadena and the distance between Barton Road and LaCadena; the distance between Barton Road and DeBerry and finally the distance between Barton Road and Van Buren; and the issue of where the railroad tracks are. 6 Mr. Haas replied they have basically looked at Iowa through Newport, including the other studies as to any alternatives that they felt could be constructed under the present guidelines that Caltrans will allow to go in. He stated from a practical standpoint, they saw no practical area where we could get anything to fit in at a reasonable cost. He believes the big project he sees for this community is the improvement of the Barton Road Interchange, indicating that is going to be very costly and he did not do a cost estimate on it. Having done a similar bridge widening in a jurisdiction that he just came from, we're talking probably five to ten million dollars even to just do that one interchange improvement. Councilmember Evans stated Councilmember Grant raised the issue of a off ramp at DeBerry, stating that in past presentations from previous consultants, we have been told that Caltrans requires so many feet of right-of-way, something like a thousand feet sticks in his mind. He asked if they were to select the DeBerry off ramp, would not the Barton Road north bound exit have to be closed because of the distance and the close proximity? Adjourned Regular Council Minutes - 02/05/88 Page 6 Mr. Haas replied that is part of the analysis and that is true, indicating there is always a possibility that with enough money you could put in a weaving lane between the two, but everything you do to try to make that work would decrease the practicality of it actually working. He stated as far as a thousand feet, what they want now in the present standard, is a minimum of one mile between interchanges. When you start getting anything close to a mile, as far as the actual distance between the structures that separate the freeway from the local street system, they start getting very critical as to how to line those lanes up. He stated even if they are a mile apart in many areas now, they would require that at a mile spacing, they would require an auxiliary weaving lane between the two. Councilmember Evans asked if it would be safe to summarize that if they were to elect to go with the DeBerry off ramp, the Barton Road exit, at least northbound, would have to be closed? Mr. Haas replied he believed you would loose the northbound off and the southbound on, stating the only way you would get DeBerry in, is that if you did a couplet -type interchange where Barton would have the northbound on and the southbound off and DeBerry would have the other two ramps, northbound off and the southbound on. Councilmember Evans stated you discussed the topographical problems with the Newport exit and asked would you not also experience the same if DeBerry was identified as a site, recognizing the distance to exit, you have a trough from the Iowa interchange that you go into and then you start coming out of that just about the time you come to the Barton Road exit. He stated taking into consideration the railroad tracks, the distances and the fact that you have a canal that runs over in that area south of DeBerry, which creates a canyon, would you not also have major cost if you were to try to engineer an off ramp there. Mr. Haas responded, "yes." Mayor Matteson stated what you are saying is that our best bet is to just improve the Barton Road off ramp and forget the others. Mr. Haas replied, that if you go with this General Plan, he believed this is the only practical solution. He indicated believing it would solve some curb problems, it's something that possibly could be staged and worked into maybe a twenty-year plan. He stated that is the big issue of having a major entrance in the City of Grand Terrace. Adjourned Regular Council Minutes - 02/05/88 Page 7 Councilmember Evans stated he did not believe there was any question to the fact that the Barton Road Interchange is a nightmare and has to be upgraded, indicating the cost factor is what we have to look at. He asked where would the suggested landscape median extend from? Mr. Haas stated the one that would require the 120 feet would extend affectively (indicating from the Land Use Map on the board). Councilmember Evans stated as of right now, your vision would be from the interchange, east to at least Mt. Vernon, tv some kind of landscape median and of course with turnouts at key locations. The response was, "yes sir." Councilmember Evans stated, taking a look at the Barton Road interchange concept stating that would encompass some type of median from the interchange up to Michigan and then you will have the intersection and then picking up east of Michigan and then it will continue east on Mt. Vernon. The response was, "that's correct." Councilmember Evans stated your primary reason for making this recommendation is to create a statement for the City. Mr. Haas replied, statement also has an affective operation advantage and median islands provide safer turning 4 movements. Councilmember Evans asked in Mr. Haas's opinion, would it behoove the City to seriously consider putting in the medians? Mr. Haas replied, it's our consensus that it should be considered. Councilmember Grant indicated he got left behind on the issue of DeBerry, Van Buren and Pico, stating he made it clear that he was talking about the possibility of DeBerry and Van Buren and Pico, not just DeBerry. Stating Mr. Haas's responses to Councilmember Evans' question as to the northbound off ramp to Barton Road in the event this thing were to connect at DeBerry. He stated since Van Buren appears to be approximately halfway between Barton Road and the City limits and Iowa and not withstanding the gully area, plus the Southern Pacific Tracks, you no longer have the problem that Councilmember Evans referenced in terms of what Caltrans was concerned about, a stack up of traffic going off the ramp. Stating you got the additional distance from DeBerry to Van Buren, indicating to be sure, of course, that Van Buren is further away from the freeway than Adjourned Regular Council Minutes - 02/05/88 Page 8 DeBerry. He stated he could understand the emphasis on Barton Road and was inclined to agree with that, but he wanted to make it clear that whatever objections may apply to DeBerry they are not quite as valid as when you start talking about Van Buren. Mr. Haas concurred stating that one of the things he was trying to respond to Councilmember Grant's question is he was trying to find DeBerry. He stated Van Buren is a sufficient distance away, but it would be a very costly interchange. Mayor Matteson stated if you are talking about a mile, Van Buren will only be about a half of mile and it still wouldn't be ... Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she believed they were talking about just extending. She asked Councilmember Grant, if she understand what he was saying, is just extending an off ramp to go all the way to Van Buren as opposed to just coming off that short.... tieing into Barton Road is that what you are....? Councilmember Grant replied was there to be a supplemental off ramp at Van Buren, supplemental to Barton Road, the distance from that off ramp on Barton Road to the off ramp on Van Buren would be sufficient to allay the concerns of Caltrans, indicating it would make a tremendous difference to him in the flow of traffic in and out of this City. He stated a considerable percentage of our population is in the southwest and southeast end of the City. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she will only say and point out what the Mayor has already pointed out that there would not be the one mile between those two and that Caltrans doesn't consider those options viable. She indicated addressing the extension west of Barton Road and asked Mr. Haas if he had taken into consideration that it would take two bridge replacements within two jurisdictions to facilitate his plan? Mr. Haas replied he did look at that extensively and felt that one structure, not sure what jurisdiction it was located in, is so old that it may get replaced via another mechanism anyway. He stated it appears it might fall under the category of bridge replacement, indicating there are special funds where that might be able to be facilitated. He stated there is another structure that is a railroad structure that has a curve in it, indicating where there is an ability to get the necessary vertical separation between the roadway and the railroad track. He stated he has been out there repeatedly with about four or five different Adjourned Regular Council Minutes - 02/05/88 Page 9 people from his staff trying to figure out if there was anything they could do out there different than what they show. He stated he does not see a way of changing that and he would view that as a very difficult intersection design problem that would have to involve widening of the existing structure, not that bridge replacement. He stated the one bridge will have to be replaced and was sure it will have to be replaced from age anyway. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen felt the major problem he was talking about was the all steel bridge this side of the Stater Bros. Warehouse. She stated that if you look at that and extended the roadway about 25 feet, you're driving through Stater Bros. Warehouse if you are doing that to the north. She stated to the south, you run into either 250 or 500 tower for Southern California Edison, indicating both were major considerations. She stated Council was discussing bridge replacement a number of months ago and it was suggested from Council that that bridge be replaced with a four -lane bridge and they got shot down on that because of those constraints. She stated it is going to take a lot of cooperation when you start moving those big towers, indicating you have a major project and did not feel Stater Bros. will move there warehouse at all. Councilmember Evans stated in reference to Michigan Street, your narrative, as well as your statistical data, appears on the MEA on 238, you proposed that Michigan from Barton Road south to DeBerry should be ultimately developed as a secondary highway which would give you a level of service in 2010 of "C", indicating this is contingent upon the land use. He stated you show north of Van Buren and he can only assume that between DeBerry and Van Buren that it's going to be a collector and a collector will provide the service of "C". He stated if we were to assume that sometime in the future all of that area were to be developed in a business park theme, would it not be better to then widen the street to a secondary width between DeBerry and Van Buren. Mr. Haas replied, "yes," if you take that whole area down to Main Street and change that usage, he felt you should look at doing something different with Michigan. He stated the whole goal behind Commerce Way and hopefully the way it would be developed is that the major access points will be off of Commerce Way and any traffic coming in from Michigan will be discouraged. Councilmember Evans asked would it be safe to say that in his opinion that from Barton Road south to Main Street that Michigan should be widened to a secondary highway? Adjourned Regular Council Minutes - 02/05/88 Page 10 Mr. Haas replied if it is changed to an industrial park all on the west side. Councilmember Evans stated so it should all be changed. Mr. Haas replied, no, what he was saying is that if that land use is changed from residential to business park, then you would want to have the additional width, even if the traffic volumes are not high enough, you would want additional width. Councilmember Evans stated you are still, if he understands what he was saying, you are recommending a secondary highway along Michigan Avenue on the west side. Mr. Geller replied the reason that Michigan is shown as a collector south of Commerce Way, from a planning standpoint, was as a way to discourage traffic from using Michigan and to encourage them to use ... Councilmember Evans stated he understood, but felt if people get off of Barton Road, go straight down Michigan and use one of the streets into that area, if it were to develop, (DeBerry, Van Buren and Pico), he has concerns with the intersection of Commerce Way and Michigan. He stated the proximity of that intersection to Barton Road, if this area were to develop in a business or industrial environment, do you not envision a potential problem with that configuration 40 recognizing the closeness? Mr. Haas replied he anticipates the need for a traffic signal control at that intersection, indicating that would be another opportunity to try to induce the traffic to go over to Commerce Way if they were trying to get into that area. He stated the concept of that secondary status going all the way to DeBerry would also require a transition because you can't just end a four lane and start up a two lane, but agreed there would be a situation that will have to be handled with a coordinated traffic signal installation between there and the one on Michigan. Councilmember Evans asked Mr. Haas if he had an estimate as to the distance from Commerce Way to Barton Road? Mr. Haas replied it is very close to 600 feet. Councilmember Evans asked Mr. Haas in his opinion as a traffic engineer, was it good to have signals so close together? Adjourned Regular Council Minutes - 02/05/88 Page 11 Mr. Haas replied, if you have them you will have to coordinate them with the one adjacent to it, indicating what they envision on the major movement with that operation of the traffic going around and using Commerce Way in the vast majority, felt it could be made to work. Councilmember Evans asked Mr. Haas if he felt it would be better if you didn't have the proximity of those two signals because there is going to be a lot of phasing. Mr. Haas replied, you are trying to lead me into a no win situation. Councilmember Evans stated what he was trying to say to the situation, is the fact that, that intersection is going to ultimately become a nightmare depending on land use and Michigan would be widen to a secondary street and everybody would use Michigan instead of Commerce Way. He stated although he understood his reasoning of Commerce Way, the fact of the matter is, that if I was driving along there and I knew I was going to have to come up to that nightmare, I'm going to transition from that area up to Michigan and then from the streets that I come in, whether it's DeBerry, Van Buren or Pico and then north. Mayor Matteson stated he did not think there was enough land down there that's going to be developed to create that kind of traffic problem, indicating the streets are going to adequate and could not see a problem. Mr. Haas replied he did not think it will be a problem, but felt it is something that will have to be analyzed and worked out in a traffic system management (TSM) type operation to make it both safe and reasonable. He stated he felt even if it is light industrial park, there probably will have to be some regulations on trucks; keeping the trucks off of Michigan to keep the integrity of that neighborhood. Councilmember Evans asked Mr. Haas if he was going to develop that area along Michigan on the west side of that road, should in his opinion, be widened into a secondary width? Mr. Haas replied that isn't what he was trying to convey, he was trying to convey that if you change the overall complexion of that issue and you have all of that west side developed as an industrial park and you also have access to that industrial park from Michigan, yes, it needs to be widened. Adjourned Regular Council Minutes - 02/05/88 DAnA 12 Councilmember Evans stated what you said earlier from Barton Road to Main Street, if the complexity continues, you feel that it should be a secondary highway. Mr. Haas replied what he is saying is if the City determines that they want to change that from R-1, that's an issue that should be discussed at that time on how that access should be handled. Mr. Haas stated he felt he has hopefully covered the overview of where he wants to come from and hopefully answered some of the questions so Council can be prepared to 4V hit him with some more later on. He indicated this is an opportunity for the City to make a practical step forward on trying to solve some of the problems, indicating the development status of the City, you don't have a wheat field to develop, you have a community that is pretty well developed. He stated they tried to take that into consideration when they came up with classification and make those recommendations based on trying to preserve some of the existing characteristics and at the same time handle the areas that will be developed to a higher level in the future. Councilmember Shirley stated she felt Mr. Haas had put a lot of thought and foresight into this and felt it was a very logical traffic pattern he devised for the City. She stated that if the business park light industrial area were developed properly, which is ultimately our responsibility, that the traffic will flow on Commerce Way and we won't have to worry about Michigan. Councilmember Grant asked where was some good examples of interfacing of the parks and residential areas and wanted to know if there were anything close around he could go look at? Mayor Matteson asked him if he had been to Script's Ranch, on the way to San Diego, indicating they have the same business park in there and it all blends in together. Planning Director Sawyer stated nothing local, but over the next couple of weeks, staff will try to do some exploring and get some pictures to Council of different areas that are doing similar items like that. Mayor Matteson stated he felt most of them that have that are master plan communities that had the foresight to do that ahead of time. Adjourned Regular Council Minutes - 02/05/88 Page 13 Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated if she recalls the topography around Script's Ranch, it's not level and you have a lot of hill rise and that kind of thing that has a tendency to break that up. She stated Cerritos is flat and we might be able do some comparison there. She stated she has always had concerns about widening Michigan Avenue to widen to a secondary highway, you would take out houses or drive through living rooms. She stated, as a whole, the circulation element pleases her and felt Mr. Haas has done a good job with that. Councilmember Grant stated he believes the distance, which was described as a secondary highway only goes to DeBerry, indicating the issue of going through living rooms would not apply to the collector's road. He stated you are talking about a difference in width. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated that is correct in as much as what they proposed here, indicating what was being discussed prior to that was if all of the land use west of Michigan were to be changed, he was recommending the extension of the length of Michigan as the secondary highway and that would create problems on the east side. Councilmember Grant asked if it would be mandatory that under that scenario that the whole length of Michigan would have to be secondary or could it still, even with that kind of development, would because of the complete development, would it be almost mandatory to make it secondary? Mr. Haas replied, you have some planning alternatives if that comes about that would not necessitate Michigan being widened, indicating there are processes to close streets. He stated the street connections at DeBerry, Van Buren and Pico could be modified or eliminated, whatever is necessary to do to a plan, indicating you would still then force all of the traffic over to Commerce Way. Those are just some alternatives and he was not suggesting that as being a solution, but there are alternatives to develop these properties to where they would attract the traffic on the street that you plan to attract the traffic on rather than the one that you are trying to keep the traffic off of. He stated there are also other ways if you are trying to eliminate the traffic and that would be to remove total access via a street requiring four or five right turns or something like that to get around to. He stated he could see some alternatives where Commerce Way could even be realigned if that happens, there might be some alternatives to have a connection different than what's there now existing. Adjourned Regular Council Minutes - 02/05/88 Page 14 Councilmember Evans asked if we were to keep the existing streets, DeBerry, Van Buren and Pico, could he give an example of what you mean by closing the streets to feed the traffic onto Commerce Way? Mr. Haas replied, access to the developments that are off of Commerce Way rather than an easy access off of DeBerry or one of the east -west streets. Councilmember Evans stated, if he understands, you're saying that those streets, if they were to exist, that they would ultimately be culdesaced some distance west of Michigan Avenue and that if traffic wanted to feed into this so called industrial business park environment, they would have to go onto Commerce Way. They would not be able to access it by these streets because of the culdesac. Mr. Haas replied, what he is saying is that is an alternative that Council would have on a future plan if they determined they would want to go commercial in that area. Mayor Matteson asked if he wanted to summarize on his part? Mr. Haas stated he felt this was an opportunity for the community to try to assess some reasonable goals for the traffic circulation, the traffic level of service for the community. He stated he felt this was a great opportunity for the City. Councilmember Evans asked if he handled all of the infrastructure? The response was "no." Councilmember Evans asked Mr. Geller on his figure 2-5 in the MEA, storm drain system, there is no legend reflected and he was curious as to what is shown, you have some dotted lines and some solid lines. He asked if they were all proposed or if they were existing?. Mr. Geller replied he believes the dotted are the proposed project Nos. 315 and 317. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she believes it is probably just the opposite, indicating the DeBerry line and the Van Buren exist today and the Pico line does not exist today. Councilmember Evans asked are saying there probably should be a legend that tells us what is what? Adjourned Regular Council Minutes - 02/05/88 Page 15 Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated her common sense tells her that it was an omission on the Land Use Map, indicating the area on DeBerry and Mt. Vernon, as designated on the Land Use Map, has no designation and wanted to know if it was their intent to designate that as multi -family? Mr. Geller responded "yes," as shown on the map. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated the owner of that property was in and looking at this and had several brilliant suggestions for uses if you aren't going to designate any. to Councilmember Evans asked why would you designate that multi -family since all of the area just north of there is primarily single-family residences? Mr. Geller replied the area to the north is single-family residents, indicating they are catch -products, are they not? Councilmember Evans replied, no, the street immediately, it looks like DeSoto, but wasn't sure what the other one is, but all that land is single-family homes. Pointing out two structures in there that are probably fourplexes, and maybe two structures are duplexes. He stated all of the homes up to what is referred to as Cape Terrace, directly behind Stater Bros. are single-family homes. He stated if Mr. Geller was going to continue with the basic theme, why are you not continuing with single-family for that area. Mr. Geller stated it is his understanding that those are catch -products there, asking if those were attached units? Planning Director Sawyer stated he believes they are attached units, they may be single-family homes, but they are at a density that is not standard with the other single-family homes. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated not along Desoto, indicating those are somewhat large lots and large homes. Councilmember Evans stated they have alleyways for entrances into the garages. Planning Director Sawyer stated that is a piece of property that has restraints on it because of the size, the shape and whatever easements that may run on it. He felt that multi -family zoning would probably lend itself better to having that property developed and it is in an area that is generally a higher density than our normal single-family residential areas in town. Adjourned Regular Council Minutes - 02/05/88 Page 16 Councilmember Evans asked what is the criteria that governs an existing geographical area of changing it from one land use to another? The response was what is the criteria? Councilmember Evans stated as an example, let's talk west of Michigan between DeBerry and Van Buren, that's primary residential and now you are showing a business park. He stated he would think you would continue with a residential theme in that area before I would go with a business park. Mr. Geller stated there is not clear-cut criteria, we don't pull something off of the land, stating we are looking at a to plan that is twenty some odd years; long term land uses; what is the long term viability in this area. He stated to do that, they look at other aspects, such as looking at parcelization on a property; look at long term viability in terms of things that are going on around that property, indicating all of these factors come in. He stated the parcelization of that particular area, the manner in which it is developed in the past; the age of the structures that exist there; the interface of the existing uses old and new there, all enter into it. To answer your question, judgement is his professional opinion based on this input. Councilmember Evans asked the Planning Director if this particular land use plan were to be adopted, anybody that lives in that area, if they decided that they wanted to improve their property, upgrade it, room additions, swimming pool, patio's, whatever the case might be, if the land use designation were to change, does it create problems for them from a planning standpoint if it requires a permit? Planning Director Sawyer replied, "yes it would." It would be non -conforming uses and our Code has different definitions for non -conforming both the buildings and the uses, but our attorney has interpreted it to a certain extent that you can replace something if it is destroyed by fire, that kind of situation. However, our Code is specific where it says you cannot expand a non -conforming use, so if you had wanted to add onto the building an extra bedroom or increase the value of the property with a swimming pool, you would then have problems getting a permit, as the Code is written now. Councilmember Evans asked what would someone have to do? Planning Director Sawyer replied, first of all we wouldn't let them per Code and then they would have to come to Council for what type of exception they would be able to do legally, other than change the Code. Mayor Matteson stated you can do a variance. Adjourned -Regular Council Minutes - 02/05/88 Page 17 Planning Director Sawyer replied, he did not believe variance would be the mechanism that legally we could do it with. City Attorney Hopkins stated individual waiver or changing the Code. Councilmember Evans asked would it be safe to summarize that if somebody has a single-family home or residence over there, if this land use were to change and if they intended to stay there for any period of time, that we could honestly tell them they've got problems if they want to expand? Planning Director Sawyer replied, "yes," indicating the only other thing he would point out is that any residential properties developed in that manner that are now in the C-2 zone would still be in the same boat they are in now, it would be in those areas that we are talking about changing from residential to the business park, stating there are some areas like that. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated the majority of those, when we went through this process before, were set aside from that C-2 and returned back to R-1. She stated she needs to understand, indicating most of the homes facing onto DeBerry in that area are relatively new sizable homes. She stated that when we did this before with the discussion that just ensued, we set aside those areas that are residential, knowing that people would not be able to do anything else with their residential property and at this point when it comes time, she hates to destroy their hard work, but she will again suggest that what is residential remain residential, what is not residential can be something else. City Attorney Hopkins stated this is a workshop and we can't make anything that approaches a decision. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she was simply stating an opinion, not a,decision. Mayor Matteson stated like we said at the beginning of the meeting that this is input from them and then Council will give their opinions and discussions at the public hearings. Councilmember Evans asked Mr. Geller in light of some of the recent Supreme Court decisions, as it relates to land use, do you envision, based on some of the recommended changes to land use, potential litigation from this? Mr. Geller referred that to the City Attorney. Adjourned Regular Council Minutes - 02/05/88 Page 18 City Attorney Hopkins stated there has been no decisions that were that far reaching that indicated any liability as a result of down -zoning, although there are cases that are coming up the ladder and will be coming before the Supreme Court in all probability, but at this stage, there's not been any decisions by the Supreme Court to that affect. Councilmember Grant asked the Planning Director if he had an approximate date when the public work session would be for the people to have input? Planning Director Sawyer replied, the month of February the public document will be public and will be available for the public to come in and review, indicating then approximately March 4th, it's not set until we get our confirmation date back from the State, but approximately March 4, 1988, that public period will end and then we will take it back at a staff level and make any changes and will respond to the comments we receive in writing. He stated it is all well and good to come and speak at the hearings if you have concerns or questions regarding the Environmental Impact Report, but he encourages anyone who has concerns or comments to put them in writing and get them to him at the Planning Department and that way the Planning Department can respond to them in writing and they are formally incorporated in the draft document. Mayor Matteson asked the Planning Director to announce that in the newspaper. Councilmember Grant stated he would like to have the very maximum coverage on this issue to let everybody know because this is going to be the most monumental thing that's going to happen to this City, we are changing the whole outlook of this City possibly, and felt all the newspapers should have notices in them. Planning Director Sawyer replied, staff will do everything to make it public news. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated to Mr. Haas, that on the north side of Barton Road, there is an existing elementary school, you've already indicated that if we were to widen Barton Road to 120 ft. that it would impact that school ground. She stated that at the present time, a large contingent of the children that attend that school cross on foot. As the area builds out and with the potential of the business park traffic and the potential of the commercial development on Barton Road, do you see that the foot crossing of children across Barton Road, a six -lane highway, as a viable alternative for them to get to school. Adjourned Regular Council Minutes - 02/05/88 Page 19 Mr. Haas replied he didn't think crossing six lanes of traffic is really probably the question, he feels it is how you handle it, stating he felt it would be preferable not to have it, indicating he prefers not to see elementary schools on major highways, secondary or major arterials. He stated he likes to see them in a neighborhood from a traffic safety standpoint, but felt it could be handled safely. It's an issue and is something that will have to be solved. He stated at this point, it is kind of out of scope of what they would have looked at from a traffic systems management standpoint in a plan like this, but many communities have identical problems where children have to cross arterial highways to get to schools. Councilmember Evans asked if the public hearings on this document are tentatively scheduled for March 21, 1988 at the Planning Commission? Planning Director Sawyer replied after they have responded to the comments in the EIR and bring the final documents of both the EIR and the General Plan back to, in essence the public, will be at the March 21, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. He stated that will be a public meeting where the Planning Commission will be presented with the document and they will make their recommendations; they will hold a public hearing and consider the public comments; formulate their recommendations; then their recommendation will be forwarded on to the City Council; there will have to be another public hearing at the time that the City Council will make their decisions. He stated at that time, Council will have the Planning Director's recommendations, Mr. Geller's recommendations, Planning Commission's recommendations, and then Council will hear from the public with their recommendations and then Council will make the final determinations. Mayor Matteson asked if that would be April 14, 1988? Planning Director Sawyer replied, that's the next regular City Council meeting which they could logically bring it to Council. Mayor Matteson stated then we have to announce that 30-days prior, is that not correct. Planning Director Sawyer replied, we will have to make the announcements prior to the normal public hearing notices. Mayor Matteson asked the Planning Director to touch base with the City Manager and make sure that you set those dates up and we give proper notice. Adjourned Regular Council Minutes - 02/05/88 Page 20 Planning Director Sawyer replied, as mentioned before they are considering putting notices in the sewer bills which is a good idea to get to most of the people, but not always the residents pay the sewer bills because of the apartment projects and other things in town. He stated there will be ads in the newspapers. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen recommended the Chamber Newsletter, indicating it goes to every home. Councilmember Evans planning on having hearings. asked if the Planning Director was any more "workshops" prior to the public Planning Director Sawyer replied, staff will be working with the Planning Commission, since the bulk of the Commissioners were unavailable this evening, indicating going over things briefly with them at their meeting on February 16, 1988, starting at 6:30 p.m. during their normal workshop prior to their meeting. He stated it won't be as extensive as this one, and at that time if it is felt that the Planning Commission needs a more detailed workshop, we will bring that up during March, but a date hasn't been set. Councilmember Evans asked for clarification as to what happens with this document after the public hearings, indicating he had been told that when the previous General Plan was done, that document then went to the State; the State reviewed it and gave their input; it was then sent back before they went to public hearings. He asked with this particular document, we are going to have the public hearings, then go through the process, then are we going to ship it to the State for their approval? Planning Director Sawyer replied, one of the things staff has done currently, is that they have sent it to the Office of Planning and Research which is the State Office who will review this, indicating they also sent it to all of the different State Agencies which they feel are appropriated reviewing agencies. He stated they are looking at the document right now, indicating during this 30-day review period, is the time they will come back to us with comments and then we will respond not only to the public in writing included in the final document, we will also respond to any of the reviewing agencies comments. He stated the State and other agencies are looking at it now as an overall General Plan project. He stated he felt what you are beginning to touch base on is the housing element and how the State has different review procedures for that, indicating we are not totally rewriting the housing elements in this go round, we are simply updating the facts within the housing elements as Adjourned Regular Council Minutes - 02/05/88 Page 21 they would be changed with the new land use designations. He stated they are having their housing element reviewed in 1990, and at that time, staff will be submitting it to the housing authorities in the State. Councilmember Evans asked if the State was aware as far as the timing on our pubic hearings, indicating if these agencies are reviewing this document and if we are going to have their input back and available before we go to these hearings so it would guide us. Planning Director Sawyer replied, actually the State AW Reviewing Agencies normally have 45-days, we have requested that the documents be reviewed in 30-days and that is the reason he said the March 4th date is tentative because they have not received a confirmation from them, indicating even if they required 45-days, he felt we are still on a time -line in order to do this. He stated that's their guidelines, their rules and that is what they play by and if they can't make it, we don't have to listen to them, they know that so they'll get it done. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated we have made, according to this document, some appreciable reductions in an area that required a great deal of negotiation with the State in our housing element prior to this. She asked are we not going to submit the housing element to this in hopes that they just kind of let that glide on until 1990. Planning Director Sawyer replied, those changes have been submitted in the document that was sent up to the State, indicating perhaps Mr. Geller could help him explain how that is reviewed as far as housing elements. Mr. Geller stated he thinks that Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen had it just about right, indicating the Housing Assistant Plan, so we don't confuse the housing element in the General Plan, is basically general policies to guide housing. He stated the Housing Assistant Plan has not be updated per se, indicating that you are not required until 1989 to update your housing elements based on the five-year plan to review it, but the best information that is available to day, is the 1980 Census Data, the 1990 Census Data will not be available until probably 1991 or 1992. He stated to update the housing elements in terms of any of the detailed census information you need to do it, is basically a waste of time until you wait until the census data is available. Yes, you are basically putting it off until sometime in the future to deal with it. Adjourned Regular Council Minutes - 02/05/88 Page 22 Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated, but we are changing it. We are significantly changing and doing something we were told we couldn't do in 1982 or 83. Mr. Geller stated he did not know how to respond to that, we have kicked this around awhile, certainly the decision has been made in terms of the densities and he would say that they acted as Planning Advisors in communities where the maximum density is one unit to the acre for the entire City, indicating you go one to the acre, there are no subdivisions, everything is big estate houses, stating they get away with it and they don't seem to be suffering that OAW much from it. He stated we just have to deal with it when it happens, indicating there are communities that obviously do not provide their fair share of housing. Mayor Pro Tem Pfennighausen stated she is willing to do it, if in Mr. Geller's considered opinion, we can get away with it. She then asked Mr. Geller if it was his considered opinion that we could get away with it? Mr. Geller replied it is his considered opinion that if that's the Council's desire, lets proceed and see what happens. Planning Director Sawyer stated the period for the public comments is during the month of February, anybody in the public that has any questions, are more than welcome to contact the Planning Department, to sit down and explain it (60 to them and tell them what's being proposed and explain how the process works. Indicating this is a draft document and can be changed at the public hearings. Adjourned the adjourned regular City Council meeting at 8:40 p.m. until the next regular City Council meeting which will be held Thursday, February 11, 1988 at 5:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Deputy City Clerk APPROVED: Mayor Adjourned Regular Council Minutes - 02/05/88 Page 23 DATE: 2/17/88 STAFF REPORT C R A II'EM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (X) MEETING DATE: February 25, 1988 AGENDA ITEM NO. SUBJECT ACCEPTANCE OF AUDITED ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT AND SINGLE AUDIT REPORT 4W FUNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED XX Presented for your acceptance is the City's audited Annual Financial Report and the Single Audit Report, as required by the Single Audit Act of 1984, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1987. The City contracts with the accounting firm of Moreland & Associates, Inc. to perform the financial audits, the compliance audit required for the Single Audit Report, and to examine policies and procedures. The auditor has rendered an unqualified opinion to the financial audit of the City. This unqualified position indicates that the financial statement fairly 40 represents the financial position of the City with no exceptions. As required for the Single Audit, the auditor has also rendered the opinion that the City was in compliance with laws and regulations. Any specific questions can be directed to the City Manager or the Assistant Finance Director for clarification. STAFF RECOMMENDS COUNCIL ACCEPT THE CITY'S ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT AND THE SINGLE AUDIT REPORT AND DIRECT THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH NOTICE THAT THE REPORTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. BM !7 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES \\`�'��% PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY 385 North Arrowhead Avenue San Bernardino, CA 92415-0160 (714) 387-4646 %� .� / � \ \ \� RICHARD L. ROBERTS, R. S , M P H ❑ 320 East " D" Street • Ontario, CA 91764 • (714) 391-7570 (I I Director ❑ 15505 Civic Drive • Victorville, CA 92392 • (619) 243-8141 ❑ Also serving the cities of Adelanto Needles I PLEASE REPLY TO ADDRESS CHECKED Barstow Ontario Big Bear Lake January 18, 1988 Chino Colton Fontana Grand Terrace Loma Linda Thomas J. Schwab, Acting City Manager Montclair CITY OF GRAND TERRACE 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace, CA 92324 Rancho Cucamonga Redlands Rialto San Bernardino Upland Victorville SUBJECT: SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY DRAFT HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN The San Bernardino County Hazardous Waste Management Plan Advisory Committee and the San Bernardino County Department of Environmental Health Services have recently completed a Draft Hazardous Waste Management Plan, prepared in compliance with Health and Safety Code Section 25135 et. seq. State law requires that a County Hazardous Waste Management Plan be approved by 50% of the cities in the county with 50% of the urban population. Further, state law requires that within 180 days of final adoption of the Plan, cities must: o adopt a city hazardous waste management plan consistent with the county plan; or o incorporate the county plan into the city's general plan by reference; or o adopt an ordinance consistent with the policies in the county plan. We are now soliciting comments from the cities on the Draft Plan and would like to schedule a short presentation describing the planning process and key policy recommendations before your Planning Commission and City Council. Since the deadline for receiving comments is March 31, 1988, we would prefer to make our presentation during February to allow your city sufficient time to review and comment on the Draft Plan. A representative from this Department will contact you to schedule a presentation. RICHARD L. ROBERTS, R.S., MPH Di,rector t KENNETH-=I� JESKE, R.S. Division Chief Environmental Health Protection RECEIVED JAN 1 9 19kR:KLJ:aop CITY OF GRAND TERRACE 5 A HISTORICAL & CULTURAL, ACTIVITIES COMMITTEE Minutes of the February lst, 1988 Meeting The meeting was called to order at 7:10 PM by Chairman Viola Gratson. Those present were Pauline Grant, Viola Gratson, Irene Mason, Kathy Harmon and Ann Petta. Hannah Laister and Linda Lee Laufer were absent. A motion to accept the January 4, 1988 minutes, as read, was made by Irene and seconded by Kathy. Treasurer's Report: Viola reported that there was no change in last month's balance of $1,735.78. Discussion of Historical & Cultural Committee banner: The Council took no action on our request for a Committee banner at their January 28th Council meeting. It was agreed that Viola will appear at the next Council meeting with specific details of the banner and how we plan to use it. The brief history of Grand Terrace, perpared by Ann, which was requested by the Pacific Telephone Company was discussed. Viola mailed it to the Phone Company in time to meet the January 15th deadline. The Foothill Journal has requested a story on the goals and accomplishments of the Historical & Cultural Committee. Ann will do some research on this. The City Birthday article which appeared in the February issue of the Chamber newsletter was discussed. The article contains the following inaccurate statement which was not in the write-up that Irene took to the Chamber office: "The gifts were donated by the Grand Terrace Area Chamber of Commerce". The gifts which the two yound Sister City students took back to their city were gifts from the City of Grand Terrace. Viola will bring this to the attention of the Chamber and will ask for a correction in the next newsletter. The Parks and Recreation Committee is having another meeting to co-ordinate a City calendar of events. The meeting scheduled for February 9th at 7:30 PM will be attended by Viola. Art Show: The Committee discussed ways of attracting more local artists to participate. Irene will contact the Foothill Journal for an article to alert Grand Terrace artists that this years Art Show will be held on Sunday, May 15th. The meeting was adjourned at 8 PM. The motion was made by Pauline, seconded by Irene. The next meeting will be March 7, 1988. Respectfully submitted, Ann Petta, Substituting for Hannah Laister, Secretary RECEIVED c E 4 16 1988 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE DATE: FEBRUARY 3, 1988 STAFF REPORT CRA ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (XX) MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 11, 1988 SUBJECT: LOITERING ORDINANCE FUNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED XX The City Council has directed staff to investigate the possibility of establishing an ordinance that would prohibit loitering. The primary purpose of the ordinance would be to allow the Sheriff's Department to legally prohibit individuals from standing, and in particular, help alleviate the swamper situation in the area on Barton Road heading towards the Stater Brothers warehouse. The ordinance has been reviewed by the Sheriff's Department as well as the San Bernardino District Attorney's Office and their comments have been incorporated into the wording of the ordinance. It is the Sheriff's opinion that this will assist the Deputy in discouraging these individuals. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT COUNCIL: ADOPT THE FIRST READING OF THE LOITERING ORDINANCE AND SET A PUBLIC HEARING TO BE CONTINUED TO 3/10/88. 1S:ma DATE: Feb. 17, 1988 S T A F F R E P O R T CRA ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (xx) MEETING DATE: Feb. 25, 1988 SUBJECT: DISCUSSION OF CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FUNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED Councilmember Susan Shirley has requested that the issue of minute preparation be placed on the agenda. The City of Grand Terrace has traditionally had minutes that generally recapped all thoughts and conversations made at the meeting, as well as the actions and the appropriate directions given. Council has been provided with an example of a set of action minutes from the City of San Clemente. In addition to the minutes staff also keeps a minute record and copies of the audio tapes from the minutes. There has been discussion in the past of the proposal of preparing abbreviated minutes or action minutes. Council, however, in the past has turned down any proposal to modify our method of practice. Should Council desire to try a different minute format, staff would be glad to do so. TS:bt DATE: Feb. 17, 1988 S T A F F R E P O R T CRA ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (xx) MEETING DATE: Feb. 25, 1988 SUBJECT: BROKERAGE SERVICES FOR ACQUISITION OF PARKLAND ------------------------------------------------------------------ FUNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED XX At the Council Meeting of February 11th Mr. Tony Petta came forth with an offer to provide brokerage and negotiation services for the purpose of acquiring a potential park site at no cost to the City or the seller. When staff initially presented possible sites to Council, the recommendation made was to use an outside commercial broker that 140W specializes in acquisition of land for developers and municipalities. Council's consensus was that we must utilize a local broker. This directive created a very delicate and difficult situation for staff. The City currently has six real estate brokers holding Grand Terrace business licenses. Due to the fact that the community is so small there are many interrelationships between people in the community and it becomes very difficult for staff to arbitrarily select a broker. Prior to Mr. Petta's offer staff had decided as a compromise to pick a local broker by lot and try to keep the process impartial. Tony has now offered to provide the service at no cost to the City. This would pose no problem for the bulk of the parcels that we surveyed. However, three of the parcels that the City is considering are owned by Mr. Petta and in that case Mr. Petta obviously could not act as the City's agent in negotiating a potential transaction. Staff's initial recommendation to use an outside broker has not changed. TS : bt /y